293 réponses à ce sujet

[Memnon]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

The discovery of the Atomic Bomb was an I win button for America, are you saying World War 2 was a bad story?

What? I don't even know where to respond to that. It has nothing to do with anything.

It's a sinfully simple allegory.  The crucible is to the atomic bomb what the war with the reapers was to World War 2.  

American Scientists discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying major cities in an instant, this was detonated over Hiroshima to end world war 2.
Liara discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying the reapers all at once.  This was detonated over planet earth to end the war with the reapers.

how is that hard to understand?  Its the exact same thing.  ME3 is a World War 2 story.  Casey hudson said this like a million times before the game came out.  The crucible is even shaped like the atomic bomb that ended world war 2.  I recognized what they were going for the instant I saw the Crucible (its a bomb) because I know my history.

So we're making an analogy to a project which was investigating the feasibility of harnessing the power of the atomic binding force - which was known about in the 1800s - to the Crucible, which was unknown until we happened to stumble upon the schematics at the 11th hour, the purpose of which we had no idea until after it was built ... am I getting this right?

Modifié par Stornskar, 19 juillet 2012 - 04:20 .

[The Spamming Troll]

fchopin wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

I'm sorry, but blaming ME2 is the easy way out.
Sure, in retrospect ME2 was a lot of pointless faffing about, but it is only so because ME3 made it this way.

I agree that ME2 could have been used to help more in ME3 but not the way it was done.
 
The council should have been involved with the human reaper so it would be investigated for weaknesses; Cerberus taking over the human reaper helps no one and the two years that shepard was dead were a waist that the galaxy could not afford.
 
The council taking no part in ME2 meant that ME2 was a side quest game and not relevant.
ME3 should not have been named retake Earth, it should have been named Retake the Galaxy and the council should have been the people to help Shepard as this was a galaxy war and not an Earth war.

yeah its like that sci fi movie that recently came out. where aliens attack earth and the whole movie is like a US army recruitment video.

its stupid.

.....man, i really say that alot on this forum. i wish things werent so stupid around  mass effect.

[robertthebard]

Stornskar wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

The discovery of the Atomic Bomb was an I win button for America, are you saying World War 2 was a bad story?

What? I don't even know where to respond to that. It has nothing to do with anything.

It's a sinfully simple allegory.  The crucible is to the atomic bomb what the war with the reapers was to World War 2.  

American Scientists discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying major cities in an instant, this was detonated over Hiroshima to end world war 2.
Liara discovered how to create a bomb capable of destroying the reapers all at once.  This was detonated over planet earth to end the war with the reapers.

how is that hard to understand?  Its the exact same thing.  ME3 is a World War 2 story.  Casey hudson said this like a million times before the game came out.  The crucible is even shaped like the atomic bomb that ended world war 2.  I recognized what they were going for the instant I saw the Crucible (its a bomb) because I know my history.

So we're making an analogy to a project which was investigating the feasibility to harness the power of the atomic binding force, which was known about in the 1800s to the Crucible, which was unknown until we happened to stumble upon the schematics at the 11th hour, the purpose of which we had no idea until after it was built ... am I getting this right?

More or less, and it's a familiar theme.  In the 11th hour we find out that Saren's after the Conduit...  Oh wait, the conventional logic is that being introduced at the beginning of the game means that it's not, by definition, the 11th hour, right?  So the fact that the first off Earth mission time we actually have control of our character for more than 2 minutes on Mars, finding out that, as we can learn from a PDA, a new dig site has uncovered a new "beacon", with new information does qualify as 11th hour.

Yes, the contradictory nature of the Conduit/Crucible comparison is indeed quite paradoxical.  After all, in ME 1, we know that Saren is looking for the Conduit.  I have read that it is quite well explained to us, and that we know we have to find it before Saren does, although, truth be told, we don't know what it is until Vigil tells us, just before we use to solve the insurmountable problem of getting off Ilos to get into the closed arms of the Citadel to open them so the fleet can engage Sovereign.  Yet this is considered to not be a DeM.  However, finding the Crucible plans, even though we have no idea what it really is, or how it works is a DeM.  Can you see the contradiction there?  Can you step back from the apparent hatred of ME 3's ending, and handling of the Crucible long enough to see that we are getting these two plot devices in the exact same way, or am I wasting my time trying to again point out the obvious?  After all, until Ilos, it was assumed that the Conduit was a weapon, that's how much we knew about it prior to Vigil.

[Memnon]

robertthebard wrote...

More or less, and it's a familiar theme.  In the 11th hour we find out that Saren's after the Conduit...  Oh wait, the conventional logic is that being introduced at the beginning of the game means that it's not, by definition, the 11th hour, right?  So the fact that the first off Earth mission time we actually have control of our character for more than 2 minutes on Mars, finding out that, as we can learn from a PDA, a new dig site has uncovered a new "beacon", with new information does qualify as 11th hour.

