1027 réponses à ce sujet

[Ryzaki]

memorysquid wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Captiosus77 wrote...

capn233 wrote...

Without metagaming Shepard can realize that no antagonist has ever actually lied to him since he became a Spectre.

Thank you.

I doubt anyone here played the game "in character" as Shepard the entire time. The game has required players to meta-game many times throughout the series to progress the story. Damn near every morality choice required an evaluation of facts and conditions that may not have been known to Shepard but assumed by the player. Therefore this argument that reject is the "only" choice unless players meta-game is pointless because, no matter what, players had to meta-game many times simply to get to this point.

This.

Plus we all know the endings now so not meta-gaming to some degree is simply impossible, unless you ignore consequences altogether.

Yup. I have no worries about my renedouche letting Wrex have the cure since he knows he'll have a Reaper police force to deal with any attempted Krogan rebellions. (hell might give him something to entertain himself with).

[elitehunter34]

memorysquid wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

The Reapers have been defeated in a large scale conflict.  http://masseffect.wi.../The_Reaper_War The Miracle at Palavan.  So yes, using powerful weapons and clever tactics, the Reapers can be defeated conventionally on a relatively large scale.

The circumstances in this cycle are much different than previous cycles.  Given all of the evidence I would say that a conventional victory is at least weakly possible.

The Reapers weren't defeated at Palaven, nor does the codex say they were.  The Turians nuked a couple, got whooped completely and fled and then the Reapers marched on to their homeworld and started destroying cities and dropping troops.  If you have any doubts about the outcome of a conventional war, just look at the final fight.  Shep has cherry picked the best of the best and everyone he could get.  The ground invasion force is wiped out almost to a man and you watch the space fleet getting worked over.   I just don't see the continued push for a possiblity that admits of no evidence at all.

I'm going to quote the codex entry because you seem to be ignoring it.  

The turian and krogan counterattack on Palaven combined deception, courage, and tenacity. First, the turians leaked a false battle plan that drew on the same tactics they used at beginning of the assault on Palaven. Then the dreadnought Indomitable faked a problem with its drive core, coming out of FTL near Palaven's moon, Menae. Three other dreadnoughts and their attendant fleets deployed to assist Indomitable, a tempting target that drew the Reaper capital ships away from Palaven. Turian troop transports then entered Palaven's atmosphere to release shuttles, gliders, and individual soldier capsules.The Reapers did not understand the seriousness of the threat at first--those that detected the landing crafts sent husks and Collector swarms to intercept them, but little more. This allowed krogan commandos to link up with Palaven's resistance and hand off their payloads--warp bombs and fission weapons.In simultaneous strikes across the globe, Reaper ships began to explode. Turian resistance members had managed to smuggle the bombs inside when the Reaper processing ships, troop transports, and even destroyers and capital ships had opened their structures to indoctrinated turian leaders.Large swaths of territory fell back into turian and krogan control. News of the victory gave a much-needed boost to the morale of the turian resistance and the galactic public.But the action was not without sacrifice. Turian insurgents gave their lives to ensure the explosives detonated, and the processing centers they destroyed were full of civilians who died just as surely as if they had been harvested. Of the dead, General Minin Resvirix said, "Whatever they were in life, their deaths had no equal. They are worthy of joining the spirit of Palaven itself."


The miracle at Palaven happened after the events of Priority: Palaven in the game.  If you don't believe me then read the goddamn article "...turian and krogan"  this HAS to be after the events of the quest so you do not get to make the assertion that they still lost.  It is called a victory.  They defeated the Reapers or at least a large enough chunk of Reapers to be considered a major victory on Palaven.  You are making assumptions based on nothing.  Don't be a hypocrite and say I am basing my claims off of no evidence when you are basing your claims on no evidence, and I am giving you evidence.

Modifié par elitehunter34, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:54 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Rubios wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how in the hell is Rachni Queen refuse? You either melt her ass to goo or you decide to belive her word that she'll be peaceful. That has squat to do with refusal.

That's you taking the blind decision of letting go the future of the species that tried to wipe out all the sentient life in Citadel space (and would do if not for the Krogan) just because your moral compass says it is wrong.

The decision of not using a weapon that can end the cycle just because you believe that brainwash / lack of choice / genocide is wrong ends up being the same.

You are simply accepting the risk of getting wiped out by rachni / reapers because all the other solutions are wrong, unless you metagame that is...

