222 réponses à ce sujet

[Pitznik]

Darth Asriel wrote...

To everyone who keeps saying we can't beat the Reapers conventionally, and that the crucible is our only hope. That's stupid. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THE CRUCIBLE DOES!!!!! Not Hackett, not Liara, not the scientists puttin it together! They aren't even sure it's a weapon. Hackett states he doesn't know what it does, or how it works yet he's sure it's the key to defeating the Reapers..... How??? For all anyone in the game knows, it's a booby trap set by the Reapers! Yet it's our only hope? Stop spouting this nonsense as if it excuses the poor writing and a terrible idea.

That is exactly the point. Noone knows what it does but they decide to put a significant amount of time and research just to build it, and they put all their war assets just to give it a chance to work. Why? Because they have absolutely no hope to win without it, no chance whatsoever. They decide betting everything on Crucible is best plan, because their only other choice is being destroyed. And Shepard refusing Catalyst willingly and consciously decided he will lose in the war.

I don't like the Crucible, I don't like this plot device at all, it wasn't a good idea from the start, but aborting it at the very end of the game would be even worse.

[savionen]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

savionen wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

This, for God's sakes will people just shut up about "conventional victory" and how "insulting" it is that it's not an option.  The story throughout all three games CLEARLY states we cannot beat the Reapers in pitched battle.

Sovereign can't be killed. Collectors are impossible to defeat, Suicide Mission, etc. It's a video game. Not a real war. They could have easily made a conventional victory a logical ending, or a choice at an ending if you have an exceedingly high EMS score, but they decided against it. That's all there is.

No, the backbone of the entire series is the impossible nature of the Reaper threat.  They decided against making conventional victory an option because that would have undermined the whole premise of the game.

It was never stated Sovereign can't be killed, because no one understood how powerful Sovereign was.  When it's finally brought down, it took the entire citadel fleet plus 2 alliance fleets, AND Shepard and Co. killing its avatar in Saren.  Now tell me how, when the Reapers show up a few years later, a "conventional victory" would have been logical.

So Sovereign can be killed, even though it seemed impossible, because of lack of knowledge? Isn't the Reaper fleet the same thing? What if the Alliance had more insight in their tactics? Knew more of their weaknesses? Etc.

The Geth figured out how to upload a virus that takes out Reaper shields! The Thanix cannons rip through their armor afterwards, oh look conventional victory is now easy.

Modifié par savionen, 28 juin 2012 - 05:17 .

[Darth Asriel]

@Pitznik- that's why I say it's nonsense. You don't put all you eggs into a project you know nothing about. Hackett is the moron who keeps saying a conventional war is a sure loss. But he has no idea how is super weapon works, if it will work, if it's even a weapon. He has no evidence that his Hail Mary wil save us. Yet he keeps touting it's superiority to building ships. Drafting everyone capable of piloting a vessel or holding a gun, and delivering hell. They don't know how to activate it, or that it needs a power source. The crucible is a joke the moment it's introduced.

[recentio]

Losing to the Reapers if you refuse isn't the insult. That's just tragedy. No, I think, the insult is that the next cycle goes on to win by *using the crucible*. That's where the FU really is.

[RiouHotaru]

I don't get WHY people consider it an insult. You cannot defeat the Reapers in a normal war. The Fleet at Earth isn't even probably HALF of their total forces, and yet people act like even if you could defeat the Fleet at Earth, that you'd be able to effortlessly hold off the rest of them.

[Norwood06]

savionen wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

savionen wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Norwood06 wrote...

EMS does not equal ability to defeat reapers. EMS equals ability to distract reapers long enough to trigger Crucible.

Nothing in ME3 gave me the impression that the entire fleet of reaper capital ships could be defeated. Tuchanka, Rannoch, those weren't capital ships, those were the little reapers. Miracle at Palaven? Reapers let turians with warp bombs inside them for indoctrination.

The reapers cannot be beaten conventionally in this cycle. Reject reflects this, and gives you the choice. Not an insult.

This, for God's sakes will people just shut up about "conventional victory" and how "insulting" it is that it's not an option.  The story throughout all three games CLEARLY states we cannot beat the Reapers in pitched battle.