Yes, the contradictory nature of the Conduit/Crucible comparison is indeed quite paradoxical.  After all, in ME 1, we know that Saren is looking for the Conduit.  I have read that it is quite well explained to us, and that we know we have to find it before Saren does, although, truth be told, we don't know what it is until Vigil tells us, just before we use to solve the insurmountable problem of getting off Ilos to get into the closed arms of the Citadel to open them so the fleet can engage Sovereign.  Yet this is considered to not be a DeM.  However, finding the Crucible plans, even though we have no idea what it really is, or how it works is a DeM.  Can you see the contradiction there?  Can you step back from the apparent hatred of ME 3's ending, and handling of the Crucible long enough to see that we are getting these two plot devices in the exact same way, or am I wasting my time trying to again point out the obvious?  After all, until Ilos, it was assumed that the Conduit was a weapon, that's how much we knew about it prior to Vigil.

Getting back to the Manhattan Project analogy here, the thing is conventional victory WAS possible - it was just going to be extremely costly. We understood the science behind the atomic bomb, and the energy that was released via fission and fusion (by my recollection we actually underestimated the energy released). Fat Man and Little Boy were designed from detailed schematics based on math and science we understood and experimented with.

The Crucible was a device we were unaware of until the 11th hour; we weren't aware of its functionality until the 12th hour. The point OP is trying to make is what is the point of ME1 and ME2 if we can't beat the Reapers conventionally? We spent all this effort and energy trying to get the council to prepare, get Earth prepare, fighting the Collectors in ME2 ... all for what? If we can't beat the Reapers, then we're just spinning our wheels hoping that we stumble upon this ancient super weapon, and ME1 and ME2 are pointless endeavors

[robertthebard]

Stornskar wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

More or less, and it's a familiar theme.  In the 11th hour we find out that Saren's after the Conduit...  Oh wait, the conventional logic is that being introduced at the beginning of the game means that it's not, by definition, the 11th hour, right?  So the fact that the first off Earth mission time we actually have control of our character for more than 2 minutes on Mars, finding out that, as we can learn from a PDA, a new dig site has uncovered a new "beacon", with new information does qualify as 11th hour.

Yes, the contradictory nature of the Conduit/Crucible comparison is indeed quite paradoxical.  After all, in ME 1, we know that Saren is looking for the Conduit.  I have read that it is quite well explained to us, and that we know we have to find it before Saren does, although, truth be told, we don't know what it is until Vigil tells us, just before we use to solve the insurmountable problem of getting off Ilos to get into the closed arms of the Citadel to open them so the fleet can engage Sovereign.  Yet this is considered to not be a DeM.  However, finding the Crucible plans, even though we have no idea what it really is, or how it works is a DeM.  Can you see the contradiction there?  Can you step back from the apparent hatred of ME 3's ending, and handling of the Crucible long enough to see that we are getting these two plot devices in the exact same way, or am I wasting my time trying to again point out the obvious?  After all, until Ilos, it was assumed that the Conduit was a weapon, that's how much we knew about it prior to Vigil.

Getting back to the Manhattan Project analogy here, the thing is conventional victory WAS possible - it was just going to be extremely costly. We understood the science behind the atomic bomb, and the energy that was released via fission and fusion (by my recollection we actually underestimated the energy released). Fat Man and Little Boy were designed from detailed schematics based on math and science we understood and experimented with.

The Crucible was a device we were unaware of until the 11th hour; we weren't aware of its functionality until the 12th hour. The point OP is trying to make is what is the point of ME1 and ME2 if we can't beat the Reapers conventionally? We spent all this effort and energy trying to get the council to prepare, get Earth prepare, fighting the Collectors in ME2 ... all for what? If we can't beat the Reapers, then we're just spinning our wheels hoping that we stumble upon this ancient super weapon, and ME1 and ME2 are pointless endeavors

ME 2 yes, ME 1, not so much, as this is where we learn about the threat.  To me, ME 2 should have been more about getting allies/resources together for the end game of ME 3.  If that time had been spent researching what we know of the Reapers from Sovereign's corpse(if that's the right word), and preparing according to what we observed during the actual fight, instead of being Cerberus' lap dog, we might have been better prepared when they hit.  Instead, we waste 2 years being dead, or effectively dead, and a few months chasing our tails to stop the Collectors, who, at the end of it all, might have finished 1 Human Reaper.  During that time, the rest of the galaxy is too busy denying the possibility of the threat to actually prepare for it.

