271 réponses à ce sujet

[Binary_Helix 1]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
That dark energy theory is not a debunked rumor.  That was damage control after it opened the floodgates.  You could plainly tell from the main story of ME2, it was supposed to be about humans being special hence why you had to fight this special human Reaper at the end.  That was all scrapped and it was obvious.  You are in denial if you can't see that.  

Proof: You have none.  I see no connection to special human reaper and dark energy.  There is nothing that is plain about this in ME2.  Even the original article just gave Drew K quotes without a source, and it wasn't an interview.  So yes, debunked.

And like I said, even if it was true, would you had preffered something that was about taking care of the environment?

Yes I do.  Karpyshyn said originally that his plan was that the reapers were trying to hold back this dark energy build up from destroying the galaxy and that the human genetic potential was needed to make their ultimate defense against it.  It was going to be paragon to say eff it and you would do things your way or renegade, sacrifice humanity to complete the Reaper mission.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

The human genetic potenital was tied to the dark energy plot which is why despite hearing human genetic potential a billion times in ME2, it is not mentioned once in ME3.  So no, not debunked because Stevie Wonder could see that they changed the course.

This Shaigunjoe likes to jump the gun and tell everyone else they don't know what they're talking about when he gets basic facts wrong.

[Shaigunjoe]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
That dark energy theory is not a debunked rumor.  That was damage control after it opened the floodgates.  You could plainly tell from the main story of ME2, it was supposed to be about humans being special hence why you had to fight this special human Reaper at the end.  That was all scrapped and it was obvious.  You are in denial if you can't see that.  

Proof: You have none.  I see no connection to special human reaper and dark energy.  There is nothing that is plain about this in ME2.  Even the original article just gave Drew K quotes without a source, and it wasn't an interview.  So yes, debunked.

And like I said, even if it was true, would you had preffered something that was about taking care of the environment?

Yes I do.  Karpyshyn said originally that his plan was that the reapers were trying to hold back this dark energy build up from destroying the galaxy and that the human genetic potential was needed to make their ultimate defense against it.  It was going to be paragon to say eff it and you would do things your way or renegade, sacrifice humanity to complete the Reaper mission.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

The human genetic potenital was tied to the dark energy plot which is why despite hearing human genetic potential a billion times in ME2, it is not mentioned once in ME3.  So no, not debunked because Stevie Wonder could see that they changed the course.

Two years is not recent, two people in two years not a big problem.  You said a lot of top people were leaving bioware lately remember?

Yea, no, that article is wrong, did you see they said it was a new report?  The actual source to that article points out that it was just one of many ideas on the table and no where near as fleshed out as people seem to believe.  I do not see how the human genetic potential was tied to the dark energy in ME2, and that in and of itself makes no sense.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:11 .

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

It appears to me you are just making stuff up.  What top staff is leaving (they did lose a lot of personal post swtor but thats pretty regular for an MMO and it wasn't top brass)  Drew is still working on a novel for swtor despite not working for BW anymore, so probably no bad blood there, and how exactly was he 'fighting for every single thing' and what was this different vision he had?

The guy who created DAO also left Bioware. Maybe you should actually get informed?

Have you even played ME1? It's very different than it's sequels. That's Drew's vision right there. A much more science focused game where everybody wears combat hardsuits as oppossed to having squadmates who fight in nothing but a bra. Drew was more of a science guy his dark energy ending even alludes to that. Casey and Mac are more fantasy oriented types. Nevertheless their different approaches balanced well enough to where ME2 was a a success. ME3 is where Casey and Mac took over completely and it shows. Ninja enemies, Prothean squadmates, the Crucible, Star Child, etc. It wasn't all bad but their vision isn't the same as Drew's.

Just more making stuff up. You aren't even providing specifics and links. Brent Knowles (who wasn't the creator of DAO BTW) left, and that was back in 2010 (not lately!)  Drew is actually more of a fantasy guy, which is why he prefers writing star wars AND left BW to work on his own FANTASY series.

