712 réponses à ce sujet

[Geneaux486]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

All the burning homeworlds that were defended by fully functioning militaries gave a little extra clue to.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

There's a literative difference between an established, well written story element, and some hack writer inserting something into a series he never worked on before.

[Father_Jerusalem]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

There's a literative difference between an established, well written story element, and some hack writer inserting something into a series he never worked on before.

So, which "hack writer" are you claiming never worked on the series before?

Just out of curiosity.

[Geneaux486]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

There's a literative difference between an established, well written story element, and some hack writer inserting something into a series he never worked on before.

The Reapers being unbeatable by conventional methods when they arrive in force is the former, not the latter.

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Reapers being unbeatable by conventional methods when they arrive in force is the former, not the latter.

That depends on wether conventional victory simply entails not using the crucible, or just straight up conventional warfare.  If it's the latter, yeah I can see how that would be, but the former, no, it's just not.

There were several elements introduced that could have allowed it, and several canon lore things introduced in ME3 that certainly would indicate it was possible to win without the crucible.  Cerberus could have reconstructed the Klendagon cannon, the Turian Bomb could have been used, Thanix cannons, etc.  There are several things that could have been done instead of the crucible, granted, they may not have qualified as "conventional", but definitely didn't require the crucible.

Either way though, saying that it was said by a couple of characters was a poor way for the guy to back up his argument.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 22 juillet 2012 - 07:26 .

[Geneaux486]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Reapers being unbeatable by conventional methods when they arrive in force is the former, not the latter.

That depends on wether conventional victory simply entails not using the crucible, or just straight up conventional warfare.  If it's the latter, yeah I can see how that would be, but the former, no, it's just not.

There were several elements introduced that could have allowed it, and several canon lore things introduced in ME3 that certainly would indicate it was possible to win without the crucible.  Cerberus could have reconstructed the Klendagon cannon, the Turian Bomb could have been used, Thanix cannons, etc.  There are several things that could have been done instead of the crucible, granted, they may not have qualified as "conventional", but definitely didn't require the crucible.

Either way though, saying that it was said by a couple of characters was a poor way for the guy to back up his argument.

The story was written with the Crucible being the best chance for victory, so that's what it was, and that story direction contradicts nothing previously established, so it's not a plothole.  In short, the Crucible is neither poorly written nor out of place in the Mass Effect story, because it fills a spot that was previously unfilled (that spot being the means to defeating the Reapers in force) and was introduced by having the designs for the thing being discovered in a part of the galaxy the Reapers wouldn't have visited in the last cycle by a character who has a previously established talent for finding things nobody else can.

Modifié par Geneaux486, 22 juillet 2012 - 07:32 .

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Geneaux486 wrote...

The story was written with the Crucible being the best chance for victory, so that's what it was, and that story direction contradicts nothing previously established, so it's not a plothole.  In short, the Crucible is neither poorly written nor out of place in the Mass Effect story, because it fills a spot that was previously unfilled (that spot being the means to defeating the Reapers in force) and was introduced by having the designs for the thing being discovered in a part of the galaxy the Reapers wouldn't have visited in the last cycle by a character who has a previously established talent for finding things nobody else can.

Not exactly, the crucible was pushed on us, yes, but there were hints throughout ME1 and ME2 that the reapers, while tough, were not infallible.  This hinted that, if the allied forces could gain some sort of edge, the reapers could be destroyed.  It also ties in well with the tactics the reapers rely on.  If they were all but completely infallible, they'd have no need to employ some of the dirtiest tactics the galaxy had ever seen.  They could just start killing people and release sterility plagues to ensure they can't reproduce their way out it.

The point is, two guys who think that video games should not be like video games shoehorned it in, it was never about finding the reaper off swtich until a couple of hacks decided it was.  If the Klendagon cannon was forshadowing the crucible, then it foreshadowed it as a super weapon that could destroy reapers, not a giant peice of malware aimed at the reaper hive mind.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 22 juillet 2012 - 07:50 .