Sovereign can't be killed. Collectors are impossible to defeat, Suicide Mission, etc. It's a video game. Not a real war. They could have easily made a conventional victory a logical ending, or a choice at an ending if you have an exceedingly high EMS score, but they decided against it. That's all there is.

No, the backbone of the entire series is the impossible nature of the Reaper threat.  They decided against making conventional victory an option because that would have undermined the whole premise of the game.

It was never stated Sovereign can't be killed, because no one understood how powerful Sovereign was.  When it's finally brought down, it took the entire citadel fleet plus 2 alliance fleets, AND Shepard and Co. killing its avatar in Saren.  Now tell me how, when the Reapers show up a few years later, a "conventional victory" would have been logical.

So Sovereign can be killed, even though it seemed impossible, because of lack of knowledge? Isn't the Reaper fleet the same thing? What if the Alliance had more insight in their tactics? Knew more of their weaknesses? Etc.

The Geth figured out how to upload a virus that takes out Reaper shields! The Thanix cannons rip through their armor afterwards, oh look conventional victory is now easy.

Sovereign was killed by accident.  Shep was after Saren.  Only after he killed Saren did Sovereign do that possession thing, and after shep killed Saren again, Sovereign looked completely dead:  no shields, lights were off, he was just slowly falling from citadel tower, dead in the water.  That's an example of non-conventional victory.  Without Shep, I think Sovereign could've held off the rest of the citadel fleet.  

Seems like you're arguing for a new unconventional way to kill the reapers (geth virus, etc).  Which I kinda like.  But the OP is talking about killing them with brute strength, ship vs. reaper.  And that can't happen. 

Modifié par Norwood06, 28 juin 2012 - 05:30 .

[Malditor]

recentio wrote...

Losing to the Reapers if you refuse isn't the insult. That's just tragedy. No, I think, the insult is that the next cycle goes on to win by *using the crucible*. That's where the FU really is.

Who's to say that the crucible worked the same way in the next cycle. It was said that it was "mostly intact" which  is why destroy didn't just target the reapers. Perhaps the next cycle built it perfectly and as such gave slightly different results allowing only the reapers to be destroyed? Had that been the case this cycle most likely there wouldn't have been any reason not to destroy them.

[Jonathan Shepard]

Because Mac can't stand to let the fans prove that his "artistic vision" is wrong, and makes you wrong instead because he's a petulant and logical as Starbrat.

[Darth Asriel]

Malditor- how can you build something perfectly if you don't know how it works? No one is certain it's even a weapon. Hackett says it is, but it's established that he's a moron. No one knew how it worked accept Shepard. And he only found out before he died. The crucible is a horrid plot device. It doesn't work on any level.

[Pitznik]

Darth Asriel wrote...

@Pitznik- that's why I say it's nonsense. You don't put all you eggs into a project you know nothing about. Hackett is the moron who keeps saying a conventional war is a sure loss. But he has no idea how is super weapon works, if it will work, if it's even a weapon. He has no evidence that his Hail Mary wil save us. Yet he keeps touting it's superiority to building ships. Drafting everyone capable of piloting a vessel or holding a gun, and delivering hell. They don't know how to activate it, or that it needs a power source. The crucible is a joke the moment it's introduced.

Yes, the whole crucible plot is stupid, I don't like it, I don't intend to defend it, I would really like some other plot to ME3.

But given the plot is as it is, relying on the Crucible was the only thing available - it wasn't sensible, but there was nothing else left. Hackett is a military man, he just did the math, compared firepower of Council and other allies versus Reapers and came to a conclusion that it won't be possible to defeat them. It's like Lord of the Rings - instead of military victory everything relies on a bunch of hobbits dropping the ring into volcano. Guess if we are stuck in the "single hero saving the galaxy from unimaginable threat", we have to accept some silly plot devices, since wars are never won by single guy.

My favourite part of whole ME trilogy are recruitment/loyalty missions in ME2 - instead of the "one guys saves the galaxy" crap, you're just fighting some gangs, some mercs, solving private business of your friends, stuff that three guys with guns can handle without it being stupid.