What about his dark energy?  That was also a debunked rumor, how can you even mention that? You do realize, that if the dark energy plot was true, it would have turned the entire message of mass effect into one about environmentalism?  Mass Effect covers a lot of topics, but I don't think it ever even touches environmentalism.

Brent was the lead on DAO who left within the last few years. How is that not recent? You should be a political spin doctor.

Drew in the Mass Effect context was not a fantasy guy as I explained. His other work is of no concern when discussing ME.

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:18 .

[Andy the Black]

I don't remember it ever beeing said a contional victory was possible. Infact I tought it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to happen after Sovereign started one shotitng dreadnoughts at the end of Mass 1. Even if that didn't make it clear then the shot at the end of Mass 2 should have. Maybe it might have been possible if the galaxie hadn't had it's head buried in it's arse for the last 3 years and somthing to prepare, even then I think the chances were slim, at best.

Shepard was always about "finding a way", that said to me he/she knew there was no contional victory.  Not to mention it would have cheepend the Reapers if it was possible, much like how the Borg were cheapend in Voyager by Janeways numerous wins over them.

However, I do agree that the Crucible is a bit of a deus ex machina. Bringing in a super weapon in the last act? Bit lame. Would have been better if it was brought in at the end of Mass 2, maybe even in Arrival.

[Ticonderoga117]

Scott2998 wrote...
No, they had theories. They didn't even know what the original material would be (this is where the term Unobtanium came from). As a matter of fact they weren't even 100% sure the Hiroshma bomb would go off.

Wrong and wrong. Unobtanium as a term came into use in the 50's. Also, the fact that they tested the nuclear bomb before actually using it says that "It does work!" They didn't know which material would be best, so they used both uranium and plutonium in the bombs dropped on Japan. Fun side fact: One was more powerful than the other, but because of terrain, did the same amount of damage pretty much.

Sure they didn't find it in a cave, but neither did you. The Crucible plans were found in the original archive that humanity used to find out Charon was really a Mass Relay.

Which just so happens to be conviently in arms reach? Basically in a cave (an out of the way place) that magically people were looking in at JUST the right time?

War is a dangerous place to put your most important piece of equipment. I'd probably put some extra armor on it too. What's so unbelievable about that?

If you are going to armor something... why have the armor fly off as a function of it docking, when it would be most vulnerable since it can't change course?

Of course, if your suspension of disbelief ends at protective shielding then I see we aren't going to get anywhere so have fun.

It ends there because everything about the Cruicible is badly executed.
If only the Protheans came up with it.
If only the engineers building it were actually worth that title and worked out what it did.
If only they found out what was big enough for those HUGE docking arms to attach to.
If only it was a simple plot device and allowed us to win, instead of crowbarring in a stupid philosophy debate we can't even win with a genocidal AI.

If some of these were addressed, I could buy it better, but I can't, because of bad writing and pacing.

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
That dark energy theory is not a debunked rumor.  That was damage control after it opened the floodgates.  You could plainly tell from the main story of ME2, it was supposed to be about humans being special hence why you had to fight this special human Reaper at the end.  That was all scrapped and it was obvious.  You are in denial if you can't see that.  

Proof: You have none.  I see no connection to special human reaper and dark energy.  There is nothing that is plain about this in ME2.  Even the original article just gave Drew K quotes without a source, and it wasn't an interview.  So yes, debunked.

And like I said, even if it was true, would you had preffered something that was about taking care of the environment?

Yes I do.  Karpyshyn said originally that his plan was that the reapers were trying to hold back this dark energy build up from destroying the galaxy and that the human genetic potential was needed to make their ultimate defense against it.  It was going to be paragon to say eff it and you would do things your way or renegade, sacrifice humanity to complete the Reaper mission.

http://www.strategyi...ffect-3-endings 

The human genetic potenital was tied to the dark energy plot which is why despite hearing human genetic potential a billion times in ME2, it is not mentioned once in ME3.  So no, not debunked because Stevie Wonder could see that they changed the course.

This Shaigunjoe likes to jump the gun and tell everyone else they don't know what they're talking about when he gets basic facts wrong.