By the time we garner any useful information from ME 2, after the Suicide Mission, we are then handed the plot device of "relieved of duty so that we are conveniently on Earth when the Reapers hit", with nothing being done about it in the interim, and then it's dumped on our plate.  Fix it Shepard, you're the only one who can, and btw, sorry about putting you in effective jail, and relieving you of your command for 6 months so that we could tear up and rebuild your ship, instead of taking the time to try to prepare for what the intel from the Alpha Relay, assuming Arrival is played, and actually, it happens whether Shepard does it or not, so they just refuse to act on it.  That's pretty messed up, and yet it's expected that these same people are ready to lead a successful conventional attack?  How?

[ZerebusPrime]

The real disappointments for me were the lack of more visible anti-sovereign upgrades in the Citadel fleet, the lack of any Council ordered undertaking to assume full control over the Citadel's inner workings after the stunt Saren pulled at the end of ME1, the lack of a promised Rachni cavalry fleet, the inability or unwillingness of Cerberus to stick to the plan of stopping the Reapers at any cost, the lack of an underhanded payoff for saving the Collector Base, and the utter powerlessness we seem to have to at least threaten the Reapers with heavy losses.

[Kungfu Nando]

Mr.House wrote...

Miracle of Palavan and Rannoch. Sure it was not the entire Reaper force, but if the united fleet used those tactics and where not idiots during the battle of Sol a conventional victory, while costly is indeed possible. Also the Reapers have one massive flaw. They can't replenish their numbers, only their foot soldiers. If you keep destroying so many dreadnaughts it will hurt the reapers in the long run because it takes to long to make Reapers. Also if you have the geth and rachni alive, they can build ships between clusters, and if you cured the genophage you will have unlimited krogan krogan troops at your hand(see krogan rebellions of why it ended with a bio weapon)

Not to mention if ME2 was not a waste of time and we in fact got people ready for the invasion, got all ships with thanix canons, made sure we had alot of dreadnaughts ready and the council where not complete utter morons then it would have been possible. ME2 hurt the main story arc ALOT because of it doing nothing.

Actually ME3 makes 2 hurt the main plot (except arrival or arguable lotsb). Not because it was a bad game, its because the writers changed the main arc between the first, second and third game. As many people know the original arc wasn't so much  all out war as it was why are the reapers doing what they're doing, with the answer being some dark matter problem. I imagine if all out war was the main plot throughout 2 would have been more about convincing people, making allaiances researching new tech/weakness  while being hunted by the collectors who are trying to sabotage everything (which would still have had shep dying), rather than stopping them from making a human reaper super computer to solve a dropped plot point.

[Memnon]

robertthebard wrote...

ME 2 yes, ME 1, not so much, as this is where we learn about the threat.  To me, ME 2 should have been more about getting allies/resources together for the end game of ME 3.  If that time had been spent researching what we know of the Reapers from Sovereign's corpse(if that's the right word), and preparing according to what we observed during the actual fight, instead of being Cerberus' lap dog, we might have been better prepared when they hit.  Instead, we waste 2 years being dead, or effectively dead, and a few months chasing our tails to stop the Collectors, who, at the end of it all, might have finished 1 Human Reaper.  During that time, the rest of the galaxy is too busy denying the possibility of the threat to actually prepare for it.

Agreed - and I actually said as much ... er, in some thread somewhere. ME1 can be forgiven because it was the introduction and revelation, and - in a metagame sense - Bioware didn't have any sequels planned. But you are absolutely right, in that during the development of ME2, Bioware should have been thinking about how the Reapers were going to be defeated (they admitted they didn't think of that till ME3 development started). In fact, that should have been ME2's primary focus - even if (in my idea somewhere) at the end of ME2 we find the blueprints for the Cruicble, which let's say was a weapon the Reapers were going to use against us and we instead decide to reengineer it to use against them. That would have been great - or at least better then starbrat at the last minute

[robertthebard]

Stornskar wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

ME 2 yes, ME 1, not so much, as this is where we learn about the threat.  To me, ME 2 should have been more about getting allies/resources together for the end game of ME 3.  If that time had been spent researching what we know of the Reapers from Sovereign's corpse(if that's the right word), and preparing according to what we observed during the actual fight, instead of being Cerberus' lap dog, we might have been better prepared when they hit.  Instead, we waste 2 years being dead, or effectively dead, and a few months chasing our tails to stop the Collectors, who, at the end of it all, might have finished 1 Human Reaper.  During that time, the rest of the galaxy is too busy denying the possibility of the threat to actually prepare for it.

