80611 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

401 Kill wrote...

Fur28 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Hand holding sucks.

That's one thing that bothered me with ME3 - the constant hand holding, and vaguely at that.

The game would have greatly benefitted from a less linier story progression.  Choosing which allies to help first, and it altering slightly depending on priorities (i.e. if you help the Quarians first then the Krogan are slightly less receptive), and maybe even having the option of not seeking help from certain species.  Heck, I'd have loved a time limit that made it nearly impossible to get everyone in one playthrough, and even have a few 'dead end' missions where you fail to get support or maybe even lose some.

Just like in ME1&2, where you could choose the order of missions.... ahhhhhhhh good times, good olde times^_^

The galaxy map actually had a greater purpose!

In 3 you can choose the order of missions that take place on a single planet. If you choose unwisely, you are locked out.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:35 .

[Fur28]

paxxton wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Fur28 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Hand holding sucks.

That's one thing that bothered me with ME3 - the constant hand holding, and vaguely at that.

The game would have greatly benefitted from a less linier story progression.  Choosing which allies to help first, and it altering slightly depending on priorities (i.e. if you help the Quarians first then the Krogan are slightly less receptive), and maybe even having the option of not seeking help from certain species.  Heck, I'd have loved a time limit that made it nearly impossible to get everyone in one playthrough, and even have a few 'dead end' missions where you fail to get support or maybe even lose some.

Just like in ME1&2, where you could choose the order of missions.... ahhhhhhhh good times, good olde times^_^

The galaxy map actually had a greater purpose!

In 3 you can choose the order of missions that take place on a single planet. If you choose unwisely, you are locked out.

could you give an example because that has never ocurred to me

[Jadebaby]

byne wrote...
I'm not saying you're on a high horse, Jade. I'm saying refuse Shepard is.

I like you, and would never say that about you, but you claiming there is irony in what I said clearly indicates you dont feel the same, and would indeed say such about me, which is a real shame.

I have enough humility to apologize when I'm in the wrong, and even after I posted that I reread in my mind what you wrote and thought then I might have gotten it wrong. It's just so easy to see it that way when you are always so incredibly blunt with me, it seems ever since EC and I lost a bit of hope, you've just treated me differently whenever I pop in.

However, IT was my first interpretation of the endings, and there will always be a place for it. But it doesn't mean it has to be the only one.

byne wrote...
From Jade's thread:

he has an IT interpretation and likes refuse, those are mutually exclusive beliefs.

Jade, if you're still here, why even ask about IT and refuse if this is your position?

Because I'm trying to find a connection, but clearly it's just a waste of time.

Again though, that's exactly what I mean. Even though I do see it that way currently, it doesn't mean it has to be that way. Surely there can be some connection between the two if one looks hard enough, and although I am content with them being mutually exclusive. I'm thinking outside my own interpretation to form new and better understandings, to evolve my interpretations.
 
It's why even though I hate.. No, loathe Control and Synthesis, I still respect the view's of the ones that choose those endings, and to see if I can get any new insight that can help me interpret my own endings in a better light. While nothing anyone ever says will get me to choose Control or Synthesis for myself. You can still gain a lot by listening to other people's motivations for doing so.

Regardless of our misunderstanding before, I still disagree about refuse shep being on a high horse, but to each their own. 

[Rifneno]

Being able to choose mission order in 3 would be pointless. Geth/quarians first. Shepard would have to be retarded to pick the krogan story first. The krogan have been shooting blanks in bed for 2,000 years. It's not an emergency. OTOH, two of the most powerful fleets in the galaxy are actively blowing each other up. That needs to be resolved now. Your house is on fire and you need to pick up milk. Which do you take care of first?

[Fur28]

Andromidius wrote...

Fur28 wrote...

Just like in ME1&2, where you could choose the order of missions.... ahhhhhhhh good times, good olde times^_^

Yep, to some degree.  You can certainly 'fail' some missions in ME2 as well - getting Tali exiled, killing Zaeed, recruiting Morinth...

