wizardryforever wrote...
How about taking it as a reality check?IanPolaris wrote...
How should we, the fans, take this as anything other than an FU?
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.
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
Guest_The Mad Hanar_*
ragecage559 wrote...
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.
In Me2 they also said repeatedly you may not comeback once you attack the collector base. In any hero setting overcomming impossible odds is what makes a hero a hero. I don't see just because you're told in the 3rd game it's suddenly not possible.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
Where is the evidence the next cycle used a crucible?Velocithon wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
Why make a sacrifice when that sacrifice leads to the death of everyone you know, only to have the next cycle do what you refused to do and win? To me that sounds a lot like surrender. Might as well pick an option and save your friends and the current civilizations.
Not having to fight a war ==/== using the crucible. Gamble should have kept his twitter silent. It was a big FU to do otherwise. [Slaughtering Reapers in Darkspace while they hibernate is an execution not a war.]Optimystic_X wrote...
To those mad that the next cycle used the Crucible after all, this was stated in-game. Female Stargazer says they didn't have to fight the war. So don't get mad just because Gamble confirmed it with a Tweet.
IanPolaris wrote...
Not having to fight a war ==/== using the crucible. Gamble should have kept his twitter silent. It was a big FU to do otherwise. [Slaughtering Reapers in Darkspace while they hibernate is an execution not a war.]Optimystic_X wrote...
To those mad that the next cycle used the Crucible after all, this was stated in-game. Female Stargazer says they didn't have to fight the war. So don't get mad just because Gamble confirmed it with a Tweet.
-Polaris
Malanek999 wrote...
Where is the evidence the next cycle used a crucible?Velocithon wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
Why make a sacrifice when that sacrifice leads to the death of everyone you know, only to have the next cycle do what you refused to do and win? To me that sounds a lot like surrender. Might as well pick an option and save your friends and the current civilizations.
Optimystic_X wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Not having to fight a war ==/== using the crucible. Gamble should have kept his twitter silent. It was a big FU to do otherwise. [Slaughtering Reapers in Darkspace while they hibernate is an execution not a war.]Optimystic_X wrote...
To those mad that the next cycle used the Crucible after all, this was stated in-game. Female Stargazer says they didn't have to fight the war. So don't get mad just because Gamble confirmed it with a Tweet.
-Polaris
It's not "conventional victory" either though. So they still didn't win conventionally.
Modifié par Velocithon, 28 juin 2012 - 11:57 .
IanPolaris wrote...
Optimystic_X wrote...
IanPolaris wrote...
Not having to fight a war ==/== using the crucible. Gamble should have kept his twitter silent. It was a big FU to do otherwise. [Slaughtering Reapers in Darkspace while they hibernate is an execution not a war.]Optimystic_X wrote...
To those mad that the next cycle used the Crucible after all, this was stated in-game. Female Stargazer says they didn't have to fight the war. So don't get mad just because Gamble confirmed it with a Tweet.
-Polaris
It's not "conventional victory" either though. So they still didn't win conventionally.
Who said conventionally? I want the next cycle to win WITHOUT playing the star-brat's demented game. I just reflected on one other way it could have happened that was completely consistant with the new Star-Gazer scene.
-Polaris
A reality check within the confines of an established setting. It's more to illuminate what has been hammered into your heads since ME1, didn't suddenly change just because of the EC. The Reapers cannot be defeated by conventional means using current technology. It's delusional to expect anything other than a total defeat by refusing to use the only weapon capable of defeating them. It's just as delusional to expect Bioware to completely reverse the sentiment of Reapers being unbeatable by conventional means. Acting insulted when the obvious comes to pass just highlights these delusions.IanPolaris wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
How about taking it as a reality check?IanPolaris wrote...
How should we, the fans, take this as anything other than an FU?
A reality check in a fictional universe. I'll leave it to you to ponder the obvious inconsistancy there in your position.
-Polaris
Modifié par wizardryforever, 28 juin 2012 - 11:59 .
wizardryforever wrote...