What the hell does the Rachni have to do with this? This wasn't the Rachni wiping out sentient life. It was Sovereign corrupting them like you saw in ME3. She spoke of those who soured their songs in both ME1 and ME2. It was obvious in ME1 that it was Sovereign and its indoctrinated slaves in my first play of the game.

Sovereign thought process...."hmmm... Citadel for some reason isn't sending the wake up call. Wonder what is wrong? Oh what do we have here? An easily indoctrinated and corrupted species. I'll send my minions in to investigate. Damn this is easier than I thought. We might not even need to reap. I'll just have them wipe out advanced civilizations. We can figure out the Citadel situation later."

[The Smitchens]

Ryzaki wrote...

And I see it as a FU ending and it's not cute or clever. Just petty and childish.

I don't know how BioWare can win against arguments like that.  People literally asked for it.  Just search the forum history.  It's rife with people proclaiming their Shepard would never settle on those three options.  So BioWare included it... I mean... at this point it's just not fair to them because even when they do include things by request they're still treated like they're insulting the fans.

Me, I laughed my ass off when I saw that you can condemn the entire galaxy.  I thought it was awesome.

[Dusen]

The Smitchens wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And I see it as a FU ending and it's not cute or clever. Just petty and childish.

I don't know how BioWare can win against arguments like that.  People literally asked for it.  Just search the forum history.  It's rife with people proclaiming their Shepard would never settle on those three options.  So BioWare included it... I mean... at this point it's just not fair to them because even when they do include things by request they're still treated like they're insulting the fans.

Me, I laughed my ass off when I saw that you can condemn the entire galaxy.  I thought it was awesome.

IF Bioware had actually cared they would have taken the time to make another powerpoint, like they did for all the other choices, showing our heros and companions dying in heroic last stands against the reapers. Bioware might have even shown a few stills of exploding reapers to get the idea across that the next cycle finally defeated the reaper threat, but no, instead rejection has the shortest sequence of any of the choices. Liara's speech can easily be offensive when she outright says, we failed. Bioware could have had her sound heroic, stating something like, "we stayed true to ourselves and never gave in to the enemy, we just hope that through our sacrifice your cycle will be saved  from having to make similiar sacrifices etc. blah blah blah".

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Vigil and the Citadel's true purpose.

And as we can see from the events of ME3, it is no advantage without which the Reapers cannot win. They still possess overwhelming technological advantage and numerical and logistic dominance.

Organic species' diversity.

You know exactly how much of an advantage it is from the events of ME3: entirely moot.

Technological superiority.

The codex also states it takes four organics' dreadnoughts to overwhelm the kinetic barriers of a Reaper capital ship. The codex also states the organic races have less than one hundred dreadnoughts, which are one-shot by Reaper capital ships. Even if the organic races have thousands of cruisers and frigates, the Reapers still have the technological and most importantly numerical advantage that allows them to prevail in a war of attrition.

Note earlier that I said logistics. Note the codex exposits very clearly the Reapers target industrial and transportation centers. There is clear motive to this action: the Reapers target these things because it prevents organic races from reinforcing their existing military strength. Whatever manufacturing capability organic races may have had that would overcome the Reapers' numerical advantage is lost. Meanwhile, The codex clearly states Reapers have no logistic needs as such.

Tactical victories.

Everything you describe here is a tactical victory but a strategic loss. Tactical victories alone do not a winning war make, as Hackett makes abundantly clear (as he damn well should, being a flag officer) during in-game dialog (specifically in regards to galactic readiness). If tactical victories alone made for winning wars, the Confederacy would have won the Civil War, the Empire of Japan would have won the Pacific war, and the Central Powers would have won WWI -- each and every one of those three were belligerents which won an initial string of tactical victories that were simultaneously strategic losses, which in the long run led to their eventual decisive defeat.

Case in point, the "Fifteen-Minute Plan" as exposited in the codex. Tactical victory, strategic loss as Palaven was lost anyways as Reapers overwhelmed the turian fleets through sheer numerical advantage. On that same page, the Fall of Thessia entry details the exact same phenomenon -- short term operational victory, strategic loss. The "Miracle of Palaven" itself is the single greatest example of a tactical victory that was simultaneously a strategic loss -- whatever gains the turian/krogan coalition force made were lost as the turian fleets were forced to withdraw to spare further losses anyways.

Regardless what short-term, small-scale victories the organics were winning, they were simultaneously decisively losing the war, thanks largely to attrition.

Modifié par humes spork, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:18 .

[elitehunter34]

humes spork wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Vigil and the Citadel's true purpose.

