155 réponses à ce sujet

[Xamufam]

Updated

[Xamufam]

[spiriticon]

I'm not a big fan of the Crucible plot device either, and am disappointed that a contrived superweapon was needed to defeat the Reapers.

However, it isn't completely unexpected when you look at the reality of the situation as described in the Mass Effect lore. Countless cycles have taken them on conventionally and failed. Considering we were less equipped then the Protheans were, it would be silly to imagine that this cycle could have done the job.

[The Angry One]

spiriticon wrote...

I'm not a big fan of the Crucible plot device either, and am disappointed that a contrived superweapon was needed to defeat the Reapers.

However, it isn't completely unexpected when you look at the reality of the situation as described in the Mass Effect lore. Countless cycles have taken them on conventionally and failed. Considering we were less equipped then the Protheans were, it would be silly to imagine that this cycle could have done the job.

The lore also says this is the first cycle that's different, because of the Prothean sabotage everything's changed.
That alone is justification for not needing some silly deus ex machina because the Reapers are invincible. They didn't have to be.

[nitefyre410]

 They are not great plot devices but what is worst about them is the damn execution... my god. They are executed so poorly that its makes them even worst. 

30hrs of gameplay to explain these things and you wait till the last 10 freaking minutes... hell is wrong with you Bioware?  

If your going to have do an asspull and a DEM then you better  cover your tacks damn well . 

Modifié par nitefyre410, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:30 .

[Oransel]

Crucible is an asspull. Catalyst is Deus Ex Machina. Both plotdevices are bad.

[azerSheppard]

The Angry One wrote...

Yeah. "Enforced vaccination" doesn't change the bodies of everyone in the galaxy into something else and force them to like living next door to the Reapers.

lol u still butthurt about that?

[Jassu1979]

The Reapers won effortlessly in previous cycles because of several factors that weren't present in the one that's presented in the game:

1. They activated the Citadel, taking out the very centre of galactic government in a surprise attack.
2. They deactivated the relay network, effectively cutting off interstellar travel and communication.

After that, victory becomes inevitable.

With the Citadel effectively cut off from direct reaper control, this strategy no longer worked - and a conventional victory would have been possible if the authors hadn't written themselves into a corner several times over by

a) insisting that pretty much everyone aside from Shepard was ridiculously stupid and denied that the Reapers even existed, and
stressing that the Reapers are supposedly invincible, rather than just extremely hard to crack.

[Xamufam]

bump

[CSI_Spectre]

Great post Troxa.

In ME3, I feel like you don't take Earth back. The catalyst GIVES it back to you.

Our Shepard unites the galaxy to fight a dangerous race of ancients known as the Reapers. I would have made it so that uniting the galaxy meant something. Therefore, the existence of the cruicible and catalyst would not be necessary. Have YOUR war assets matter. Have uniting the galaxy mean something!!!!

Even after the EC, it makes uniting the galaxy feel irrelevant cause you'll still get up to choices of 4 endings that everyone with a high EMS would have. War Assets don't do anything but help your war rating.

Also, I wouldn't have had Cerberus be an enemy you face. Instead, I would have liked to have seen you try to get Cerberus and Alliance to co-exist to fight off the reapers; which would be somewhat similar to what you did with the Geth and Quarians and the Krogan and Turians. Not exactly that, but I hope you get my point. You would help Cerberus and Alliance co-exist for this cause.

Your army would consist of Krogan, Geth, Quarians, Turians, Asari, Humans; it would have organizations like Aria's Blood Pact and Blue Suns, Spectres, Cerberus operatives, STG, Rachni, etc...

Basically you have all these different people united to fight a common foe that threatens everything. I think that would have worked much better for everyone than what we got.

[Xamufam]

CSI_Spectre wrote...

Great post Troxa.

In ME3, I feel like you don't take Earth back. The catalyst GIVES it back to you.