It actually just appears people don't like to follow sources for articles and stop when it is convient for them.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Two years is not recent, two people in two years not a big problem.  You said a lot of top people were leaving bioware lately remember?

Yea, no, that article is wrong, did you see they said it was a new report?  The actual source to that article points out that it was just one of many ideas on the table and no where near as fleshed out as people seem to believe.  I do not see how the human genetic potential was tied to the dark energy in ME2, and that in and of itself makes no sense.

Two years is recent and significant (EA takeover). Maybe bioware no longer embodies the values they used to?


Nobody said dark energy was fully developed. It's just one of the few ending ideas that has been revealed publically.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:27 .

[silentassassin264]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Two years is not recent, two people in two years not a big problem.  You said a lot of top people were leaving bioware lately remember?

Yea, no, that article is wrong, did you see they said it was a new report?  The actual source to that article points out that it was just one of many ideas on the table and no where near as fleshed out as people seem to believe.  I do not see how the human genetic potential was tied to the dark energy in ME2, and that in and of itself makes no sense.

No it isn't.  If you had noticed the chronology on the source, you would have noticed the dark energy/humans special was always his plan for it.  The saying Reapers and relays were always on the table came out after the inital uproar because people were still upset about the ending and Karpyshyn saying that caused a bunch of "Drew should have stayed, Lynch Casey and Mac" type deals and Karpyshyn did the damage control not really tweet after all the fanrage.  And if you can't tell how they were related when the article explains it then I really can't help you.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Two years is not recent, two people in two years not a big problem.  You said a lot of top people were leaving bioware lately remember?

Yea, no, that article is wrong, did you see they said it was a new report?  The actual source to that article points out that it was just one of many ideas on the table and no where near as fleshed out as people seem to believe.  I do not see how the human genetic potential was tied to the dark energy in ME2, and that in and of itself makes no sense.

Two years is recent and significant (EA takeover). Maybe bioware no longer embodies the values they used to?


Nobody said dark energy was fully developed. It was one of the few ending ideas that has been revealed publically.

We will have to agree to disagree, the way you worded it sounded like a lot of top players were leaving bioware recently  that makes me think since the beginning this year, but only 2 big guys in the past two years, thats not a big deal.  I do agree the EA take over is significant, and I do really loathe it.

Your words were that the Dark Energy was Drew's vision, he disagrees.

[Ticonderoga117]

silentassassin264 wrote...
Do you really think that if you start trying to FTL in and out and do hit and run strikes, the Reapers were just going to stand there and derp around and let you hit them?  You have to split up and break formation to do that in which they can just split up and Oculus spam you as you exit FTL.  The Reapers can also FTL in and out strike you back, way harder.   All you can do by doing that is delay the inevitable.  The reapers are still destroying your supply lines and you are trying to drag the war out.  Time is not on your side since the Reapers do not need to recharge ammo or discharge energy cores.  You do.  You will also lose when your base all belong to them and you are out of eezo. 

As I said before.  If the galaxy had been preparing for the inevitability of this after the Battle of the Citadel and had improved supply lines etc. for years in anticipation, I would give you a fighting chance with this plan or conventional war period.  As it is, the ignored the threat until they were hit.  It makes no sense for them to be completely unprepared and then pull off a David vs Goliath for the ages.

They derped around when the Victory fleet was shooting at them. Not only do we have better range apparently, but if the fleet would've went BACKWARDS, we could've maintained the range advantage for a wee bit longer.

As for the Oculuses, that's what GUARDIAN laser batteries are for. Besides, you keep up the fire from multiple, random vectors, the fighters won't be able to counter them all.

Now true, the Reapers can pull the same tactic, however, FTL engagements between ships are impossible, and if you keep the Reapers busy, the planet has more time to evac or prepare.

Supplies didn't seem to be too much of a problem, except in Huerta Memorial and the docks, which is understandable.

Also, does eezo run out in ship cores? I always figured we were just getting more fuel for the thrusters to actually move the ship... *shrug*

Discharing cores is a good point. However, it's impossible to track ships after they use FTL, so ships could just zoom off to a nearby planet and discharge in peace unless a Reaper patrol was there.