Modifié par Pitznik, 28 juin 2012 - 05:46 .

[RobertM525]

SNascimento wrote...

You can't win the war with the reapers conventionally. That was clear from anyone first ME3 playthrough. So, when you turn down the crucible, you can't expect anything but defeat.

That was clear in Mass Effect 1. Every other cycle that tried to fight them died. Something else was needed to beat the Reapers, not just "a lot of galactic unity."

I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this. The Reapers have wiped out all advanced organic life in the galaxy many, many times. The only way it will go differently is if something different is done. No amount of "fighting harder" is going to beat them.

[Femlob]

Jonathan Shepard wrote...

Because Mac can't stand to let the fans prove that his "artistic vision" is wrong, and makes you wrong instead because he's a petulant and logical as Starbrat.

We have a winner.

[RobertM525]

Steel Dancer wrote...

The handling of that ending is however very poor, with no slides showing your side going down fighting or anything.

I daresay that might have offended people even more. They made the loss in Refusal as positive as they could, IMO. They don't really show any of the terrible consequences of your decision (namely the death of everyone you know), because doing that might really constitute "rubbing your nose in it."

Instead, they show that your actions helped pave the way for others to beat the Reapers. (Maybe conventionally, maybe with Synthesis/Destory/Control.) They basically built as happy an ending as can be made out of the death of everyone.

I seriously don't get the rage. People wanted the impossible. It's been clear since the beginning of the series that you cannot beat the Reapers in a straight-up fight. Taking down Sovereign alone in ME1 was hard enough. If you want to destroy the Reapers, the destroy option is right there.

[WarBaby2]

"Hey, catalyst... forget your choices, just TURN OFF all synthetics... we'll destroy the reapers and turn the rest back on afterwards..."

Seriously though... we still got the minimal affort endings... I can understand why people feel offended by that.

Modifié par WarBaby2, 28 juin 2012 - 06:01 .

[Darth Asriel]

RobertM525- the reapers relied on a sneak ambush, overtook the Citadel(the heart of all government) disabled the relays, and mopped up any resistance. They never had to face an all out united galaxy. The Protheans were the closest they ever had to face, and they lasted centuries. If the Reapers are as invincible as you and BW want me to believe, why go through all the trouble they did.

[Malditor]

Darth Asriel wrote...

Malditor- how can you build something perfectly if you don't know how it works? No one is certain it's even a weapon. Hackett says it is, but it's established that he's a moron. No one knew how it worked accept Shepard. And he only found out before he died. The crucible is a horrid plot device. It doesn't work on any level.

You don't need to know how something works to build it perfectly based on instructions.... The reason the next cycle would have a better chance at building it correctly would be that they have a much longer period of time in order to complete it. Being that it was put together in such a hurry during this cycle led to it being "almost" right.

[Mria]

Modifié par Mria, 28 juin 2012 - 06:14 .

[Mria]

Mria wrote...

I was thinking that adding a secret ending with a full bar in EMS + Geth/Quarian troops in refusal ending  we could convince the catalyst to stop its attack and give our cycle a chance to decide our future for ourselves.

I think that even for a AI that is also a possibility, and lets be honest if war did broke out with synthetics and organics he could pretty much come back with the reapers and wipe out the whole galaxy.

Plus, he also mentioned that Shepard manage to change the variables...that leaves alot of room to interpretate those variables one possibly being this one i mentioned above.

[Malditor]

WarBaby2 wrote...

"Hey, catalyst... forget your choices, just TURN OFF all synthetics... we'll destroy the reapers and turn the rest back on afterwards..."

Seriously though... we still got the minimal affort endings... I can understand why people feel offended by that.

About 4 months of work and it's minimal effort endings.... Seems most of the people who are offended are the ones that were holding out for an all out win, either via one of the choices previous + living and being reunited with their LI or rejecting the choices and still winning.

These are the ones who can't be made happy without significant changes to the endings, which is what was stated wouldn't happen.

[WarBaby2]

Malditor wrote...
You don't need to know how something works to build it perfectly based on instructions.... The reason the next cycle would have a better chance at building it correctly would be that they have a much longer period of time in order to complete it. Being that it was put together in such a hurry during this cycle led to it being "almost" right.