And heck, you could screw up ME3 in ME2 with a single choice - whether or not to save the Genophage cure data!

the failing could have been aplicable in the bomb mission, and maybe others i cant remember right now
The Legion Loyal mission should had afected ME3 more, as well as the Collector ship desicion

[paxxton]

Fur28 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Fur28 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Hand holding sucks.

That's one thing that bothered me with ME3 - the constant hand holding, and vaguely at that.

The game would have greatly benefitted from a less linier story progression.  Choosing which allies to help first, and it altering slightly depending on priorities (i.e. if you help the Quarians first then the Krogan are slightly less receptive), and maybe even having the option of not seeking help from certain species.  Heck, I'd have loved a time limit that made it nearly impossible to get everyone in one playthrough, and even have a few 'dead end' missions where you fail to get support or maybe even lose some.

Just like in ME1&2, where you could choose the order of missions.... ahhhhhhhh good times, good olde times^_^

The galaxy map actually had a greater purpose!

In 3 you can choose the order of missions that take place on a single planet. If you choose unwisely, you are locked out.

could you give an example because that has never ocurred to me

On Tuchanka you have several points highlighted, same on Rannoch. You can choose not to do the geth squadrons mission and it becomes locked after the attack on the Reaper facility.

[Big_Boss9]

Fur28 wrote...

could you give an example because that has never ocurred to me

One example is that you will lose the ability to do Rannoch: Admiral Koris and Rannoch: Geth Fighter Base if you do Priority: Rannoch first.

Edit: 'd

Modifié par Big_Boss9, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:40 .

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

Being able to choose mission order in 3 would be pointless. Geth/quarians first. Shepard would have to be retarded to pick the krogan story first. The krogan have been shooting blanks in bed for 2,000 years. It's not an emergency. OTOH, two of the most powerful fleets in the galaxy are actively blowing each other up. That needs to be resolved now. Your house is on fire and you need to pick up milk. Which do you take care of first?

Eat dinner.

[Rifneno]

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Being able to choose mission order in 3 would be pointless. Geth/quarians first. Shepard would have to be retarded to pick the krogan story first. The krogan have been shooting blanks in bed for 2,000 years. It's not an emergency. OTOH, two of the most powerful fleets in the galaxy are actively blowing each other up. That needs to be resolved now. Your house is on fire and you need to pick up milk. Which do you take care of first?

Eat dinner.

Well it's already getting cooked I guess...

[Rifneno]

Fur28 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Fur28 wrote...

Just like in ME1&2, where you could choose the order of missions.... ahhhhhhhh good times, good olde times^_^

Yep, to some degree.  You can certainly 'fail' some missions in ME2 as well - getting Tali exiled, killing Zaeed, recruiting Morinth...

And heck, you could screw up ME3 in ME2 with a single choice - whether or not to save the Genophage cure data!

the failing could have been aplicable in the bomb mission, and maybe others i cant remember right now
The Legion Loyal mission should had afected ME3 more, as well as the Collector ship desicion

If you don't do Legion's loyalty mission, you can't make peace between the geth and quarians.  If you rewrote rather than destroyed, then it's harder to manage.  I'd say that's enough of an effect.

[paxxton]

Rifneno wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Being able to choose mission order in 3 would be pointless. Geth/quarians first. Shepard would have to be retarded to pick the krogan story first. The krogan have been shooting blanks in bed for 2,000 years. It's not an emergency. OTOH, two of the most powerful fleets in the galaxy are actively blowing each other up. That needs to be resolved now. Your house is on fire and you need to pick up milk. Which do you take care of first?

Eat dinner.

Well it's already getting cooked I guess...

The house can wait then. If the oven malfunctions, you'll need to put out one fire instead of two.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:43 .

[Krimzie]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I think most ITers would agree that if IT was intended, it could have been executed better. I blame EA for that (lack of development time). I also think (mostly due to EA) that they did target the wrong audience as well.

I agree. And I do think that it's challenging to figure out where to draw the line: being too heavy-handed with an IT ending (including more irrefutable proof, dialogue hints, etc) would ruin the illusion and probably be more campy than cool; coming out and admitting IT through media would have the same effect as a writer telling a majority audience that they are "wrong" and didn't "get it." For what it's worth, the *only* way I'd want an IT interpretation validated is through more game content, not a developer statement, because of everything I've been ranting about. 

