80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

BleedingUranium wrote...

See, you're doing the whole "this gun is mathematically better therefore I shouldn't use some others". I use stuff because they're cool or fun, but mostly because they fit the character I'm using. And for the record, when playing with randoms I play mostly silver and some gold, and when playing with people, almost always gold. I've used all my kits in gold at one point or another.

I'd never use a Saber in, say, a Geth, Batarian, or Asari kit, as they wouldn't be seen using one. Actually, most of my kits are characters, so they use what's appropriate to said character. Sure, you can choose what characters use what guns, but you'd be hard pressed to argue againt Legion using a GPR and a Widow. So, my GI is Legion coloured and uses those weapons, with the powers spec'd to being a sniper.

The only non named character kit I have is my FHI, who has just a Raptor and is a Nemesis All my N7 characters are full N7 colours with N7 weapons. My PV has just a Falcon and is The Meta from Red vs Blue, my only non-ME character. Etc.

Basically, our difference is while you focus on gameplay, I focus on roleplay.

So you're RPing with standardized weapons? How boring is that? It takes minimal creativity to come up with a backstory to explain using alien weaponry. "My turian was good friends with an Alliance soldier, insert story about meeting in First Contact War, blah blah blah, that human was killed in action fighting alongside him and he gave him his saber as a memento before he died. Now he brings the saber with him on his battles and it serves a reminder and a personal inspiration when battles seem hopeless."

"The geth reverse engineered an ancient prothean rifle they found in ruins on a world beyond the Veil. The geth I play is one of 500 high end models that were chosen by the consensus to test this technology and report back its advantages and disadvantages over traditional geth weaponry so they can assess its capabilities and if this technology should be integrated into standard geth armaments."

Using a turian with a phaeston and a krysae just seems boring, RP or not.

Regardless, weapons should be viable for both RP and gameplay. The argus is just... terrible. Just terrible. I've never seen the MP forums so united in dislike of a weapon's capabilities. No matter what weapon you mention, somebody will generally defend it. I can't recall anyone saying the argus doesn't need a buff. Which is why I replied as I did when you said "it decimates people".

RavenEyry wrote...

I understand people who dislike the idea of a cliffhanger so are against IT, but I'm baffled by people who dislike the original ending saying an IT DLC would be worse. I've never seen one say why.

That's easy. They can't accept that they didn't pick up on the hints. IT can't be right, because it'd mean that they were wrong. And that's just stupid. They're perfect, they can't be wrong!

Andromidius wrote...

Aye, most of the haters have Synthesis banners. They obviously love the idea of turning everyone into a cyborg against their will and destroying the laws of physics.

And its ironic how IT is called fanfiction when all it really does is contradict their own fanfiction headcanon...

I still can't take anyone with a sin-thesis banner seriously. I just can't.

[Samtheman63]

morning, any news

Modifié par Samtheman63, 21 septembre 2012 - 11:19 .

[Andromidius]

Restrider wrote...
But that is not the Synthesis we see starbrat offering us.
1) It is a 100% merging, something that would require space-magic.
2) It is forced on everyone (thus unethically and breaks the lore, since a huge theme of ME was Shepard fighting for the right of self-determination [with the exception of ultra Renegade maybe]).
3) It is presented out of no-where by an entity that presumably represents the reapers.
4) The reapers themselves are the only thing that resembles the presented Synthesis option the most. They are made out of organics and inorganics and refer to themselves to be the pinnacle of (organic) evolution (as presented in the dialouge with Legion after ME2 Suicide Mission!).
5) Synthesis being praised by illustrious characters such as Saren and Kai Leng is not supporting that kind of ending, either.

And:

6) It is achieved using a device that can also transform a living being into an AI that will take control of all Reapers, and also can shut down all synthetic life in the galaxy, and can potentially cause a planet's atmosphere to ignite.

That's some machine right there.

[RavenEyry]

Andromidius wrote...

And:

6) It is achieved using a device that can also transform a living being into an AI that will take control of all Reapers, and also can shut down all synthetic life in the galaxy, and can potentially cause a planet's atmosphere to ignite.

That's some machine right there.