[ddraigcoch123]

you know if the fans and supporters of ME, like the guys on these boards, hadn't kicked off about the endings the refuse ending wouldnt have been added... i'm assuming that was an 'afterthought' or surely it would have been an option in the original ending....

the options at the end probably do offer end points for the themes of the game... and if you feel that Shepard can be trusted to become galaxy god (absolute power corrupts absolutely not withstanding), or that Shepard feels the only way the galaxy can find its own way is to overwrite everyones DNA then thats a good option... the destroy ending does mean that we get to achieve our goal, destroying the reapers, but at a huge cost...

now i'm not sure there would be so much ongong disontent if only BW had given a tiny inch to the story/LI/friends motivated players and just given an alive Shepard a proper 'send off'... our opportunity to say a final goodbye to 'our' Shepard...

the option was in the game... for Shepard to survive... so why leave it on a cliffhanger... now if we are getting more Shepard DLC for after the end of ME3 helping to clean up the galaxy from the remaining reaper organics/cerberous/mercenary forces... well then the cliffhanger works for me...

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:26 .

[Geneaux486]

but there were hints throughout ME1 and ME2 that the reapers, while tough, were not infallible.

When fought one at a time, yes, but thousands of equally powerful beings attacking all at once meant the strategies that made killing a capital ship feasible (sustained focus fire) would no longer be possible. The hints given throughout the first two games were that while a single Reaper was beatable (with difficulty), the entirety of the Reaper fleet would almost be hopeless. That, and nobody believed they were a threat until after they were attacking the galaxy. Had the galaxy prepared in advance, maybe conventional warfare might have fared better, but as it was the Reapers caught everyone with their pants down.

[AresKeith]

Geneaux486 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...
I don't know if your trolling or just stubborn

Neither, I'm right.

You say Shepard wasn't preserved.  This is untrue according to the game itself, his mind was preserved.

You say Leviathan invalidates the Control option.  This is based on nothing as you don't know any more about the Leviathan DLC than any of us, nor is there any reason to jump to the conclusion that Leviathan's existence has any bearing whatsoever on the effectiveness of a superweapon that had not yet been used.

since when is your mind your whole being, and I'm pretty sure if a Reaper went Rogue before it can happen again not matter what claims to be in control.

now I'm done

[Geneaux486]

AresKeith wrote...
since when is your mind your whole being,

You're joking, right? 

and I'm pretty sure if a Reaper went Rogue before it can happen again not matter what claims to be in control.

How can you be pretty sure when you have no information to go on aside from hidden files and speculation?

now I'm done

You've been done for a long time.

[3DandBeyond]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

There's a literative difference between an established, well written story element, and some hack writer inserting something into a series he never worked on before.

You also go on a suicide mission in ME2, so the point of 3 games is to say you can overcome the impossible.  The fact that the writers decided to change all of this and actually adhere to the meaning of the word ruins the narrative.

So, things were not possible before, but then were.  And only now does impossible ever mean totally and irrevocably not possible.

Some writing here are being totally obtuse in their stubbornness.  Yes, we live in reality and know as it is written that it's not possible without a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina.  And that is exactly why what is written is poorly written.  So, someone says it would have been better to show at least someone trying to do xyz and the standard answer is, "you can't, it's impossible."  Someone else says that you could have shown them trying this and you get the "it's impossible" stuff again.  And when you give clear examples of things that are even in the game that might have a chance if the writers had not chosen fantasy instead, these same people say that makes no sense?  Oh right, actually using weapons and creative ideas that fall within the realm of believability and that could have had a chance, if the writers had changed one word is unbelievable, but fantasty just somehow works.

Had the writers decided to actually write a story that did not rely on a MacGuffin and a Deus ex fantasy child and his fairy tales, all they had to do was stick to the real meaning of the word "impossible" as they defined it in every other place in the game-it always meant "highly improbable" or "very difficult" or "achievable through perseverance and innovation".  But now it means never ever ever ever possible unless God drops down from the sky and intervenes directly with some help from the Devil himself-a big battery, a self-deluded god AI, and a super magic citadel is what passes for reality as opposed to using conventional methods unconventionally.  Why try to get the Krogan to help the Turians, that's impossible.  The quarians will never accept the geth, impossible. 

I say that the crucible could have been what it was intended to be-a dark energy device that could lower or lessen the reapers' shields and make them vulnerable and I'm told that it might not have enough range and so it doesn't make sense.  Oh, but it makes complete sense to join the crucible with the citadel and have it become the swiss army knife MacGuffin and be able to internally change all people because they want to secretly be more like the catalyst?

This is what this thread proves.