Now, it's true it would've been oh so much better to have the galaxy actually prepare for those three years, but I don't think it's completely impossible to pull off wonders in a war. Hell, that's generally the theme in those types of war games. Take, for example, World in Conflict. Your force is constantly getting hammered by superior numbers, but through a few lucky breaks, you can turn the tide, push, and pull off a victory from the jaws of defeat. This would've led to a much more enjoyable game than "We can never win without this plot device! BUILD IT!"

However, I'm not adverse to having a plot device that is handled well and basing victory on that.
However, I don't think the Cruicible was handled well AT ALL, and thus, would rather duke it out.

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

Stop moving goalposts, this makes no sense.  Look at his ME novels, he liked to focus on the biotic powers, basically the magic of the ME world.  He didn't go into great detail in how the experiments enhanced biotic capabilities.

[Shaigunjoe]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Two years is not recent, two people in two years not a big problem.  You said a lot of top people were leaving bioware lately remember?

Yea, no, that article is wrong, did you see they said it was a new report?  The actual source to that article points out that it was just one of many ideas on the table and no where near as fleshed out as people seem to believe.  I do not see how the human genetic potential was tied to the dark energy in ME2, and that in and of itself makes no sense.

No it isn't.  If you had noticed the chronology on the source, you would have noticed the dark energy/humans special was always his plan for it.  The saying Reapers and relays were always on the table came out after the inital uproar because people were still upset about the ending and Karpyshyn saying that caused a bunch of "Drew should have stayed, Lynch Casey and Mac" type deals and Karpyshyn did the damage control not really tweet after all the fanrage.  And if you can't tell how they were related when the article explains it then I really can't help you.

No, it came out afterward because somebody lied and he didn't realize it until later.  You can make believe if you want to, I'm going to trust what Drew K says as opposed to random stuff written on the internet, you are more than welcome to believe it.

[KBronx17]

Andy the Black wrote...

I don't remember it ever beeing said a contional victory was possible. Infact I tought it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to happen after Sovereign started one shotitng dreadnoughts at the end of Mass 1. Even if that didn't make it clear then the shot at the end of Mass 2 should have. Maybe it might have been possible if the galaxie hadn't had it's head buried in it's arse for the last 3 years and somthing to prepare, even then I think the chances were slim, at best.

Shepard was always about "finding a way", that said to me he/she knew there was no contional victory.  Not to mention it would have cheepend the Reapers if it was possible, much like how the Borg were cheapend in Voyager by Janeways numerous wins over them.

However, I do agree that the Crucible is a bit of a deus ex machina. Bringing in a super weapon in the last act? Bit lame. Would have been better if it was brought in at the end of Mass 2, maybe even in Arrival.

Does it really matter if they said conventional victory is possible? Did anyone say that Shepard could defeat Sovereign? Did anyone say Shepard could pass through the Omega 4 Relay, survive the Suicide Mission, and defeat the Collectors? Why would it matter if somebody "says" that conventional victory is possible?

Just the other day, I was playing one of the side missions in ME2, and a Blue Suns person that ran the facility told me that "You will not leave this facility alive!". Then, also in the last couple days, I encountered Niftu Cal, who said "I am a biotic god!". That being said, Niftu also happened to be high or something so I guess my example carries less weight......

My point is that it doesn't matter if someone says something in the series....if its within the distant realm of possiblity, I firmly believe that Shepard is capable of it (which includes beating the Reapers conventionally). Perhaps we have a different definition of a conventional victory, but I cannot disagree more with this post.

[silentassassin264]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...
Do you really think that if you start trying to FTL in and out and do hit and run strikes, the Reapers were just going to stand there and derp around and let you hit them?  You have to split up and break formation to do that in which they can just split up and Oculus spam you as you exit FTL.  The Reapers can also FTL in and out strike you back, way harder.   All you can do by doing that is delay the inevitable.  The reapers are still destroying your supply lines and you are trying to drag the war out.  Time is not on your side since the Reapers do not need to recharge ammo or discharge energy cores.  You do.  You will also lose when your base all belong to them and you are out of eezo. 