Agreed - and I actually said as much ... er, in some thread somewhere. ME1 can be forgiven because it was the introduction and revelation, and - in a metagame sense - Bioware didn't have any sequels planned. But you are absolutely right, in that during the development of ME2, Bioware should have been thinking about how the Reapers were going to be defeated (they admitted they didn't think of that till ME3 development started). In fact, that should have been ME2's primary focus - even if (in my idea somewhere) at the end of ME2 we find the blueprints for the Cruicble, which let's say was a weapon the Reapers were going to use against us and we instead decide to reengineer it to use against them. That would have been great - or at least better then starbrat at the last minute

See, my vision of the Crucible, when we first learn of it, was a device that could, system by system, transmit a Reaper Killer Virus.  Finding out later that the Catalyst, which we also learn about early was the Citadel, knowing that the Citadel is the control focal point for all the relays, meant that it wouldn't have to be done system by system, but could instead be done all at once.  Yes, it's still an "I win" button, however, it's one with countless cycles of development behind it, that was only finally fully realized too late by the Protheans.  I have no issues whatsoever with all the data concerning it not being in one place:  Don't put all your eggs in one basket.  I just feel that it was poorly handled, and don't feel the need to rehash that over and over.

We could have still spent most of ME 3 doing what we were doing, however.  Despite whether the Crucible, as laid out above, would disable/destroy the actual Reaper ships, ground forces would still have to be dealt with, which makes the CGI showing all the Makos and Hammerheads make sense, cleaning up the leftovers, and this would make Conventional Victory a lot easier to swallow, as opposed to getting half a fleet ripped to shreds by one, and expecting to fare better against thousands of them.

[Seival]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

ME Trilogy doesn't borrow anything from Deus Ex title, but indeed uses Deus Ex Machina concept for the ending. And this is one of the features that makes the ME Trilogy really good...

...Crucible is the Testing Ground.
...Catalist is the Gate Keeper.
...You have to pass the test in order to convince the Gate Keeper to allow you to pass on.

And if you can't pass the test, you choose Refusal... It's as simple as that.

[TK514]

CronoDragoon wrote...

I would actually argue the opposite, that if conventional victory was possible this invalidates the first two games even more. ME1 and Arrival are both centered around delaying the Reaper arrival until a means to fight them can be found. Without Arrival Liara never has time to check the Mars archives and find the Crucible.

If conventional victory is possible, then it was possible back in ME1, as well.

Not necessarily.

In ME 1, we're sold the idea that the Reapers are powerful, but that their real advantage comes from surprise and control of the Relay Network.  They win because they keep the races of the galaxy blind and isolated, preventing them from uniting against the threat.  This theme is continued all the way into ME3 during conversations with Javik.

In ME 1 we're also sold the idea that while the Reapers are advanced, technologically, that advantage is not insurmountable.  This is further continued in ME 2 with the new Normandy and all the ship upgrades.  Now we've not only shut down the surprise blitzkreig advantage, but closed the technology gap to the point that we can compete with a Reaper client race on even or superior ground.  We also get little tidbits of additional information on how the Reapers work, and the suggestion that the current Council races have at least enough information about how the Relays work to make building new ones more than just a pipe dream.

So while we weren't ready to beat them in ME 1, nothing in ME1 or 2 leads to the inevitable conclusion that we need to find a superweapon or off-switch to beat them.  All ME1 and 2 suggest is that we need to be aware of the threat, united against it, and potentially use the Reaper's technology and strategies against them.

Honestly, all the way through Arrival, and part of the way into ME 3, "Unite the Galaxy into a cohesive fighting force and drive the Reapers back" was still on the table as a viable option.  It's not until ME3 that the message really becomes confused and inconsistent.

Up until Priority: Thessia, the only thing we know with absolute certainty about the Crucible is that it will not work.  We know, from the first time Liara describes the Crucible in the meeting with Hackett, that it requires the Catalyst, and that we don't have any idea what or where the Catalyst is.  (As an aside, this is where my suspension of disbelief started to fray.  There's absolutely no way the Alliance would invest the resources and manpower necessary to build the Crucible if they knew the key component to making it work might not even exist.)

So for the first 2/3rds of ME 3, the story has us uniting the Galaxy to take part in a shooting war against the Reapers.  We don't go to Palaven and say "give us your best scientists and engineers, and all the resources you can spare, to build the Crucible".  You go and demand military aid in taking back Earth.  It's the entire reason for getting the Krogan to help, and ultimately, the entire reason for having the multi-species summit on the Normandy until the Asari bow out.  The Crucible is presented as a side project, an unreliable and unknown last resort side project.  It's where you send all the stuff and people you find who wouldn't be useful in the main project of fighting a war.