The word impossible only means not possible when you need it to mean that so you can bring in a MacGuffin and Deus ex Machina.
Conventional and unconventional uses of tools at hand and the use of innovative ideas and strategies and tactics and having the crucible be a rational device with known effects is considered too unbelievable and fantastic.  Realism is fantasy.
True fantasy is seen by many as far more believable than people actually trying at all to fight the reapers.  We only see one person ever fight reapers in ME3.  There is never any other attempt to pick up Cains and shoot them at Harby or any other reaper.  There's no fight against reapers.

So, fighting husks and brutes and marauders is not taking Earth back.  It's dealing with some horde minions.  And fulfilling the catalyst's flawed goal is not taking Earth back, either.  Indeed the whole idea that this became about Earth or rather London also ignores the fact it was always about saving the galaxy.  But achieving your enemy's goal using what could be his tools to do it, does not mean a win.  You compromise your values in choosing any of them and by compromising those values, life becomes meaningless.  You choose genocide, molestation, or godhood.  And in rejecting them you give up and don't even try.

But wow are green eyes cool, and Shreaper sounds awesome, and that torso looks good on you Shep.  These endings are exactly what I hoped for while playing ME1.  Always wanted a non-fight, surrender, and capitulation.  But is it ever real and believable. 

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 22 juillet 2012 - 05:15 .

[ddraigcoch123]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Taboo-XX wrote...

You uh, are told twice before you go to the Citadel for the first time that you can't beat the Reapers conventionally.

I would think that this would sink in eventually...

There's a literative difference between an established, well written story element, and some hack writer inserting something into a series he never worked on before.

You also go on a suicide mission in ME2, so the point of 3 games is to say you can overcome the impossible.  The fact that the writers decided to change all of this and actually adhere to the meaning of the word ruins the narrative.

So, things were not possible before, but then were.  And only now does impossible ever mean totally and irrevocably not possible.

Some writing here are being totally obtuse in their stubbornness.  Yes, we live in reality and know as it is written that it's not possible without a MacGuffin and a Deus ex Machina.  And that is exactly why what is written is poorly written.  So, someone says it would have been better to show at least someone trying to do xyz and the standard answer is, "you can't, it's impossible."  Someone else says that you could have shown them trying this and you get the "it's impossible" stuff again.  And when you give clear examples of things that are even in the game that might have a chance if the writers had not chosen fantasy instead, these same people say that makes no sense?  Oh right, actually using weapons and creative ideas that fall within the realm of believability and that could have had a chance, if the writers had changed one word is unbelievable, but fantasty just somehow works.

Had the writers decided to actually write a story that did not rely on a MacGuffin and a Deus ex fantasy child and his fairy tales, all they had to do was stick to the real meaning of the word "impossible" as they defined it in every other place in the game-it always meant "highly improbable" or "very difficult" or "achievable through perseverance and innovation".  But now it means never ever ever ever possible unless God drops down from the sky and intervenes directly with some help from the Devil himself-a big battery, a self-deluded god AI, and a super magic citadel is what passes for reality as opposed to using conventional methods unconventionally.  Why try to get the Krogan to help the Turians, that's impossible.  The quarians will never accept the geth, impossible. 

I say that the crucible could have been what it was intended to be-a dark energy device that could lower or lessen the reapers' shields and make them vulnerable and I'm told that it might not have enough range and so it doesn't make sense.  Oh, but it makes complete sense to join the crucible with the citadel and have it become the swiss army knife MacGuffin and be able to internally change all people because they want to secretly be more like the catalyst?

This is what this thread proves.

The word impossible only means not possible when you need it to mean that so you can bring in a MacGuffin and Deus ex Machina.
Conventional and unconventional uses of tools at hand and the use of innovative ideas and strategies and tactics and having the crucible be a rational device with known effects is considered too unbelievable and fantastic.  Realism is fantasy.
True fantasy is seen by many as far more believable than people actually trying at all to fight the reapers.  We only see one person ever fight reapers in ME3.  There is never any other attempt to pick up Cains and shoot them at Harby or any other reaper.  There's no fight against reapers.

So, fighting husks and brutes and marauders is not taking Earth back.  It's dealing with some horde minions.  And fulfilling the catalyst's flawed goal is not taking Earth back, either.  Indeed the whole idea that this became about Earth or rather London also ignores the fact it was always about saving the galaxy.  But achieving your enemy's goal using what could be his tools to do it, does not mean a win.  You compromise your values in choosing any of them and by compromising those values, life becomes meaningless.  You choose genocide, molestation, or godhood.  And in rejecting them you give up and don't even try.