Big_Boss9 wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Two Philly natives in the same thread? Wow 

Three if you count Philly being the closest city to where I live...

Very cool! 

Okay, to be fair, I'm in the same boat as you, 401. I'm over the bridge a bit. But home's where ya party, amiright?

Modifié par Krimzie, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[Andromidius]

paxxton wrote...
In 3 you can choose the order of missions that take place on a single planet. If you choose unwisely, you are locked out.

Only one two worlds though, if I remember correctly.  Tuchunka and Rannoch.

Which are both considered the best missions in the game.  Funny that.

[Hanako Ikezawa]

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

[paxxton]

Andromidius wrote...

paxxton wrote...
In 3 you can choose the order of missions that take place on a single planet. If you choose unwisely, you are locked out.

Only one two worlds though, if I remember correctly.  Tuchunka and Rannoch.

Which are both considered the best missions in the game.  Funny that.

Rannoch mission was epic, and better executed than that on Tuchanka.

[Andromidius]

Rifneno wrote...

Being able to choose mission order in 3 would be pointless. Geth/quarians first. Shepard would have to be retarded to pick the krogan story first. The krogan have been shooting blanks in bed for 2,000 years. It's not an emergency. OTOH, two of the most powerful fleets in the galaxy are actively blowing each other up. That needs to be resolved now. Your house is on fire and you need to pick up milk. Which do you take care of first?

As if it now, you don't get the Quarian/Geth missions until near the end of the game.  Which is logically very shakey.

I suppose the only reason you deal with the Krogan first is because the Turians won't help until the Krogan do.  So they are both being stubborn.

I still want a mission where you go into Batarian space looking for the remains of their forces, and get a verbal savaging from Balak while you try to convince him to fight for you.  Not just one little Shepard Speech and he helps!

[Big_Boss9]

Krimzie wrote...

Okay, to be fair, I'm in the same boat as you, 401. I'm over the bridge a bit. But home's where ya party, amiright?

'Zactly

[Rifneno]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

According to Wikipedia, it is Not A Thing We Can Comprehend[citation needed].

[paxxton]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

Yeah, it was proposed as harvesting for reproductive reasons.

[BansheeOwnage]

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

A bit of an odd question. In IT there is most likely no Catalyst and only Harbinger. In literal, what he says is truthful even if it makes no sense.

[Andromidius]

Rifneno wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

According to Wikipedia, it is Not A Thing We Can Comprehend[citation needed].

The Catalyst wants to destroy the Reapers

(For those who don't get what I'm saying - Starbinger isn't the Catalyst)

[BansheeOwnage]

Andromidius wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

According to Wikipedia, it is Not A Thing We Can Comprehend[citation needed].

The Catalyst wants to destroy the Reapers

(For those who don't get what I'm saying - Starbinger isn't the Catalyst)

That's true. Shepard's goal has always been to destroy them.

[paxxton]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

According to Wikipedia, it is Not A Thing We Can Comprehend[citation needed].

The Catalyst wants to destroy the Reapers

(For those who don't get what I'm saying - Starbinger isn't the Catalyst)

That's true. Shepard's goal has always been to destroy them.

No, I always wanted to roast them on camp fire. jk

Modifié par paxxton, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:54 .

[401 Kill]

paxxton wrote...

LDS Darth Revan wrote...

Hey, I'm sure you guys have talked about it, but have you ever considered the Catalyst's true motivations behind the Reapers?

Yeah, it was proposed as harvesting for reproductive reasons.

And I also think they experiment with every cycle's technology and use it to upgrade themselves.

The year was 2785...

Modifié par 401 Kill, 19 décembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[Fur28]

@Jade, its kinda hard to find a way to connect both Puzzle and IT, since the former is in Literal and IT is in IT, the only way, i can think of, would be if the DLC war assets are seen fighting or use by post-indoctrination Shepard, maybe using some of the intel gained in MP storyline