As I said before.  If the galaxy had been preparing for the inevitability of this after the Battle of the Citadel and had improved supply lines etc. for years in anticipation, I would give you a fighting chance with this plan or conventional war period.  As it is, the ignored the threat until they were hit.  It makes no sense for them to be completely unprepared and then pull off a David vs Goliath for the ages.

They derped around when the Victory fleet was shooting at them. Not only do we have better range apparently, but if the fleet would've went BACKWARDS, we could've maintained the range advantage for a wee bit longer.

As for the Oculuses, that's what GUARDIAN laser batteries are for. Besides, you keep up the fire from multiple, random vectors, the fighters won't be able to counter them all.

Now true, the Reapers can pull the same tactic, however, FTL engagements between ships are impossible, and if you keep the Reapers busy, the planet has more time to evac or prepare.

Supplies didn't seem to be too much of a problem, except in Huerta Memorial and the docks, which is understandable.

Also, does eezo run out in ship cores? I always figured we were just getting more fuel for the thrusters to actually move the ship... *shrug*

Discharing cores is a good point. However, it's impossible to track ships after they use FTL, so ships could just zoom off to a nearby planet and discharge in peace unless a Reaper patrol was there.

Now, it's true it would've been oh so much better to have the galaxy actually prepare for those three years, but I don't think it's completely impossible to pull off wonders in a war. Hell, that's generally the theme in those types of war games. Take, for example, World in Conflict. Your force is constantly getting hammered by superior numbers, but through a few lucky breaks, you can turn the tide, push, and pull off a victory from the jaws of defeat. This would've led to a much more enjoyable game than "We can never win without this plot device! BUILD IT!"

However, I'm not adverse to having a plot device that is handled well and basing victory on that.
However, I don't think the Cruicible was handled well AT ALL, and thus, would rather duke it out.

They had an incredibly advantage against the victory fleet.  There was no reason to run around.  Only one Reaper Capital ship takes in significant damage in the the cutscenes at the end,  It isn't even confirmed destroyed after all the hits on it because it never completely explodes.

And by supply lines I was referring to said discharging of cores as well.  Do you think the Reapers are just going to ignore fuel depots and let you refuel and comeback continuously?  If you notice in the galaxy maps, most fuel depots are attacked and destroyed anyway.   You can expect the Reapers will take every station they can and every gas giant used for discharging to prevent that tactic.  It is not going to work.

And I never played World in Conflict but the whole point in the Mass Effect series was that the Reapers were coming and they were way stronger than us so we had better get our act together.  It was never about coming together and overcoming stuff.  In Mass Effect 1, it is about humanity coming in and saving everyone's bacon in the climax and earning their place on the galactic stage before handing out the better get ready speech.  In ME2, it is about Shepard being space Jesus basically.  And in ME3 even if the theme was about everyone coming together and overcoming, it is too late.  It makes the unstoppable force you found out about in ME1 kind of stupid if you can wait until you are already on the ropes, call out to the pony goddess of friendship, and then erase three years of herping and derping.  

[Binary_Helix 1]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

Stop moving goalposts, this makes no sense.  Look at his ME novels, he liked to focus on the biotic powers, basically the magic of the ME world.  He didn't go into great detail in how the experiments enhanced biotic capabilities.

I'm not moving goalposts. I already explained to you the difference in tone between Drew and his successors.

Take Kai Leng who was a much more serious character in the novels and the joke anime villain he became in ME3.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 07 juillet 2012 - 03:42 .

[Kamfrenchie]

What makes you people think the reapers outnumber the allied forces ? IF that was the case the crucible would never make it halfwy through to the citadel.

Sure, Sovereign was powerful in Mass Effect 1, but we didnt know how the other reapers would be. In fact it would seeem logical to think overeign would be one of the strongest reappers since his role is so important.
And only his barriers made him so strong, he fell quickly when they went out.
Then we had weapons piercing barriers.