But wow are green eyes cool, and Shreaper sounds awesome, and that torso looks good on you Shep.  These endings are exactly what I hoped for while playing ME1.  Always wanted a non-fight, surrender, and capitulation.  But is it ever real and believable. 

See every time 3D and those other very articulate people who post on here make these arguments (which i totally agree with)  I wonder why the other side of the argument isnt based on how the endings completely fit with the narrative style of the trilogy or how it fits with its own science or even with the expectations that have been set up and the 'payoff' we can expect to have if we choose to try to 'win'... 

But the arguments I see most often are 'get over it thats the end you got suck it up' (I paraphrase but you will recognise the argument)
'it was impossible to beat the reapers with convential forces' (sorry but thats a personal favourite of mine coz i dont think i used anything more 'conventianal' than my fist in my ME playthroughs it was all high tech hardware and biotics) and just because we didnt want a magic psycho AI ghost kid option doesnt mean anything else is 'conventional'
'its BW/ME's writers/developers game and story arc for them to control and decide, you wouldnt ask a writer to change the end of their book if you didnt like it' well if we accept what BW/ME team say in that this is a two way process and they listen to their players/fans and they wouldnt be anything without them well they didnt hear so good... and the relationship is different between a book and an immersive RPG (and if you dont get that then you need to read some books...)

And I hear that ME was always envisioned as a trilogy but if it is and has been so successful and still has a loyal following surely there is another game in it... but BW need to remember that the galaxy they created awesome though it is would not be the same without Shepard... becasue really could you image spening 30 hours with Vega or FemVega...

[The_Crazy_Hand]

Geneaux486 wrote...

When fought one at a time, yes, but thousands of equally powerful beings attacking all at once meant the strategies that made killing a capital ship feasible (sustained focus fire) would no longer be possible. The hints given throughout the first two games were that while a single Reaper was beatable (with difficulty), the entirety of the Reaper fleet would almost be hopeless. That, and nobody believed they were a threat until after they were attacking the galaxy. Had the galaxy prepared in advance, maybe conventional warfare might have fared better, but as it was the Reapers caught everyone with their pants down.

The Sovereign battle was just a small fleet versus a reaper, not the whole galaxy, otherwise you'd have had a point.  You also ignored several points that I made, like, you know, that Turian Bomb, Thanix cannon and such.  You are continuing to assume it is just crucible or ead on fighting, ignoring all the other stuff that was said.

3DandBeyond wrote...........

the truth

See, that's exactly what I was trying to say.

Modifié par The_Crazy_Hand, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:05 .

[Dean_the_Young]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Had the writers decided to actually write a story that did not rely on a MacGuffin and a Deus ex fantasy child and his fairy tales, all they had to do was stick to the real meaning of the word "impossible" as they defined it in every other place in the game-it always meant "highly improbable" or "very difficult" or "achievable through perseverance and innovation".  But now it means never ever ever ever possible unless God drops down from the sky and intervenes directly with some help from the Devil himself-a big battery, a self-deluded god AI, and a super magic citadel is what passes for reality as opposed to using conventional methods unconventionally.  Why try to get the Krogan to help the Turians, that's impossible.  The quarians will never accept the geth, impossible. 

Focusing more on here for a bit...

There have always been things Shepard could not do, and there have been things Shepard could only do with the help of various plot devices. This has been a staple across the series, and really subverts the idea of Shepard making the impossible possible. Shepard's never done that: Shepard has just found the tools to remove the obstruction.

The most relevant example, above all else, was the Suicide Mission. That was always a misnomer, however, because it wasn't the mission itself that was beyond reason: it was transiting the Omega 4 relay. Like Shepard did many times before (on Liara's recruitment, on Ilos, on Noveria, on Feros), Shepard faced a technical barrier. Finding the key to bypassing it, whether a mining laser or reactivating power or an IFF, was the only means to proceed.

But there have also been things that could not be done. Mating with Morinth, breathing space, or the countless other limitations: Shepard is not, and has never been, omnipotent.