And it's been on the citadel the whole time waiting for a power source. If only one of the organic races in the last thosand cycles had thought to actually explore the citadel.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Andromidius wrote...
And its ironic how IT is called fanfiction when all it really does is contradict their own fanfiction headcanon...

Yep, even with the Extended Cut, Synthesis requires some serious interpretation and headcanoning to make it logical that Shepard would actually freely and willingly choose it.

Aside from the obvious Saren correlation and the Reaper's own horrific methods, the concept of Synthesis doesn't come up at any time during the trilogy until the final two minutes of the game.

I doubt anyone as they were making the run for the beam first time around was thinking "YAY!  It's the final battle!  Now I can find a way to merge all organics and synthetics into one single hybrid form AND BE A HERO!"

No, I'd imagine 99% of the spoiler-free players were thinking "I've got to activate the Crucible, destroy the Reapers and end this madness for good".  Maybe a couple were thinking they might get an opportunity to control them.

But... a 30 second conversation with little to no exposition from Starbrat, and suddenly Synthesis seems like a really good idea?

There's so many unanswered questions with it, such a large number of blanks to fill in that you can quite concievably be husking the entire galaxy instead of promoting transhumanism.  I can happily state that Synthesis as an ideal ending requires more headcanon and a greater leap of logic than anything associated with IT.

Well Overlord sorta was an attempt at Synthesis, with the entire merging of a organic beeing to synthetic parts and a virtual interface...but look at how it ended

[plfranke]

Something interesting about overlord is no mater what you do, the game beats you over the head with "this was a terrible thing to do". There is no "the ends justify the means" way of thinking about Overlord. If you allow Dr. Archer to continue the studies, there is no progress made in fighting the geth. Dr. Archer stops the expirement himself if you don't. The game, in many places, says how horrible Synthesis would be. Javik talks about the people that tried it from his cycle, Overlord, we already know about the Reapers and their path to synthesis. It's the same with how the game beats you over the head with "You can't control the Reapers". I don't see how people can ignore all these things that were established just because a last minute character who admits he embodies everything you've been fighting against tells them it's cool.

[RavenEyry]

Wasn't pistol whipping Archer a paragon interupt?

[plfranke]

Yep

[Andromidius]

Not to mention the same people who ignore the 'you can't control the Reapers' love to say how 'conventional victory is impossible' despite the fact both are said in-game.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Another problem with the literal endings is how badly they trivialize the rest of the story. Nothing that happens in this trilogy matters if there is no hidden meaning behind what we see. It makes the Reapers pointless to the story, it makes Shepard pointless. Everything becomes pointless if face value is Bioware's intentions

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Another problem with the literal endings is how badly they trivialize the rest of the story. Nothing that happens in this trilogy matters if there is no hidden meaning behind what we see. It makes the Reapers pointless to the story, it makes Shepard pointless. Everything becomes pointless if face value is Bioware's intentions

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

Good point, it dosent even require the input of an Organic, just a gun pointed at a tube of some kind.

[plfranke]

I can't get over the people on this forum that try to claim that the people who dislike the ending are in the minority. If they're ever presented with poll results they say "It's an unreliable sample". It's like at some point you have to use common sense and not rely on an in depth interview with every person who has ever seen the mass effect 3 ending.

[RavenEyry]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

I've never thought of that before. It would make more sense to just have the citadel fire red space magic every 50,000 years.

Though supposedly the crucible was designed over many cycles to power a thing that was ready made but they didn't know about.

[GethPrimeMKII]

The fact that destroy is activated by shooting a tube ought to be a red flag in and of itself. Does it make any sense at all to activate a highly advanced technological device by breaking one of its components?

[Gwyphon]

Well in all fairness I think the majority of people who did enjoy the endings probably haven't returned to the forums after completion. Only strong of will and opinion are left.

[RavenEyry]

plfranke wrote...

I can't get over the people on this forum that try to claim that the people who dislike the ending are in the minority. If they're ever presented with poll results they say "It's an unreliable sample". It's like at some point you have to use common sense and not rely on an in depth interview with every person who has ever seen the mass effect 3 ending.

From the start pro-enders and sometimes even bioware damage control people have been assuming that everyone who doesn't vote in the polls must like it.