SInce we had no real idea of the numbers of the reapers before ME3, I thought it was logical e could win without a DEM.
Then they decided to come up with billlions of reapers and Sovereign class destroyers, make TIM stupid, make every officer stupid (hackett didn't even kill a destrooyer at the beginning, th defense commitee is incompetent and stupid etc)

The axis were a formidable ennemy but were defeated convntionnaly. It was still a bloody war with many losses. Conventional victory doesn't mean we just charge at them in a massive battle.
An enemy doesn't need t have super power to be effective. Even humans can work well as a threat to the galaxy if the story is done well.

Heck, the Balrog gets killed by gandalf with sword and magic, not a mac guffin/DEM, but it's still a badass, powerfl, threatening demon

If anything, DEM reduce the merit of the heroes, since they survive almost only through sheerr luck

[KBronx17]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

Stop moving goalposts, this makes no sense.  Look at his ME novels, he liked to focus on the biotic powers, basically the magic of the ME world.  He didn't go into great detail in how the experiments enhanced biotic capabilities.

I'm not moving goalposts. I already explained to you the difference in tone between Drew and his successors.

Take Kai Leng who was a much more serious character in the novels and the joke anime villain he became in ME3.

Didn't read the novels, just wanted to second the notion that Kai Leng isn't believable within ME3 and is a joke. I feel like he's a misplaced Street Fighter character with Mass Effect tech

[silentassassin264]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

What makes you people think the reapers outnumber the allied forces ? IF that was the case the crucible would never make it halfwy through to the citadel.

Sure, Sovereign was powerful in Mass Effect 1, but we didnt know how the other reapers would be. In fact it would seeem logical to think overeign would be one of the strongest reappers since his role is so important.
And only his barriers made him so strong, he fell quickly when they went out.
Then we had weapons piercing barriers.

SInce we had no real idea of the numbers of the reapers before ME3, I thought it was logical e could win without a DEM.
Then they decided to come up with billlions of reapers and Sovereign class destroyers, make TIM stupid, make every officer stupid (hackett didn't even kill a destrooyer at the beginning, th defense commitee is incompetent and stupid etc)

The axis were a formidable ennemy but were defeated convntionnaly. It was still a bloody war with many losses. Conventional victory doesn't mean we just charge at them in a massive battle.
An enemy doesn't need t have super power to be effective. Even humans can work well as a threat to the galaxy if the story is done well.

Heck, the Balrog gets killed by gandalf with sword and magic, not a mac guffin/DEM, but it's still a badass, powerfl, threatening demon

If anything, DEM reduce the merit of the heroes, since they survive almost only through sheerr luck

The Reapers outnumber the victory forces because they don't get a clear shot to the citadel for the crucible until Harbinger and crew breaks off to stop hammer.  Alsoif you haven't noticed, the Reapers have full armies on each system at the end of the game and you are taking the allied forces largest force to face the Reapers in Sol.  And I know all you convential types don't believe the catalyst but there is a reason it balks like you are insane when you suggest not using the Crucible since you are vastly outnumbered.  

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

Stop moving goalposts, this makes no sense.  Look at his ME novels, he liked to focus on the biotic powers, basically the magic of the ME world.  He didn't go into great detail in how the experiments enhanced biotic capabilities.

I'm not moving goalposts. I already explained to you the difference in tone between Drew and his successors.

Take Kai Leng who was a much more serious character in the novels and the joke anime villian he bcame in ME3.

You are when you say a writer's style is defined by what forum you are in (ok, that may not be moving goal posts, but that is silly)
Kai Leng was still a ninja (which you complained about ninja's earlier as being non Drew so make up your mind)

ME3 is where Casey and Mac took over completely and it shows. Ninja
enemies, Prothean squadmates, the Crucible, Star Child, etc. It wasn't
all bad but their vision isn't the same as Drew's.

But now you are actually moving goalposts, we were not talking about the writers tone, but rather or not they are more sci fi or fantasy.  You can have both fantasy and sci fi have the same tone of writing.