[AlanC9]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...
See every time 3D and those other very articulate people who post on here make these arguments (which i totally agree with)  I wonder why the other side of the argument isnt based on how the endings completely fit with the narrative style of the trilogy or how it fits with its own science or even with the expectations that have been set up and the 'payoff' we can expect to have if we choose to try to 'win'...

You mean, why don't people like me find 3d's WoTs compelling, or even worth engaging with?

The latter part is just that I've read it before. He's only interesting these days when he does into rant mode.

As for the former -- well, let's take a look at the last one.

The core of his argument seems to be that the fundamental concept of the games is that Shepard can always do the impossible. I didn't get that memo. For me, the games are full of things that Shepard can't do. The most important thing Shepard can't do is get the learders of the galaxy to take the Reaper threat seriously until it's far, far, too late.So since the premise fails, the conclusions fail too. (Dea's handling this part of the argument nicely)

3D then flies off into some flights of fancy about how "impossible" never actually means impossible in ME. 

There's a bit that seems to be directed at a misreading of one of my posts, so I'll address that separately.

Then there's a lot of rhetoric. Rant mode stuff, but amusing. But there's no argument.

Really, there's no argument anywhere. It's all rhetoric.

Modifié par AlanC9, 22 juillet 2012 - 11:26 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...
I say that the crucible could have been what it was intended to be-a dark energy device that could lower or lessen the reapers' shields and make them vulnerable and I'm told that it might not have enough range and so it doesn't make sense.  

No, what you were told is that even with the Reapers' shields reduced conventional weapons wouldn't be useful unless the Reapers stayed in weapons range. Since the Reapers have no reason to stand and fight if their shields are suddenly failing, they'd run out of weapons range.

So you need to knock out both the Reapers' shields and their FTL . Then they can just be hunted down like vermin. But if you're going that far, why not just blow them up with the space magic rather than leaving the fleets to handle the coup de grace?

[2Shepards]

Jokes on me for actually wanting to win a video game, the idea of it is absolutely positively ridiculous!

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
I say that the crucible could have been what it was intended to be-a dark energy device that could lower or lessen the reapers' shields and make them vulnerable and I'm told that it might not have enough range and so it doesn't make sense.  

No, what you were told is that even with the Reapers' shields reduced conventional weapons wouldn't be useful unless the Reapers stayed in weapons range. Since the Reapers have no reason to stand and fight if their shields are suddenly failing, they'd run out of weapons range.

So you need to knock out both the Reapers' shields and their FTL . Then they can just be hunted down like vermin. But if you're going that far, why not just blow them up with the space magic rather than leaving the fleets to handle the coup de grace?

Because space magic is a horrible way to end the ME game series.  Because no one playing ME1, 2, and even 3 ever thought "gee, I don't actually ever want to fight the reapers.  I want some warped AI to fall out of the sky and finish it all for me by giving me 3 limited and very warped choices that dispense with morality altogether."

I am sure we all now think they should just go back and rewrite ME1 and 2's endings so that it's all space magic, macguffins, and deus ex, don't we?

I am sure it could have been written that their mass was changed and then ship's opened fire and I only stated the crucible as one device that could be used, but there are other things that could have been written in as well that would have been imaginative and made more "real" than the AI god kid and his magical machines.

The writers chose to make the impossible truly impossible in this game because then they didn't have to write all that other stuff.  Instead they could use plot devices that would take up the space of truly writing about some type of real fighting.  Instead, when there is any fighting at all or when people do anything, they are running right up to reapers or or shooting conventional weapons at them, which isn't working.  This is what the greatest military minds of the galaxy came up with?  Shoot assault rifles at reapers.  And in the most perplexing and suicidal thing in 3 games you see a bunch of people running toward the conduit (that now is labeled "conduit" because we didn't know what it was) and Harbinger, rather than trying to even use some sort of decoy squad or enter from the side or something, anything else.  No, they run straight toward it along a clear path.  And then Harbinger takes a coffee break while Shepard says goodbye to friends.  Yeah, this all makes a lot of sense.

As far as the crucible being a dark energy device-it isn't explored, it's supposed to be one but never is one.  Shepard even says it is one to Conrad in ME3.  Who knows how big or targeted a field it could have created or manipulated.  And who knows how fast the reapers are at changing their mass if such a device lowered it.  We won't ever know what it might have been able to do, because when they created the original endings, they really just grabbed endings from different sources and had no idea what they meant.  In creating the EC, they gave the endings "meaning" based on what fans said they might be.  They only ever explained the original endings but did nothing to fix what was wrong.  They still are limited choices that do not result naturally from what we did in 3 games.  They are also space magic to the extreme.  They are also I am sure not the way anyone that bought any of the games hoped or thought the series would end.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 23 juillet 2012 - 02:42 .