And that's, to me, why 'conventional victory' seems feasable.  Shepards actions, particularly in the first half to two thirds of ME 3 only make sense if you're preparing for a shooting war.  Because if the Crucible is the key from the beginning, then the Turians and the Krogan are pretty much the last people you need to go talk to.  If everyone is really hanging their hopes on this unknown engineering project, then you'd think the first stops would be to recruit the finest scientists and engineers in the Galaxy to build it.  You'd be calling up the Salarians and the Quarians/Geth first, and getting them started on the project because the closer you are to figuring out/finishing your superweapon, the easier it would be to convince your military escort to join up.

What's the easier sell?:

"We need you to abandon your planet and send your military to save Earth" or

"We have a superweapon that will destroy the Reapers everywhere with one shot, and we need you to send  your military to help deploy it"

Even Hackett is inconsistent in his message.  'We can't win with ships and troops, so get me as many ships and troops as you can.  And I guess if you can't get me troops and ships, at least see if you can get me some builders.'  I'm not sure he could be more contradictory if he tried.

But I digress.

The reason conventional victory was not possible in ME 1 is because we had just learned about the threat and had had no time to prepare.  We had, however, neutralized their primary invasion strategy.  By the time ME 2 ends, we've gained further intel about the foe and had a successful battlefield test of new technologies against a Reaper agent race that was, until that point, considered technologically superior.  At the start of ME 3, conventional victory is pretty much the only thing we've been shown to work towards, so I don't see how continuing the theme of preparation and unification towards said conventional victory somehow invalidates the games that gave us the theme to begin with.

[Kamfrenchie]

robertthebard wrote...

Isn't it convenient that, after being caught with his hand in the cookie jar, it's a rogue cell?  Was it also rogue cells in ME 1?  This question is kind of a trap, because if TIM has that little control over what his organization is doing, I really don't want him having control of the Collector Base, and, quite frankly, I made my initial decision to destroy the Reaper base, my default choice btw, based entirely on events in ME 1 and 2.  No metagaming necessary, or possible, since I hadn't played ME 3 yet.  Turning that base over to Cerberus does not equal helping the war effort, at that point in the game, and gives what, 10 points to ME 3?  It's not worth sacrificing my principles, or going against my own feelings about Cerberus, to that point in the games, which is why I made that decision in my first playthrough, with no prior knowledge to consequences in ME 3.

Since a non-import game of ME 3 indicates that you did save the Collector base, where's all that intel to make fighting them easier?  It seems that your logic is faulty, in that Cerberus keeps that information for themselves, as I suspected they would, and turns it to more "sinister" ends.  Pretty much following up on the "rogue cell's" actions with Jack that are laid out in ME 2.  Isn't that funny?

I don't think there is any direct evidence linking TIM to what happened to Jack, if I remember right there are even logs that confir his versions, with scientists saying they don't need TIM's approval, o that they could take TIM's pace, I don't remember clearly

Err, you are metagaming since you talk about the points,and how ME3 happen (well here you see in the future). From Shepard's perspective, if he destroy thebase, he misses a huge oportunity to help beat the reaper, and at that moment, it is reasonnable to believe keping the base would help a lot

Besides, this choice don't matter at all in ME3, like many others.

But even taking in account how power hungry TIM could be, the reapers are the biggest threat. And shep an't fford o be picky when the official powers poltely gave him the finger.

In WW2, the US "recruited" and fogave naazis (intentional mispelling) scientists for th nuclear bomb, because they knew the USSR would become too powerful.

BUt hey, lemme make a dangerous metaphor. If I must face a galactic threat, that I have very low chances and the only person that can give me a good chance of defeating it happens to be a ****i, I'll take his help, even if in the end he gets some profit out of it. I can always try and deal with him later, while if i fail, the galaxy is gone.
That doesn't mean I'll be happy about it, but you know, to some extend, the end jutifie the means. f no one else want to help me, what's my choice ?

The biggest threat comes first. Especially when you get such an opportunity.

Modifié par Kamfrenchie, 19 juillet 2012 - 06:07 .

[Kamfrenchie]

robertthebard wrote...

More or less, and it's a familiar theme.  In the 11th hour we find out that Saren's after the Conduit...  Oh wait, the conventional logic is that being introduced at the beginning of the game means that it's not, by definition, the 11th hour, right?  So the fact that the first off Earth mission time we actually have control of our character for more than 2 minutes on Mars, finding out that, as we can learn from a PDA, a new dig site has uncovered a new "beacon", with new information does qualify as 11th hour.