A reality check within the confines of an established setting. It's more to illuminate what has been hammered into your heads since ME1, didn't suddenly change just because of the EC. The Reapers cannot be defeated by conventional means using current technology. It's delusional to expect anything other than a total defeat by refusing to use the only weapon capable of defeating them. It's just as delusional to expect Bioware to completely reverse the sentiment of Reapers being unbeatable by conventional means. Acting insulted when the obvious comes to pass just highlights these delusions.IanPolaris wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
How about taking it as a reality check?IanPolaris wrote...
How should we, the fans, take this as anything other than an FU?
A reality check in a fictional universe. I'll leave it to you to ponder the obvious inconsistancy there in your position.
-Polaris
This is one of those "unstoppable force meets unmovable object" things. Something had to give. In this case, they stuck with the well entrenched lore of the Reapers, versus a storytelling motif. Can't say I blame them. A protagonist that wins against absolutely everything is incredibly boring.IanPolaris wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
A reality check within the confines of an established setting. It's more to illuminate what has been hammered into your heads since ME1, didn't suddenly change just because of the EC. The Reapers cannot be defeated by conventional means using current technology. It's delusional to expect anything other than a total defeat by refusing to use the only weapon capable of defeating them. It's just as delusional to expect Bioware to completely reverse the sentiment of Reapers being unbeatable by conventional means. Acting insulted when the obvious comes to pass just highlights these delusions.IanPolaris wrote...
wizardryforever wrote...
How about taking it as a reality check?IanPolaris wrote...
How should we, the fans, take this as anything other than an FU?
A reality check in a fictional universe. I'll leave it to you to ponder the obvious inconsistancy there in your position.
-Polaris
Until ME3, a key theme was Shepard struggling against and overcoming impossible odds. There was no reason to change it in 3, but they did. That's not a reality check. IMHO it's sub-par writing.
-Polaris
Velocithon wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
Why make a sacrifice when that sacrifice leads to the death of everyone you know, only to have the next cycle do what you refused to do and win? To me that sounds a lot like surrender. Might as well pick an option and save your friends and the current civilizations.
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
JA Shepard wrote...
I think it's when it is really out of spite. The crucible is Shepard's and this cycle's weapon. We may not like the catalyst but he is not the one who makes the crucible do what it does. Your own construction does. His line about control when he asks Shepard something lie "do you think I want to be replaced by you?" tells me that. If you want to blame someone, blame the previous cycles for their design.
The catalyst is basically just allowing you to use your own weapon even if it will destroy the reapers, because in his logic driven mind, events that have taken place in this cycle may have rendered his solution obsolete. He's open to new ideas. Refusing to choose is just spiting yourself. It also happens to validate the catalyst's logic because it proves that organics are still so irrational that even the best of them can't see past his own hatred to do what he came to do and save everyone. It's just as an f-you to an enemy that is conceding victory to you when he can still kill you. That's where dying for a cause becomes pointless.
Modifié par Optimystic_X, 29 juin 2012 - 12:09 .
I guess the person who dies gets to headcanon. He doesn't go on Twitter post-death to see that his sacrifice was for naught.Allan Schumacher wrote...
Velocithon wrote...
Allan Schumacher wrote...
One big problem a lot of us are having is that one of your co-workers (Gamble) acting in his official capicity wouldn't or couldn't just let things be and allow us to 'head canon' how the next cycle defeated the reapers. Had nothing been said, it would have been a lot better, but we are now specifically told by a BIOWARE employee acting in his official capacity that, "Oh the next cycle used the crucible anyway" making Shepard's morality and refusal completely pointless.
I can't speak on behalf of Gamble's tweet, but I do want to address something else:
At what point can a person dismiss someone willing to die for his cause because it is "pointless?"
Why make a sacrifice when that sacrifice leads to the death of everyone you know, only to have the next cycle do what you refused to do and win? To me that sounds a lot like surrender. Might as well pick an option and save your friends and the current civilizations.
Well, it does require metaknowledge for Shepard to know what the future cycle does, and to let that affect his decision (something that I consider to be an advantage of a more open ended ending).
But still, if you're against slavery and your people are about to be enslaved, does it make you dying to prevent slavery irrelevant if after the fact your people end up being enslaved? Or does it make you a man that was willing to die for what you believed in because you felt it was the right thing to do?
Modifié par wh00ley 06, 29 juin 2012 - 12:14 .
Retour en haut