Not only is that dumb but the majority who buy DLC are on this forum, so they are the ones whose opinion matters most.

[plfranke]

RavenEyry wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

I've never thought of that before. It would make more sense to just have the citadel fire red space magic every 50,000 years.

Though supposedly the crucible was designed over many cycles to power a thing that was ready made but they didn't know about.

The literal argument against this is that the Catalyst was not aware of these possibilities until the Crucible changed it.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Funny thing about IT is that it catches so much hate from many different fronts. Pro enders, bad writing supporters, literalists, and bio-haters all take shots at IT.

[Gwyphon]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The fact that destroy is activated by shooting a tube ought to be a red flag in and of itself. Does it make any sense at all to activate a highly advanced technological device by breaking one of its components?

Yeah well it doesn't make sense unless it's symbolic. But how deep are we mean't to take the symbolism?

[GethPrimeMKII]

plfranke wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

I've never thought of that before. It would make more sense to just have the citadel fire red space magic every 50,000 years.

Though supposedly the crucible was designed over many cycles to power a thing that was ready made but they didn't know about.

The literal argument against this is that the Catalyst was not aware of these possibilities until the Crucible changed it.

That argumnt ignores the fact that the Catalyst himself dismisses the Crucible as simply a massive battery. 

[RavenEyry]

plfranke wrote...

The literal argument against this is that the Catalyst was not aware of these possibilities until the Crucible changed it.

That's what my second line was about. If the crucible is just a power source that means the actual device was designed with the citadel. Mr. Sparkle sat there for gajillions of years without ever figuring out what that thing did, but knows as soon as it's powered?

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

plfranke wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I think destroy from the literal perspective is the worst offender because it means the Citadel, built by reapers, already has the capability to wipe out synthetics that would inevitably destroy organics. The thing purges an entire galaxy of synthetic life in under an hour at the cost of 0 organic lives. The reapers are nowhere near as efficient. There's nothing stopping the star brat from having a power source built and having this anti-synthetic doomsday device ready to go every time synthetics get out of hand.

I've never thought of that before. It would make more sense to just have the citadel fire red space magic every 50,000 years.

Though supposedly the crucible was designed over many cycles to power a thing that was ready made but they didn't know about.

The literal argument against this is that the Catalyst was not aware of these possibilities until the Crucible changed it.

Which would essentially amount to the Reapers in all the Cycles never finding a single Blueprint which actually said what the damn device would do...

God imagine if the Crucible was never intended as a weapon, but something entirely different. i dont know what, but then you ahve Reapers trying to destroy it thinking it was a threat and Cycles trying to build it thinking it can save them...

Reminds me of a line in comic I read: "They still attack our farming robots thinking they are war equibment."

[GethPrimeMKII]

Gwyphon wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The fact that destroy is activated by shooting a tube ought to be a red flag in and of itself. Does it make any sense at all to activate a highly advanced technological device by breaking one of its components?

Yeah well it doesn't make sense unless it's symbolic. But how deep are we mean't to take the symbolism?

What players are supposed to realize is that there is nothing original in the ending. Everything from the time Harbinger attacks to the decision chamber and beyond are all taken from Shepard's memory. The tube you shoot to cause the red explosion is very reminiscent of the tubes inside the collector base used to feed the reaper larvae genetic paste. 
 
One could write a massive wall of text or a huge list of where all the elements of the ending originate from. Whats even more interesting are elements that break the 4th wall and closely resemble things only the player would be able to interpret. 

[RavenEyry]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...
Whats even more interesting are elements that break the 4th wall and closely resemble things only the player would be able to interpret. 

I know the colour choice and the dialog wheel set up. Are there others?

[ElSuperGecko]

Gwyphon wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The fact that destroy is activated by shooting a tube ought to be a red flag in and of itself. Does it make any sense at all to activate a highly advanced technological device by breaking one of its components?

Yeah well it doesn't make sense unless it's symbolic. But how deep are we mean't to take the symbolism?

I've seen it argued that the tube Shepard shoots (or the prongs he grabs etc) are actually part of the Citadel - not the Crucible itself.

So what Shepard destroys is actually PREVENTING the Crucible from activating, and when he shoots it, the Crucible fires.