Yes, the contradictory nature of the Conduit/Crucible comparison is indeed quite paradoxical.  After all, in ME 1, we know that Saren is looking for the Conduit.  I have read that it is quite well explained to us, and that we know we have to find it before Saren does, although, truth be told, we don't know what it is until Vigil tells us, just before we use to solve the insurmountable problem of getting off Ilos to get into the closed arms of the Citadel to open them so the fleet can engage Sovereign.  Yet this is considered to not be a DeM.  However, finding the Crucible plans, even though we have no idea what it really is, or how it works is a DeM.  Can you see the contradiction there?  Can you step back from the apparent hatred of ME 3's ending, and handling of the Crucible long enough to see that we are getting these two plot devices in the exact same way, or am I wasting my time trying to again point out the obvious?  After all, until Ilos, it was assumed that the Conduit was a weapon, that's how much we knew about it prior to Vigil.

Robert, we already dicussed that before.

The conduit is a mac guffin, and it helps Saren in the first place. No conduit means sovreign and saren are done for. It's a sort of mass relay, it is consistent with the lore. aren use it, we use it too, that ain't nearly the same thing.

No conduit means gme over for Saren, so here is for that.

[Kamfrenchie]

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

ME Trilogy doesn't borrow anything from Deus Ex title, but indeed uses Deus Ex Machina concept for the ending. And this is one of the features that makes the ME Trilogy really good...

...Crucible is the Testing Ground.
...Catalist is the Gate Keeper.
...You have to pass the test in order to convince the Gate Keeper to allow you to pass on.

And if you can't pass the test, you choose Refusal... It's as simple as that.

Deus ex machinas are bad writing

[CronoDragoon]

TK514 wrote...

This is further continued in ME 2 with the new Normandy and all the ship upgrades. 

As you later state, this only accomplished getting us on par with a Reaper slave race. There's nothing to suggest that the Normandy could defeat Harbinger. That would be like saying Gondor could defeat Sauron conventionally just because Eowyn took out the Witch King at Pelennor.

As for ME1, I haven't played it in months, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that conventional victory was possible, or that now that the Reapers could not use the Citadel to invade they now stood a chance. Throughout ME1 and ME2, it was always a matter of buying time.

The only thing I will agree on is that Javik seems to think that the diversity of the current cycle and their ability to work together "may be their only chance" against the Reapers, which is a nice sentiment but not one shared by anyone else. The rest of the galaxy thinks the Crucible is the only chance.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 19 juillet 2012 - 06:30 .

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

ME Trilogy doesn't borrow anything from Deus Ex title, but indeed uses Deus Ex Machina concept for the ending. And this is one of the features that makes the ME Trilogy really good...

...Crucible is the Testing Ground.
...Catalist is the Gate Keeper.
...You have to pass the test in order to convince the Gate Keeper to allow you to pass on.

And if you can't pass the test, you choose Refusal... It's as simple as that.

It does borrow from Deus Ex which is fair obvious once you play it
Deus Ex endings:
Ending1: control[society]
Endind2:protagonist fuses with Master AI.
Ending3: destroy all tech
Deus Ex Maguffinas a what you use when you can't be creative.
No it really isn't good, it's out of place and poorly concieved, and until recently very poorly executed.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 19 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[TK514]

robertthebard wrote...

More or less, and it's a familiar theme.  In the 11th hour we find out that Saren's after the Conduit...  Oh wait, the conventional logic is that being introduced at the beginning of the game means that it's not, by definition, the 11th hour, right?  So the fact that the first off Earth mission time we actually have control of our character for more than 2 minutes on Mars, finding out that, as we can learn from a PDA, a new dig site has uncovered a new "beacon", with new information does qualify as 11th hour.

Yes, the contradictory nature of the Conduit/Crucible comparison is indeed quite paradoxical.  After all, in ME 1, we know that Saren is looking for the Conduit.  I have read that it is quite well explained to us, and that we know we have to find it before Saren does, although, truth be told, we don't know what it is until Vigil tells us, just before we use to solve the insurmountable problem of getting off Ilos to get into the closed arms of the Citadel to open them so the fleet can engage Sovereign.  Yet this is considered to not be a DeM.  However, finding the Crucible plans, even though we have no idea what it really is, or how it works is a DeM.  Can you see the contradiction there?  Can you step back from the apparent hatred of ME 3's ending, and handling of the Crucible long enough to see that we are getting these two plot devices in the exact same way, or am I wasting my time trying to again point out the obvious?  After all, until Ilos, it was assumed that the Conduit was a weapon, that's how much we knew about it prior to Vigil.

There's some significant differences between the Conduit and the Crucible that you gloss over or missstate completely.

Namely, at no point in ME 1 are we trying to find the Conduit because we want to use it.  The entire point to finding the Conduit in ME 1 is to prevent Saren from using it.  We don't need to know what it does, we just need to know Saren wants it, and we need to stop him.