Yea, only that the catalyst now KNOWS the galaxy has the crucible and the reapers will be prepared for it... it doesn't work, give it up...

Modifié par WarBaby2, 28 juin 2012 - 06:14 .

[v TricKy v]

While I find the Crucible plot one of the stupidest things ever, I have to agree that a sudden conventional victory wouldnt fit at all. But I still find the refuse option one of the best.
NOBODY knows what the crucible does, how it works ect. except the leader of the enemies your are fighting for three games. You have to be really naive if you think about it. The refuse ending shows you sticking to your morals and principles and give a finger to the star kid. He is the ONLY reason we have to fight in the first place

[Malditor]

WarBaby2 wrote...

Malditor wrote...
You don't need to know how something works to build it perfectly based on instructions.... The reason the next cycle would have a better chance at building it correctly would be that they have a much longer period of time in order to complete it. Being that it was put together in such a hurry during this cycle led to it being "almost" right.

Yea, only that the catalyst now KNOWS the galaxy has the crucible and the reapers will be prepared for it... it doesn't work, give it up...

Except that the crucible did work for them in the next cycle. Good try.

[saracen16]

Master Che wrote...

Their story. Not yours. And now you have a new way to fail...if you consider the hopes of another cycle learning from your mistake and defeating the Reapers a total failure.

Indeed. Javik tells us that the Protheans used the tactic of attrition, fighting the Reapers system by system, planet by planet. In the long run, it cost them dearly. Here, we have posters on these boards making the argument that somehow attrition (i.e. the "conventional victory") is possible in this cycle, hence repeating the same mistake the Protheans made. Instead of winning against the Reapers, it will cost trillions of lives everywhere in the galaxy as well as another 50,000 ****ing years of servitude under the galactic order the Reapers created (i.e. history repeating itself vis-a-vis Vendetta on Thessia).

And OP, BioWare is not "insulting" you by choosing to stick to its story: defeating the Reapers unconventionally, as it is the only way to defeat this fleet of nigh-unstoppable, highly advanced, and numerous sentient warships.

[TudorWolf]

The games doesn't beat you over the head with "we can't win conventionally" just for laughs you know.

It's not an insult to show you what you should freaking expect by saying no to the crucible. We aren't as advanced as some previous cycles were and they were wiped out just as surely. We have some advantages like the still functional relays but that's not enough. The reapers are too strong and too numerous to beat. Why is this such an impossible concept to grasp for some people?

[LoboFH]

SilentWolfie wrote...

I can absolutely predict that people are going to go bananas and be happy with that decision, and yet we get the part where "SO BE IT" low, angry voice, and cutscene humanity + galaxy loses. It's not even a fan's ending, not even a pat on the back to us for trying to get better endings. Apparently EMS doesn't matter one single bit...

I saw Allan Schumacher seemingly trying to defend Bioware's decision on this ending, BUT, I'm using a huge BUT here, Bioware knew the general public sentiments are in disagreement towards the original ending, and writing this sort of refusal ending is an extreme disservice and a rehash and remake of the "original ending".

Are we to speculate once again whether this is a slap to the fans or it's our artistic vision, take it or leave it?

Even if the idea is to defend "their artistic vision", the very least they had better clarify the crap out of it, pardon my angry rebuttal here, so everyone who wants to defend Bioware can kiss my --- never mind........

What...?

I'm just kidding. Really!



Anyway, another epic failure by Bioware. This was very likely made out of spite and anyone who tries to defend this ending, honestly, should understand the writers don't want to the players to be happy about playing this ending (maybe one can be satisfied on getting to shoot Star Jar, but it is absolutely not meant to be a happy ending, not even bittersweet). Getting upset and angry? Yes. For whatever reason, many players are angry, that's a fact.

So am I right or wrong? High EMS + Refuse = Victory will be the best ending, right?

How old are you?

Do you need a happy Hollywood ending always to go warm to bed?

These endings are about choices, sacrifices, free will. The refusal ending is the shout of a free man who refuses to eat the crap of the Catalyst and chooses to stand up even if he dies trying. But they will fight.

Some defeats are better than victories.