[ddraigcoch123]

AlanC9 wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...
See every time 3D and those other very articulate people who post on here make these arguments (which i totally agree with)  I wonder why the other side of the argument isnt based on how the endings completely fit with the narrative style of the trilogy or how it fits with its own science or even with the expectations that have been set up and the 'payoff' we can expect to have if we choose to try to 'win'...

You mean, why don't people like me find 3d's WoTs compelling, or even worth engaging with?

The latter part is just that I've read it before. He's only interesting these days when he does into rant mode.

As for the former -- well, let's take a look at the last one.

The core of his argument seems to be that the fundamental concept of the games is that Shepard can always do the impossible. I didn't get that memo. For me, the games are full of things that Shepard can't do. The most important thing Shepard can't do is get the learders of the galaxy to take the Reaper threat seriously until it's far, far, too late.So since the premise fails, the conclusions fail too. (Dea's handling this part of the argument nicely)

3D then flies off into some flights of fancy about how "impossible" never actually means impossible in ME. 

There's a bit that seems to be directed at a misreading of one of my posts, so I'll address that separately.

Then there's a lot of rhetoric. Rant mode stuff, but amusing. But there's no argument.

Really, there's no argument anywhere. It's all rhetoric.

Ok then answer this, just this question, without any justification for the answer...

All the endings you can attain in ME3 are clear and unambiguous, we even hear Shepards voice in one of them, we certainly see the result of her/his sacrifice... except for one ending... the only ending that allows the player/customer (that would be me) to 'win' the game in the way that ME (that would be BW) has allowed me to in the previous 2 games and that they themselves have built into ME3...

so my question to you is...

Is it fair that the money I paid for my game didnt buy me a clear and unambiguous ending (depending on the in game mechanics - EMS/player choices etc)?

No.... do not give me...' but Shepard can be alive and does survive'... becasue I am telling you as a paying customer I personally have to do a lot of imagining/head cannoning to get me there and I dont have to do that in any of the other endings that other people for the same money that I paid, bought  (that I have also partly paid for...)

Is it fair that I dont get the same 'payoff' for my financial investment as other players who choose a different (but equal according to BW as there is no canon ending) ending for their game playthrough?

[Cyberstrike nTo]

The_Crazy_Hand wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

The Reapers being unbeatable by conventional methods when they arrive in force is the former, not the latter.

That depends on wether conventional victory simply entails not using the crucible, or just straight up conventional warfare.  If it's the latter, yeah I can see how that would be, but the former, no, it's just not.

There were several elements introduced that could have allowed it, and several canon lore things introduced in ME3 that certainly would indicate it was possible to win without the crucible.  Cerberus could have reconstructed the Klendagon cannon, the Turian Bomb could have been used, Thanix cannons, etc.  There are several things that could have been done instead of the crucible, granted, they may not have qualified as "conventional", but definitely didn't require the crucible.

Either way though, saying that it was said by a couple of characters was a poor way for the guy to back up his argument.

TIM said they only found the weapon on Klendgon but it was defunct and also said that it all fired was one shot and one Reaper was dead.

The Turian Bomb would probably not even dent a Reaper.

The Thanix Cannons used by the turains and humans are no where near as powerful the Reapers version and they are also new weaponry and only a limited number of ships have them and it's also a safe bet that aren't a lot factories that are equipped to make them and/or shipyards left to install them.
 
Sorry but conventional victory is not possible.

[Cyberstrike nTo]

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...
See every time 3D and those other very articulate people who post on here make these arguments (which i totally agree with)  I wonder why the other side of the argument isnt based on how the endings completely fit with the narrative style of the trilogy or how it fits with its own science or even with the expectations that have been set up and the 'payoff' we can expect to have if we choose to try to 'win'...

You mean, why don't people like me find 3d's WoTs compelling, or even worth engaging with?

The latter part is just that I've read it before. He's only interesting these days when he does into rant mode.

As for the former -- well, let's take a look at the last one.