It's also not a DeM.  It is a plot device, certainly, but not a DeM because it doesn't appear at the end of the story and solve the problem.  In fact, given that most of ME 1 is about preventing Saren from finding and using it, the Conduit is part of the problem, and one we ultimate fail to prevent coming to pass. 

At that point, Saren uses it to get his Geth army onto the Citadel, and we simply follow him.  It's no different than if he had flown to the Citadel in a big cargo ship through a normal mass relay and we followed him.  It should be noted that you are misremembering why he, and we, used it.  He knew what it did the entire time, and used it specifically to get Geth onto the Citadel in large numbers.  We just used it because it was the most expedient way to follow him.  At that point, the Citadel arms weren't a problem that needed solving, because he hadn't closed them yet and we didn't know he was even going to be able to.

The Crucible, however, really isn't introduced until the end of the story, and even then it's treated as a side project for most of the time we know about it.  The Conduit is introduced near the beginning of Chapter 1 of 3, and is part of the driving motivation for that chapter.  The Crucible isn't introduced until Chapter 3 of 3, and has no hope of even being functional until about 2/3rds of the way through that chapter.  And unlike Saren, who knew what the Conduit did the entire time, we have no idea what the Crucible even does until, literally, the very end of the game.  Let's assume each game took someone 20 hours to finish.  That means no one, not the players nor anyone in the story including the Catalyst, know what the Crucible actually does until the last 10 minutes of a 60 hour story.  At best you could say TIM had a guess, and the Catalyst, whose true nature was revealed along with the fuction of the Crucible, only had partial knowledge before it docked.

That's why the Crucible is considered a DeM while the Conduit is just a plot device.

As as aside, I will agree that the only reason the Conduit exists is because otherwise ME ends before the opening credits of ME 1.  Saren was still the Council's top Spectre at the beginning of the story.  There's no reason he couldn't have called the Council and said he found a Prothean dreadnought in Interstellar space and was bringing it to the Citadel for study, loaded Sovereign up with Geth, and just docked with the tower when he got there.  Geth secure the Tower, Saren closes the arms, Sovereign mops up whatever warships are trapped inside the Citadel with him and opens the relay to Dark Space.  Story over.

[Seival]

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

ME Trilogy doesn't borrow anything from Deus Ex title, but indeed uses Deus Ex Machina concept for the ending. And this is one of the features that makes the ME Trilogy really good...

...Crucible is the Testing Ground.
...Catalist is the Gate Keeper.
...You have to pass the test in order to convince the Gate Keeper to allow you to pass on.

And if you can't pass the test, you choose Refusal... It's as simple as that.

It does borrow from Deus Ex which is fair obvious once you play it
Deus Ex endings:
Ending1: control[society]
Endind2:protagonist fuses with Master AI.
Ending3: destroy all tech
Deus Ex Maguffinas a what you use when you can't be creative.
No it really isn't good, it's out of place and poorly concieved, and until recently very poorly executed.

Do you know how many similar sci-fi concepts already exist? It doesn't mean they all borrow concepts from each other. They just rise the same phylosophical questions...

...ME Trilogy borrows nothing from Deus Ex title. And even original ME3 endings were great. They were just too difficult to understand. That's why BioWare decided to explain them in more details.



Anyhow, ME Trilogy ending was already set in stone twice. You are just wasting your time asking to change it. You realy should try to calm down and deal with it already.

Modifié par Seival, 19 juillet 2012 - 07:11 .

[Blueprotoss]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Deus ex machinas are bad writing

If thats true then Deus Ex Machinas would rarely happen.

Greylycantrope wrote...

It does borrow from Deus Ex which is fair obvious once you play it 
Deus Ex endings:
Ending1: control[society]
Endind2:protagonist fuses with Master AI.
Ending3: destroy all tech
Deus Ex Maguffinas a what you use when you can't be creative.
No it really isn't good, it's out of place and poorly concieved, and until recently very poorly executed.

Yet Deus Ex didn't come up with these concepts in the 1st place. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 19 juillet 2012 - 07:16 .

[TK514]

CronoDragoon wrote...

As you later state, this only accomplished getting us on par with a Reaper slave race. There's nothing to suggest that the Normandy could defeat Harbinger. That would be like saying Gondor could defeat Sauron conventionally just because Eowyn took out the Witch King at Pelennor.

By the same token, there's nothing to suggest that similarly upgraded warships wouldn't be able to defeat Harbinger.  There's nothing but what's in the cutscene and codex, which is why it's possible either way.

CronoDragoon wrote...
As for ME1, I haven't played it in months, but I don't recall anyone suggesting that conventional victory was possible, or that now that the Reapers could not use the Citadel to invade they now stood a chance. Throughout ME1 and ME2, it was always a matter of buying time.