You used your made up fact about dark energy being Drew's vision for the franchise, which he denied.  Not sure what else there is to say.

[Shaigunjoe]

KBronx17 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

Actually, it is of 100% concern when you are discussing what type of writer he is.  He prefers fantasy.

Not when it comes to Mass Effect. Since this is a Mass Effect forum that's what matterrs.

Stop moving goalposts, this makes no sense.  Look at his ME novels, he liked to focus on the biotic powers, basically the magic of the ME world.  He didn't go into great detail in how the experiments enhanced biotic capabilities.

I'm not moving goalposts. I already explained to you the difference in tone between Drew and his successors.

Take Kai Leng who was a much more serious character in the novels and the joke anime villain he became in ME3.

Didn't read the novels, just wanted to second the notion that Kai Leng isn't believable within ME3 and is a joke. I feel like he's a misplaced Street Fighter character with Mass Effect tech

He really isn't all that better in the novels, it just worked a little better becuase people got to use their imagination more.  Also, the plot armor really hurt any credibility.

[Ticonderoga117]

silentassassin264 wrote...
They had an incredibly advantage against the victory fleet.  There was no reason to run around.  Only one Reaper Capital ship takes in significant damage in the the cutscenes at the end,  It isn't even confirmed destroyed after all the hits on it because it never completely explodes.

We still had a range advantage. We got the first shot off. And this is reason to run around, so you don't get shot by the Reapers. You dont' want to make it easy for them.

And by supply lines I was referring to said discharging of cores as well.  Do you think the Reapers are just going to ignore fuel depots and let you refuel and comeback continuously?  If you notice in the galaxy maps, most fuel depots are attacked and destroyed anyway.   You can expect the Reapers will take every station they can and every gas giant used for discharging to prevent that tactic.  It is not going to work.

Any planet can be used for discharging. Fuel can be carried via transports like the Navy does today. While not the best situation, it's still workable.

And I never played World in Conflict but the whole point in the Mass Effect series was that the Reapers were coming and they were way stronger than us so we had better get our act together.  It was never about coming together and overcoming stuff.

Uh, what?
ME1- Human commander comes along, gathers a team of badasses, kills Space Cthulu.
ME2- Same Human commander gets ressurected, gathers an even larger team of badasses, kills most of the Collectors and another Reaper.

Mass Effect has ALWAYS been about coming together and beating the odds. While not on a galactic scale, that is what ME3 was for.

In Mass Effect 1, it is about humanity coming in and saving everyone's bacon in the climax and earning their place on the galactic stage before handing out the better get ready speech.

Thanks to all the crew he picked up...

  In ME2, it is about Shepard being space Jesus basically.

Thanks to all the crew he picked up, because if he got them all killed, he doesn't survive.

 And in ME3 even if the theme was about everyone coming together and overcoming, it is too late.  It makes the unstoppable force you found out about in ME1 kind of stupid if you can wait until you are already on the ropes, call out to the pony goddess of friendship, and then erase three years of herping and derping. 

Well, if the Galaxy actually began to use thier brains and built CRAZY amounts of ships, then it's totally do-able.

The process has happened before. The US built transport ships in a crazy amount of time in WW2. Same could be applied to Starships, granted, at a slower scale. You know how handy the Geth could be? You no longer have to fully crew a ship, just have the support to allow the Geth to aim and fire.

[Andy the Black]

KBronx17 wrote...

Andy the Black wrote...

I don't remember it ever beeing said a contional victory was possible. Infact I tought it was pretty obvious it wasn't going to happen after Sovereign started one shotitng dreadnoughts at the end of Mass 1. Even if that didn't make it clear then the shot at the end of Mass 2 should have. Maybe it might have been possible if the galaxie hadn't had it's head buried in it's arse for the last 3 years and somthing to prepare, even then I think the chances were slim, at best.

Shepard was always about "finding a way", that said to me he/she knew there was no contional victory.  Not to mention it would have cheepend the Reapers if it was possible, much like how the Borg were cheapend in Voyager by Janeways numerous wins over them.