The core of his argument seems to be that the fundamental concept of the games is that Shepard can always do the impossible. I didn't get that memo. For me, the games are full of things that Shepard can't do. The most important thing Shepard can't do is get the learders of the galaxy to take the Reaper threat seriously until it's far, far, too late.So since the premise fails, the conclusions fail too. (Dea's handling this part of the argument nicely)

3D then flies off into some flights of fancy about how "impossible" never actually means impossible in ME. 

There's a bit that seems to be directed at a misreading of one of my posts, so I'll address that separately.

Then there's a lot of rhetoric. Rant mode stuff, but amusing. But there's no argument.

Really, there's no argument anywhere. It's all rhetoric.

Ok then answer this, just this question, without any justification for the answer...

All the endings you can attain in ME3 are clear and unambiguous, we even hear Shepards voice in one of them, we certainly see the result of her/his sacrifice... except for one ending... the only ending that allows the player/customer (that would be me) to 'win' the game in the way that ME (that would be BW) has allowed me to in the previous 2 games and that they themselves have built into ME3...

so my question to you is...

Is it fair that the money I paid for my game didnt buy me a clear and unambiguous ending (depending on the in game mechanics - EMS/player choices etc)?

No.... do not give me...' but Shepard can be alive and does survive'... becasue I am telling you as a paying customer I personally have to do a lot of imagining/head cannoning to get me there and I dont have to do that in any of the other endings that other people for the same money that I paid, bought  (that I have also partly paid for...)

Is it fair that I dont get the same 'payoff' for my financial investment as other players who choose a different (but equal according to BW as there is no canon ending) ending for their game playthrough?

Yes, it's fair because you should have known since the day you starting playing ME1 that it was NEVER your or my story. It was, still is, and always be Bioware's story.

The decisions you made in the first two games had only Bioware's answers to them, for example I would have called the Council and let them decide the fate of the rachni queen in ME1 and do what they said but that option was never allowed because Bioware never put it in there.
 
I NEVER wanted any of my Shepard to worked for or with Cerberus in ME2. I would have headed to nearest Alliance base and handed the ship and crew over to them without a second thought. Again I don't have that choice because Bioware didn't put it in. 

The only choices I make any video game is the choices that game makers put in them. Sometimes all the choices they offer are not any I would make in real life. 

But I knew that the ultimate ending would be Bioware's not mine.  

[ddraigcoch123]

Cyberstrike nTo wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

ddraigcoch123 wrote...
See every time 3D and those other very articulate people who post on here make these arguments (which i totally agree with)  I wonder why the other side of the argument isnt based on how the endings completely fit with the narrative style of the trilogy or how it fits with its own science or even with the expectations that have been set up and the 'payoff' we can expect to have if we choose to try to 'win'...

You mean, why don't people like me find 3d's WoTs compelling, or even worth engaging with?

The latter part is just that I've read it before. He's only interesting these days when he does into rant mode.

As for the former -- well, let's take a look at the last one.

The core of his argument seems to be that the fundamental concept of the games is that Shepard can always do the impossible. I didn't get that memo. For me, the games are full of things that Shepard can't do. The most important thing Shepard can't do is get the learders of the galaxy to take the Reaper threat seriously until it's far, far, too late.So since the premise fails, the conclusions fail too. (Dea's handling this part of the argument nicely)

3D then flies off into some flights of fancy about how "impossible" never actually means impossible in ME. 

There's a bit that seems to be directed at a misreading of one of my posts, so I'll address that separately.

Then there's a lot of rhetoric. Rant mode stuff, but amusing. But there's no argument.

Really, there's no argument anywhere. It's all rhetoric.

Ok then answer this, just this question, without any justification for the answer...

All the endings you can attain in ME3 are clear and unambiguous, we even hear Shepards voice in one of them, we certainly see the result of her/his sacrifice... except for one ending... the only ending that allows the player/customer (that would be me) to 'win' the game in the way that ME (that would be BW) has allowed me to in the previous 2 games and that they themselves have built into ME3...

so my question to you is...

Is it fair that the money I paid for my game didnt buy me a clear and unambiguous ending (depending on the in game mechanics - EMS/player choices etc)?

No.... do not give me...' but Shepard can be alive and does survive'... becasue I am telling you as a paying customer I personally have to do a lot of imagining/head cannoning to get me there and I dont have to do that in any of the other endings that other people for the same money that I paid, bought  (that I have also partly paid for...)