The very last line of ME 1, regardless of who you choose for the Council, is that united, the Council races can defeat the Reapers and drive them back into Dark Space.  Given that everything in ME 1 is 'conventional warfare', up to and including the defeat of Sovereign, I'm not sure how you could interpret those words any other way.

CronoDragoon wrote...

The only thing I will agree on is that Javik seems to think that the diversity of the current cycle and their ability to work together "may be their only chance" against the Reapers, which is a nice sentiment but not one shared by anyone else. The rest of the galaxy thinks the Crucible is the only chance.

Untrue.  If that were the case, the Council would have stepped up to help with construction immediately.  Unlike Hackett, from the beginning the Council, and every individual race, view the Crucible as a theoretical device that has never worked before, can't be completed, and no one knows how to turn on.  It's right there in the first request Shepard makes to the Council.

"Earth needs help!"
"Why should we abandon our worlds and people to save Earth?"
"Because reasons!  and Prothean superweapon!"
"Does is work?"
"No."
"Well, thanks for the briefing.  Sorry to hear about Earth, but your race/planet is not more important than ours.  Good luck!"

In most cases, the Crucible resources are a side benefit to bringing a military force on board.  Not counting Mars, the only Crucible resources specific missions I can think of right off the top of my head before Priority: Thessia are planet scan missions or ME 2 character missions.  The majority of ME 3 is still about building military forces.  Which is pretty useless if you don't believe a conventional victory can be won.  You'd be better off cramming as many people as can be safely put on each ship and sending them off in random directions to random planets in the hopes that one or more of them can hide and survive the current Cycle.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

It does borrow from Deus Ex which is fair obvious once you play it
Deus Ex endings:
Ending1: control[society]
Endind2:protagonist fuses with Master AI.
Ending3: destroy all tech
Deus Ex Maguffinas a what you use when you can't be creative.
No it really isn't good, it's out of place and poorly concieved, and until recently very poorly executed.

Do you know how many similar sci-fi concepts already exist? It doesn't mean they all borrow concepts from each other. They just rise the same phylosophical questions...

...ME Trilogy borrows nothing from Deus Ex title. And even original ME3 endings were great. They were just too difficult to understand. That's why BioWare decided to explain them in more details.



Anyhow, ME Trilogy ending was already set in stone twice. You are just wasting your time asking to change it. You realy should try to calm down and deal with it already.

Three things:
1.Being inspired by a concept while adding you own thoughts and ideas to it is one thing, blatantly using essentially the same concept and resolution as someone else is plagiarism.
2.They're not difficult to understand, they're very simple, and to me intellectually insulting.
3. I have no hope the ending will be changed at this point but I will voice my discontent for as long as I care to in the hopes that they learn from this, or until I feel better/lose interest completely which ever comes first.

[Memnon]

There is a huge difference between 'being inspired by' and 'borrowing from.' To say ME3 endings were not borrowed from Deus Ex means you're either unfamiliar with the Deus Ex endings, or you have a very liberal interpretation of the term 'borrowed'

[AresKeith]

they "borrowed" the Deus Ex endings, they "borrowed the Terminator logic for the Starbrat

[dreman9999]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...

Conventional victory could only reduce artistic value of the game to some "Independence Day" movie level. Personally, I got tired of all those standard modern stories.

BioWare did the great job. ME Trilogy ending concept and ME Trilogy general concept are perfect.

Yes the artistic value of borrowing heavily from Deus Ex. Please pass whatever you're smoking I could use a laugh.

ME Trilogy doesn't borrow anything from Deus Ex title, but indeed uses Deus Ex Machina concept for the ending. And this is one of the features that makes the ME Trilogy really good...

...Crucible is the Testing Ground.
...Catalist is the Gate Keeper.
...You have to pass the test in order to convince the Gate Keeper to allow you to pass on.

And if you can't pass the test, you choose Refusal... It's as simple as that.

Deus ex machinas are bad writing

Their not deus ex's.

[Kamfrenchie]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

Deus ex machinas are bad writing

If thats true then Deus Ex Machinas would rarely happen.

Greylycantrope wrote...

It does borrow from Deus Ex which is fair obvious once you play it 
Deus Ex endings:
Ending1: control[society]
Endind2:protagonist fuses with Master AI.
Ending3: destroy all tech
Deus Ex Maguffinas a what you use when you can't be creative.
No it really isn't good, it's out of place and poorly concieved, and until recently very poorly executed.

Yet Deus Ex didn't come up with these concepts in the 1st place. 

deus ex machinas are bad writing, it's the very definition of it.

Oh, wait, you're blue protoss, you're ging to employ a ton of yet, tell me it's opinion, and whtnot.

That DEM "happen" often or no does not mke it any more valid. DEM are typical sign of a writer writin himself int a corner