Our Shepard unites the galaxy to fight a dangerous race of ancients known as the Reapers. I would have made it so that uniting the galaxy meant something. Therefore, the existence of the cruicible and catalyst would not be necessary. Have YOUR war assets matter. Have uniting the galaxy mean something!!!!

Even after the EC, it makes uniting the galaxy feel irrelevant cause you'll still get up to choices of 4 endings that everyone with a high EMS would have. War Assets don't do anything but help your war rating.

Also, I wouldn't have had Cerberus be an enemy you face. Instead, I would have liked to have seen you try to get Cerberus and Alliance to co-exist to fight off the reapers; which would be somewhat similar to what you did with the Geth and Quarians and the Krogan and Turians. Not exactly that, but I hope you get my point. You would help Cerberus and Alliance co-exist for this cause.

Your army would consist of Krogan, Geth, Quarians, Turians, Asari, Humans; it would have organizations like Aria's Blood Pact and Blue Suns, Spectres, Cerberus operatives, STG, Rachni, etc...

Basically you have all these different people united to fight a common foe that threatens everything. I think that would have worked much better for everyone than what we got.

Thx
I agree, the story would have been better

Modifié par Troxa, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:03 .

[G00N3R7883]

I agree with the thread title overall, but there were a couple of points that I actually don't think are so bad.

Troxa wrote...

We have no idea how the crucible will work, How can we build it when we don't know how it works?

Because we had no other choice. It took a large fleet to kill Sovereign. If you accept the statement that we can't defeat a fleet of Reapers conventionally (I accept it but okay I know other players don't agree), then the choices were either a) build the crucible and hope for the best or face certain annihilation. Or to put it another way, its better to do something that has a small chance of victory, than do nothing at all.

Troxa wrote...

When we asked who created it we the only thing we got was, we don't have time to discuss it.

That line wasn't really a cop out. The Reapers are (I think?) 37 million years old and the Catalyst was created around the same time. It makes perfect sense to say to Shepard that we don't know who that creator species is.

And to be honest, although I did go through every conversation option because I wanted to understand as much as possible, I was also thinking "I kinda need to wrap this up quickly because the longer I stand around talking, the more people get killed by the Reapers".

[dbkkk]

One of the silliest things about the Crucible was the total lack of security regarding its construction or location.

Seems every human and many other races all know the Crucible is the big super-weapon project being built and there are multiple NPCs who have direct ties to the Crucible just sitting on the Citadel, having conversations about Prothean and other artifacts to help said "wink, wink" project.

So then how hard would it be for TIM / Cerberus let alone the indoctrinated hordes of the Reapers to capture and interrogate these contacts. Heck Liara is intercepting coded transmissions as the Shadowbroker all over the place to aid discreetly with the project and supply them with resources and personnel. All it would take for pity's sake is one of those ex-Cerberus scientists to be a plant and send a message out to TIM or whoever...

And don't give me the argument the Reapers want the humans to succeed ... when they are mass harvesting millions of humans to finish what they started in ME2? Why then wouldn't Harbringer show up at the beam and welcome them in for tea and crumpets?

[dbkkk]

G00N3R7883 wrote...

I agree with the thread title overall, but there were a couple of points that I actually don't think are so bad.

Troxa wrote...

We have no idea how the crucible will work, How can we build it when we don't know how it works?

Because we had no other choice. It took a large fleet to kill Sovereign. If you accept the statement that we can't defeat a fleet of Reapers conventionally (I accept it but okay I know other players don't agree), then the choices were either a) build the crucible and hope for the best or face certain annihilation. Or to put it another way, its better to do something that has a small chance of victory, than do nothing at all.

Troxa wrote...

When we asked who created it we the only thing we got was, we don't have time to discuss it.

That line wasn't really a cop out. The Reapers are (I think?) 37 million years old and the Catalyst was created around the same time. It makes perfect sense to say to Shepard that we don't know who that creator species is.