And as we can see from the events of ME3, it is no advantage without which the Reapers cannot win. They still possess overwhelming technological advantage and numerical and logistic dominance.

Organic species' diversity.

You know exactly how much of an advantage it is from the events of ME3: entirely moot.

Technological superiority.

The codex also states it takes four organics' dreadnoughts to overwhelm the kinetic barriers of a Reaper capital ship. The codex also states the organic races have less than one hundred dreadnoughts, which are one-shot by Reaper capital ships. Even if the organic races have thousands of cruisers and frigates, the Reapers still have the technological and most importantly numerical advantage that allows them to prevail in a war of attrition.

Note earlier that I said logistics. Note the codex exposits very clearly the Reapers target industrial and transportation centers. There is clear motive to this action: the Reapers target these things because it prevents organic races from reinforcing their existing military strength. Whatever manufacturing capability organic races may have had that would overcome the Reapers' numerical advantage is lost. Meanwhile, The codex clearly states Reapers have no logistic needs as such.

Tactical victories.

Everything you describe here is a tactical victory but a strategic loss. Tactical victories alone do not a winning war make, as Hackett makes clear during in-game dialog (specifically in regards to galactic readiness). If tactical victories alone made for winning wars, the Confederacy would have won the Civil War, the Empire of Japan would have won the Pacific war, and the Central Powers would have won WWI -- each and every one of those three were belligerents which won an initial string of tactical victories that were simultaneously strategic losses, which in the long run led to their eventual decisive defeat.

Case in point, the "Fifteen-Minute Plan" as exposited in the codex. Tactical victory, strategic loss as Palaven was lost anyways as Reapers overwhelmed the turian fleets through sheer numerical advantage. On that same page, the Fall of Thessia entry details the exact same phenomenon -- short term operational victory, strategic loss. The "Miracle of Palaven" itself is the single greatest example of a tactical victory that was simultaneously a strategic loss -- whatever gains the turian/krogan coalition force made were lost as the turian fleets were forced to withdraw to spare further losses anyways.

Regardless what short-term, small-scale victories the organics were winning, they were simultaneously decisively losing the war, thanks largely to attrition.

How can you call the Miracle of Palaven a strategic loss?  What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

"Even if the organic races have thousands of cruisers and frigates, the Reapers still have the technological and most importantly numerical advantage that allows them to prevail in a war of attrition."

What do you have other than speculation that the Reapers have the numerical advantage?

"You know exactly how much of an advantage it is from the events of ME3: entirely moot."

Javik says its an advantage.  Why can't it be an advantage in the long term.

"And as we can see from the events of ME3, it is no advantage without which the Reapers cannot win. They still possess overwhelming technological advantage and numerical and logistic dominance. "

You are completely hand waving how important of an advantage it is.  You are just saying, "no its not enough" without good reason.

Will you concede that a conventional victory has at least a small chance of being possible, given these facts?

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

Well then you'll just have to deal with guessing because I'm not repeating myself to someone who doesn't even care anyway.

Stop acting so emo. If I didn't care, I wouldn't have asked. the fact that I ask means I do care.

Ryzaki wrote...

I'm not a video game designer however and I'm also not getting paid to make video games/game endings. So yes me being petty and childish (towards a fictional character no less) is fine. A professional however? Not at all fine. It makes them look foolish and unable to take criticism.

Acting petty and childish is never fine regardless of your position or function.

[Ryzaki]

Emo? *rolls eyes* If you can't be bothered to go back in the thread and look you're not that curious.

Doesn't stop it from being less acceptable on their part.

Modifié par Ryzaki, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:31 .

[wsandista]

Destroy is the only choice. Kill the damn cuttlebots and get it over with.

[Archonsg]

The Smitchens wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

And I see it as a FU ending and it's not cute or clever. Just petty and childish.

I don't know how BioWare can win against arguments like that.  People literally asked for it.  Just search the forum history.  It's rife with people proclaiming their Shepard would never settle on those three options.  So BioWare included it... I mean... at this point it's just not fair to them because even when they do include things by request they're still treated like they're insulting the fans.

Me, I laughed my ass off when I saw that you can condemn the entire galaxy.  I thought it was awesome.

They wanted to reject the illogical StarBrat choices, and win against the reapers in this cycle.  If Shepard lives,  good,  if not,  at least make his and the sacrifices of others count. 
Key theme,  to not accept a suicide choice offered by StarBrat, to win against the Reapers in the current cycle and if Shepard dies, make it a death of a warrior. 
So how is giving the reject option but essentially saying "so be it,  you don't want the choices we gave you, you loose!" not a "FU!" response? 