However, I do agree that the Crucible is a bit of a deus ex machina. Bringing in a super weapon in the last act? Bit lame. Would have been better if it was brought in at the end of Mass 2, maybe even in Arrival.

Does it really matter if they said conventional victory is possible? Did anyone say that Shepard could defeat Sovereign? Did anyone say Shepard could pass through the Omega 4 Relay, survive the Suicide Mission, and defeat the Collectors? Why would it matter if somebody "says" that conventional victory is possible?

Just the other day, I was playing one of the side missions in ME2, and a Blue Suns person that ran the facility told me that "You will not leave this facility alive!". Then, also in the last couple days, I encountered Niftu Cal, who said "I am a biotic god!". That being said, Niftu also happened to be high or something so I guess my example carries less weight......

My point is that it doesn't matter if someone says something in the series....if its within the distant realm of possiblity, I firmly believe that Shepard is capable of it (which includes beating the Reapers conventionally). Perhaps we have a different definition of a conventional victory, but I cannot disagree more with this post.

OK, I see your point I really do. But that comment was more aimed at the people that had said it had been implied that a conventional victory was possible in Mass 1 and 2.
Also, the things you bring up as examples aren't even on the same scale as a full on Reaper invasion.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Shaigunjoe wrote...

You are when you say a writer's style is defined by what forum you are in (ok, that may not be moving goal posts, but that is silly)
Kai Leng was still a ninja (which you complained about ninja's earlier as being non Drew so make up your mind)

ME3 is where Casey and Mac took over completely and it shows. Ninja
enemies, Prothean squadmates, the Crucible, Star Child, etc. It wasn't
all bad but their vision isn't the same as Drew's.

But now you are actually moving goalposts, we were not talking about the writers tone, but rather or not they are more sci fi or fantasy.  You can have both fantasy and sci fi have the same tone of writing.

You used your made up fact about dark energy being Drew's vision for the franchise, which he denied.  Not sure what else there is to say.

.
I said this is a Mass Effect forum so keep the discussion on Drew's Mass Effect related work. Not hard to grasp.

My impression of Leng was more soldier and assassin in Drew's novel. The Ninja stuff only came to prominence in ME3.

The dark enegry ending isn't made up. Links were provided to you but you're too dumb to grasp them. Drew openly says it was under consideration and ME2 ties into it. I guess you believed Bill Clinton when he denied having sexual relations with Miss Lewinksy as well?

[Shaigunjoe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Shaigunjoe wrote...

You are when you say a writer's style is defined by what forum you are in (ok, that may not be moving goal posts, but that is silly)
Kai Leng was still a ninja (which you complained about ninja's earlier as being non Drew so make up your mind)

ME3 is where Casey and Mac took over completely and it shows. Ninja
enemies, Prothean squadmates, the Crucible, Star Child, etc. It wasn't
all bad but their vision isn't the same as Drew's.

But now you are actually moving goalposts, we were not talking about the writers tone, but rather or not they are more sci fi or fantasy.  You can have both fantasy and sci fi have the same tone of writing.

You used your made up fact about dark energy being Drew's vision for the franchise, which he denied.  Not sure what else there is to say.

.
I said this is a Mass Effect forum so keep the discussion on Drew's Mass Effect related work. Not hard to grasp.

My impression of Leng was more soldier and assassin in Drew's novel. The Ninja stuff only came to prominence in ME3.

The dark enegry ending isn't made up. Links were provided to you but you're too dumb to grasp them. Drew openly says it was under consideration and ME2 ties into it. I guess you believed Bill Clinton when he denied having sexual relations with Miss Lewinksy as well?

No, you said it was his vision.  Nowhere is that backed.

When you are discussing a writer's tone and/or prefered style, you do not need to stick to any one work of fiction.

Also, I would disagree with you about Kai Leng in the books, he was definitly a ninja assassin, much more so than the novels as he was much better at being stealthy in the books and tried to avoid outright combat and lenghty (and pointless!) monolouges.

And it looks like you are resorting to ad hominem, stay classy.

Modifié par Shaigunjoe, 07 juillet 2012 - 04:14 .