Is it fair that I dont get the same 'payoff' for my financial investment as other players who choose a different (but equal according to BW as there is no canon ending) ending for their game playthrough?

Yes, it's fair because you should have known since the day you starting playing ME1 that it was NEVER your or my story. It was, still is, and always be Bioware's story.

The decisions you made in the first two games had only Bioware's answers to them, for example I would have called the Council and let them decide the fate of the rachni queen in ME1 and do what they said but that option was never allowed because Bioware never put it in there.
 
I NEVER wanted any of my Shepard to worked for or with Cerberus in ME2. I would have headed to nearest Alliance base and handed the ship and crew over to them without a second thought. Again I don't have that choice because Bioware didn't put it in. 

The only choices I make any video game is the choices that game makers put in them. Sometimes all the choices they offer are not any I would make in real life. 

But I knew that the ultimate ending would be Bioware's not mine.  

Thats not the question I asked... in your terms then...

Is it fair that each of BW's endings are not equal in their clarity and unambiguous in their presentation... they are BW's endings yes... but if I put this crudely...

I get a full quarter pounder (which I believe I paid for) when i order the control or synth endings... I only get a an empty box and the hint of grease, remnants of the salad dressing when I order destroy... and an explanation that says 'yeah but you know you got a burger coz you got the box and they wouldnt give you a box and the grease stain if there hadnt been a burger in it'...

This is not a question about the artistic decisions of BW or their authority to make them (all of which I could discuss and have elsewhere).. but this question is about THEIR end options THEIR statement that all endings are equal as THEY didnt want a canon ending...

me/player/customer
'any chance I  can have some burger with my empty  box please?'

BW/ME writers/EA
'quality control tells us that we have satisfied the nutritional requirements of some of our customers but yours... not so much... we thought you would rather buy your own ingredients, cook it and then put it in the empty box... then get to enjoy it, and say thank you to us for giving you that opportunity'

Modifié par ddraigcoch123, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:42 .

[xxBabyMonkeyxx]

As much as I want that, its not gonna happen because BioWare knows if they did the Refusal ending right everyone would pick that ending rather than do what their beloved Godchild wants Shepard to do. BioWare loves/wants their Godchild. Stupid "artistic integrity".

Modifié par xxBabyMonkeyxx, 23 juillet 2012 - 09:17 .

[AlanC9]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...
I say that the crucible could have been what it was intended to be-a dark energy device that could lower or lessen the reapers' shields and make them vulnerable and I'm told that it might not have enough range and so it doesn't make sense.  

No, what you were told is that even with the Reapers' shields reduced conventional weapons wouldn't be useful unless the Reapers stayed in weapons range. Since the Reapers have no reason to stand and fight if their shields are suddenly failing, they'd run out of weapons range.

So you need to knock out both the Reapers' shields and their FTL . Then they can just be hunted down like vermin. But if you're going that far, why not just blow them up with the space magic rather than leaving the fleets to handle the coup de grace?

Because space magic is a horrible way to end the ME game series.  Because no one playing ME1, 2, and even 3 ever thought "gee, I don't actually ever want to fight the reapers.  I want some warped AI to fall out of the sky and finish it all for me by giving me 3 limited and very warped choices that dispense with morality altogether."

But you just proposed using space magic to disable their shields and FTL drives (assuming you're not contesting my point above, though I realize sometimes you don't actually read the posts you respond to). It doesn't count as victory through space magic if a Reaper made helpless through space magic is finally killed with a Thanix missile?

I am sure we all now think they should just go back and rewrite ME1 and 2's endings so that it's all space magic, macguffins, and deus ex, don't we?

I really wish you wouldn't misuse "macguffin" that way. I'd protest the way you use "deus ex machina," but these days the phrase is being misused more often than it's used.

And you probably shouldn't bring ME1 into this -- Tali's voice recording is the biggest DEM in the whole series.. (DEM in the vernacular sense there, mind; in the strict sense it doesn't qualify, since it happens too early and only resolves a single dilemma rather than the whole plot.)

I am sure it could have been written that their mass was changed and then ship's opened fire and I only stated the crucible as one device that could be used, but there are other things that could have been written in as well that would have been imaginative and made more "real" than the AI god kid and his magical machines.

So you just want a different flavor of space magic. OK, that makes more sense.

Modifié par AlanC9, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:56 .