On a side note,  I went into the end (prior Chronos Station) with an excess of 15, 000 EMS points with 100% galactic readiness so I am sure I more then exceed EMS requirements. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:35 .

[Ryzaki]

wsandista wrote...

Destroy is the only choice. Kill the damn cuttlebots and get it over with.

Believe me I do shoot the red tube. I just believe all endings are valid. 


...well save Synthesis. I'm not that damn forgiving.

[wsandista]

Ryzaki wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Destroy is the only choice. Kill the damn cuttlebots and get it over with.

Believe me I do shoot the red tube. I just believe all endings are valid. 


...well save Synthesis. I'm not that damn forgiving.

Or Control. Pull these two levers and become a Reaper!

[PsyrenY]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

But it's so much more fun to tell you to cram it and THEN hit the back button 

[The Heretic of Time]

Ryzaki wrote...

Doesn't stop it from being less acceptable on their part.

Except BioWare isn't being petty or childish, only you are. You see thing that aren't there.


First people cry about not being able to reject the Catalyst or Crucible, regardless of BioWare saying that the war can't be won conventionally. Well, people didn't seem to care back then, you guys just wanted a reject option.

So sure, BioWare gave you the option to reject the Catalyst, against all expectations (after all, they said they wouldn't add new ends, only expand existing endings, yet they did add a new ending). But are you happy? No. Now you folks whine and cry about the fact that you lose the war against the Reapers when you reject the Catalyst. Honestly, what did you expect?

In your case it's even worse, because you seem to accept that Shepard loses in the Reject ending, but you somehow get your panties in a twist because the next cycle does use the Crucible.

No my friend, that's not a huge FU from BioWare. It's just how the writers of BioWare have decided things are in the ME universe. The writers decided that the reapers can not and will not be defeated conventionally. Well, though luck buddy, but you'll have to deal with it.


If you don't like how the writers wrote the lore of Mass Effect, go write your own fan-fic or something, or whatever makes you feel better. Whatever.

[silentassassin264]

So your rationale is that the three options are a leap of faith that may not work so you tell the catalyst to get bent? In case you didn't notice, three choices with at least a possibility of success versus one guaranteed failure and you chose the one guaranteed failure. It has nothing to do with metagaming. It has everything to do with everyone in your cycle dies unless you make a [good] decision. What if I jump in the space magic/grab electrostics/ shoot off button beam and die and nothing happens to the reapers and the Catalyst just does a laugh in Harbinger voice? I lose but at least I gave an effort to save the cycle instead of being a stubborn ox who can't swallow my pride resulting in everyone around me dying.

[gmboy902]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

Except in Deus Ex you sought out your own options, instead of getting them presented on a plate by a Starbrat. 

Still, it doesn't make much difference. In the end there is always a decision with uncertainties. For Shepard's cycle, the only certainty we did have is that the war could not be won conventionally. Yet some people still choose to try it anyway...

They're still trusting third parties. What if, for example, the Helios AI lied and just killed off Denton and ruled the world?

[humes spork]

elitehunter34 wrote...

How can you call the Miracle of Palaven a strategic loss?  What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

Remember the two conversations with Garrus in which he outright states the turians are taking unacceptable casualties and will be forced to withdraw from Palaven, and later that the turians were forced to withdraw, anyways? The ones between the "Miracle at Palaven" and rallying the fleets to Earth? The "ruthless calculus of war" conversations?

It's a strategic loss, just like every other "victory" in the war. Get over it.

What do you have other than speculation that the Reapers have the numerical advantage?

Did you read the "Fall of Earth", "Battle for Palaven" and "Fall of Thessia" codex entries? Or are you just engaging in cherry-picking? Each one of those entries specifically cites the Reapers' overwhelming numerical advantage as the major contributor to their strategic victories. Utter numerical dominance, supported by the codex.

Outside that, even running a ballpark estimate on the number of Reaper capital ships based upon the precious little available information in the codex you end up with the conservative estimate of 20,000 Sovereign-class Reapers (one Sovereign-class per cycle, one cycle every 50,000 years, the cycle has existed for at least a billion years) without considering how many Reaper destroyers must exist (which the codex states are more numerous than capital ships). Each one of those can one-shot a dreadnought, four of which must focus fire a Sovereign-class to put it down. Organic species have a hundred dreadnoughts.