And to be honest, although I did go through every conversation option because I wanted to understand as much as possible, I was also thinking "I kinda need to wrap this up quickly because the longer I stand around talking, the more people get killed by the Reapers".

The Reapers are like a 1 billlion years old (at least the Catalyst and Harbringer are) and the Crucible was detected by the Reapers several cycles ago .. so at least a couple hundred thousand years. Just happened to be sitting in the Mars archives and nowhere else?

Speaking of terrible plot devices. Would have been nice if the Asari had done a litte research ahead of time, and actually found out that Reapers actually do exist but they were too busy squandering the Thessia Prothean VI to their own advantage.

I can't ever play ME1 or ME2 again and not hear the Asari Councilor's spiel about the Reapers being a myth and there is no proof and NOT laugh out loud. So many plot holes.

[Xandurpein]

The whole way they handled Cerberus in ME3 was just terrible. I always envisioned ME3 to show me how the Galaxy would be affected politically (not genetically!) by my choices throughout the game. Would humanity become partners with the other races or maybe the dominant species, with the other uneasy about it, and so on. I think a choice like Tuchanka and Rannoch, but between say more Council support or Cerberus support, would have been a great idea.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

For how long are you people going to say the same thing over and over? Until Bioware changes the ending? Because, you know, that's not going to happen.

Oh, the irony.

[Armass81]

The Angry One wrote...

The Crucible could've worked if your scientists throughout the game kept discovering things about it and revealing it's funcitons. Higher EMS leads to more discoveries and refinements.

With this you don't even need the character of the Catalyst to explain any damn thing because you already know, the choices are foreshadowed and maybe even made before the end, and things like the Geth being killed can be left up to the player to try and change or not through extra missions and such. For example "recruit x scientist who comes up with theory needing y artifact that will save the Geth."

Hackett mentions it disperses energy around the galaxy using the relays, thats the theory anyways.

Modifié par Armass81, 14 juillet 2012 - 12:57 .

[JeffZero]

TC:

"oh"

[Costin_Razvan]

Xandurpein wrote...

The whole way they handled Cerberus in ME3 was just terrible. I always envisioned ME3 to show me how the Galaxy would be affected politically (not genetically!) by my choices throughout the game. Would humanity become partners with the other races or maybe the dominant species, with the other uneasy about it, and so on. I think a choice like Tuchanka and Rannoch, but between say more Council support or Cerberus support, would have been a great idea.

Cerberus was the worst part of ME3. Oh sure objectivily I can say the Catalyst was worse, but you only meet the kid at the end whereas you have to deal with Cerberus through the entire ****ing game.

[LinksOcarina]

The Angry One wrote...

spiriticon wrote...

I'm not a big fan of the Crucible plot device either, and am disappointed that a contrived superweapon was needed to defeat the Reapers.

However, it isn't completely unexpected when you look at the reality of the situation as described in the Mass Effect lore. Countless cycles have taken them on conventionally and failed. Considering we were less equipped then the Protheans were, it would be silly to imagine that this cycle could have done the job.

The lore also says this is the first cycle that's different, because of the Prothean sabotage everything's changed.
That alone is justification for not needing some silly deus ex machina because the Reapers are invincible. They didn't have to be.

It may have delayed them, but it never said anything about them being beatable. until 3, we only saw two Reapers in total, and only one of them was destroyed in the end and it took a ton of ships for that.

So in that regard, id say the lore is consistant.

Although honestly, the Reapers themselves were always a bad plot device, so the Crucible/Catalyst situation as a McGuffin is not too big of a deal really, compared to that oversight.

[RebelTitan428]

anyone who does not agree that the crucible and catalyst are terrible plot devices needs to read more books...

[Xamufam]

Update

[krasnoarmeets]

Blue Liara wrote...

Agreed. The endings were crap before and are still crap now. We have crap with sprinkles.

^ This ^

[Xamufam]

RebelTitan428 wrote...

anyone who does not agree that the crucible and catalyst are terrible plot devices needs to read more books...

True