Javik says its an advantage.  Why can't it be an advantage in the long term.

Javik says so, but you see firsthand how well it works out during Priority: Earth.

It doesn't.

You are completely hand waving how important of an advantage it is.  You are just saying, "no its not enough" without good reason.

Will you concede that a conventional victory has at least a small chance of being possible, given these facts?

Absolutely not. The "advantages" you cite are moot and the "facts" you cite fail to grasp basic strategy. The only reason you perceive my dismissal to be "without good reason" is because you either fail to understand what's going on, or refuse to see it. Conventional victory is not possible.

"Throughout the struggle, it was in his logistic inability to maintain his armies in the field that the enemy's fatal weakness lay. Courage his forces had in full measure, but courage was not enough. Reinforcements failed to arrive, weapons, ammunition and food alike ran short, and the dearth of fuel caused their powers of tactical mobility to dwindle to the vanishing point. In the last stages of the campaign they could do little more than wait for the Allied advance to sweep over them."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, British Army Doctrine Publication, Volume 3, Logistics (June 1996) p. 1-2

Modifié par humes spork, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:49 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Archonsg wrote...

They wanted to reject the illogical StarBrat choices, and win against the reapers in this cycle.  If Shepard lives,  good, if not,  at least make his and the sacrifices of others count. 

Which is exactly what you get when you choose the Destroy option. Honestly, I can understand folks arguing against Control and Synthesis, but what is so illogical and unclear about Destroy? You shoot the damn tube, you get a giant red EMP pulse and all synthetics are done for. The end. And if your EMS is high enough, Shepard will even live to tell the tale! Honestly, what more coul you want?

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:49 .

[The Heretic of Time]

gmboy902 wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

gmboy902 wrote...

This flaw exists all over gaming. When it comes to endings like this - Deus Ex, Mass Effect, and others besides - the protagonist always has to trust the entity offering the choice. If the entity lies, there is nothing they can do about it.

Except in Deus Ex you sought out your own options, instead of getting them presented on a plate by a Starbrat. 

Still, it doesn't make much difference. In the end there is always a decision with uncertainties. For Shepard's cycle, the only certainty we did have is that the war could not be won conventionally. Yet some people still choose to try it anyway...

They're still trusting third parties. What if, for example, the Helios AI lied and just killed off Denton and ruled the world?

That would never happen, because Helios needed JC Denton to achieve its goal. Killing JC Denton would be counterproductive for it.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:52 .

[Heeden]

elitehunter34 wrote...

How can you call the Miracle of Palaven a strategic loss?  What evidence do you have to back up this claim?

Probably the quote from the codex article he linked - "The turians, forced to defend the planet, found themselves in a pitched
battle far from the relay, from which emerged a seemingly endless line
of Reaper ships. After massive casualties, Coronati ordered retreat.
"

[Zero132132]

The Angry One wrote...

Disclaimer: If my opinions on the ending bother you, the back button should be to the top left of your browser.

Don't give a **** about the rest, but does this mean that your entire purpose in creating this thread was to get a bunch of people to sit around agreeing with you? Doesn't sound like much of a discussion...

[Urdnot Amenark]

humes spork wrote...

Javik says so, but you see firsthand how well it works out during Priority: Earth.

It doesn't.

That's false, actually. Depending on your EMS, you can actually influence the success of Hammer, Sword, and Shield. Shepard also does something no organic has ever done, if I recall correctly. I'd say things work out extremely well. 

But I honestly think arguments can be made for either side.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Rubios wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Rubios wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...

..how in the hell is Rachni Queen refuse? You either melt her ass to goo or you decide to belive her word that she'll be peaceful. That has squat to do with refusal.

That's you taking the blind decision of letting go the future of the species that tried to wipe out all the sentient life in Citadel space (and would do if not for the Krogan) just because your moral compass says it is wrong.

The decision of not using a weapon that can end the cycle just because you believe that brainwash / lack of choice / genocide is wrong ends up being the same.

You are simply accepting the risk of getting wiped out by rachni / reapers because all the other solutions are wrong, unless you metagame that is...

What the hell does the Rachni have to do with this? This wasn't the Rachni wiping out sentient life. It was Sovereign corrupting them like you saw in ME3.

Mass Effect 3 was kinda hard to see back in 2008.

Not sure if mad or just metagaming... 

Question for you about the rachni: who were those who soured their song?
Answer: Sovereign and his minions.

No not mad. Just using brain.