Guest_thematic_*
Kildin_of_the_Volus wrote...
Anderson usually doesn't stumble around awkwardly, and roll his head around like he's possessed. There's also a strange tone in his voice like he's struggling against something. Just my interpretation though.
Jassu1979 wrote...
ORLY? (Sorry, I could not resist, either.)Sleepdribble wrote...
That 'sad' piano music is there to draw attention to the fact that your ending (ALL endings) are not without pain.
Honestly, though, do you really think I do not "get" that? It's pretty much what I pointed out before.The thing is, though: "Mass Effect" does not depict a REAL war, and I'd say that seeing almost every single homeworld in ruins (and many relatives dead) is all the "realism" that was really called for here. We did not really need the additional, painful sense of Pyrrhic victory communicated by ALL endings.To play a foot-stomping, thigh-slapping victory theme would deminish all the things Shepard had to sacrifice in order to bring about his/her brand of victory in the war. In REAL wars people die, friends are divided, families are shattered and nothing is ever the same again.
If you wanted realism, Shepard should have died at the end of ME1, Project Lazarus would have "revived" an empty shell, and the Suicide Mission would have been exactly what the name implied, no matter how much effort you put into maxing out your resources. Oh, and if one of your companions drops dead in combat, no amount of medigel would revive them: once that health bar reaches zero, that truly signifies death. Wounds have lasting repercussions, as with that one soldier on the Citadel in ME3: no amount of medigel could save his leg.
No, "realism" is not what is called for here.
thematic wrote...
Jassu1979 wrote...
The thing is, though: "Mass Effect" does not depict a REAL war, and I'd say that seeing almost every single homeworld in ruins (and many relatives dead) is all the "realism" that was really called for here. We did not really need the additional, painful sense of Pyrrhic victory communicated by ALL endings.
If you wanted realism, Shepard should have died at the end of ME1, Project Lazarus would have "revived" an empty shell, and the Suicide Mission would have been exactly what the name implied, no matter how much effort you put into maxing out your resources. Oh, and if one of your companions drops dead in combat, no amount of medigel would revive them: once that health bar reaches zero, that truly signifies death. Wounds have lasting repercussions, as with that one soldier on the Citadel in ME3: no amount of medigel could save his leg.
No, "realism" is not what is called for here.
Mass Effect may not depict a real war, but Mass Effect depicts a real war within theconfines of the story. Perhaps SHepard should have died at the end of ME1, but if that happened, we couldn't have controlled Shepard in ME2, so it simply wasn't possible.
You're having trouble segregating the gameplay's effect on the story and the actual lack of realism, it appears.
And really, arguing that because one part is unrealistic, other parts needn't be, is silly. Just because there are unrealistic things in ME doesn't provide excuse for MORE unrealism.
xsdob wrote...
Can I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Modifié par Jassu1979, 31 juillet 2012 - 08:34 .
xsdob wrote...
Can I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Guest_thematic_*
Jassu1979 wrote...
You do not get it, do you?
The kind of "realism" you get in the Pyrrhic victory endings (read: every single one of them) is incongruent with the entire series - especially if they cannot be avoided no matter how much effort you put into the game.
All previous installments firmly established that we were engaged in a genre that featured a larger-than-life hero who perseveres in the face of impossible odds, overcoming doubts and pulling herself together to achieve the seemingly unachievable.
The ME3 ending sabotages all of that.
Guest_thematic_*
Jassu1979 wrote...
Ugh. Are you still here, Call-of-Duty-guy?
You know, it's kind of ironic that you should protest against sweeping generalizations aimed at CoD fans and ME3's dumbed-down tone in favour of that kind of gamer, when you yourself are living testimony that yes, people who like stupid shooters do indeed respond positively to Bioware's dumbing down.
Jassu1979 wrote...
xsdob wrote...
Can I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Ugh. Are you still here, Call-of-Duty-guy?
You know, it's kind of ironic that you should protest against sweeping generalizations aimed at CoD fans and ME3's dumbed-down tone in favour of that kind of gamer, when you yourself are living testimony that yes, people who like stupid shooters do indeed respond positively to Bioware's dumbing down.
jetfire118 wrote...
Jassu1979 wrote...
xsdob wrote...
Can I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Ugh. Are you still here, Call-of-Duty-guy?
You know, it's kind of ironic that you should protest against sweeping generalizations aimed at CoD fans and ME3's dumbed-down tone in favour of that kind of gamer, when you yourself are living testimony that yes, people who like stupid shooters do indeed respond positively to Bioware's dumbing down.
What is..? I dont even...what? O god...
Guest_thematic_*
xsdob wrote...
That's a little insulting, and am I really known as the call of duty guy on these forums?
I may just have to bust out the old modern warfare signitures for this.
Being a Cod fan is nothing to be ashamed off. Cod 4 WAS a milestone after all. But the Cod franchise is now only about milking the customers. That´s the reason Cod people are frowned upon. In the eyes of the uninformed it looks like Cod people are mindless drones and buy everything with the Cod name on itxsdob wrote...
jetfire118 wrote...
Jassu1979 wrote...
xsdob wrote...
Can I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Ugh. Are you still here, Call-of-Duty-guy?
You know, it's kind of ironic that you should protest against sweeping generalizations aimed at CoD fans and ME3's dumbed-down tone in favour of that kind of gamer, when you yourself are living testimony that yes, people who like stupid shooters do indeed respond positively to Bioware's dumbing down.
What is..? I dont even...what? O god...
That's a little insulting, and am I really known as the call of duty guy on these forums?
I may just have to bust out the old modern warfare signitures for this.
Bill Casey wrote...
You have to become a complete monster in all endings...
Even inaction is monstrous...
v TricKy v wrote...
Beingxsdob wrote...
jetfire118 wrote...
Jassu1979 wrote...
xsdob wrote...
Can
I just say that I feel like I won and had a victory, just so we can get
it out there that people like me exist and that there is not a
unanimous feeling on this.
Too many times these threads become echo chambers, it's good to remind people that their is more than 1 point of view.
Ugh. Are you still here, Call-of-Duty-guy?
You
know, it's kind of ironic that you should protest against sweeping
generalizations aimed at CoD fans and ME3's dumbed-down tone in favour
of that kind of gamer, when you yourself are living testimony that yes,
people who like stupid shooters do indeed respond positively to
Bioware's dumbing down.
What is..? I dont even...what? O god...
That's a little insulting, and am I really known as the call of duty guy on these forums?
I may just have to bust out the old modern warfare signitures for this.
a Cod fan is nothing to be ashamed off. Cod 4 WAS a milestone after
all. But the Cod franchise is now only about milking the customers.
That´s the reason Cod people are frowned upon. In the eyes of the
uninformed it looks like Cod people are mindless drones and buy
everything with the Cod name on it
Modifié par xsdob, 31 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .
And you do realize that the people who established this "irrevocable fact" are the ones responsible for the ending? Mass Effect 1 certainly did not establish that the Reapers were completely invincible - neither did ME2. It was only in the third game that the Reapers suddenly became absolutely unstoppable; and even then, a single person with a laser pointer could bring one of them down if the plot demanded it.thematic wrote...
The fact: Defeating the Reapers through conventional means isn't possible.
The game establishes this as irrevocable fact.
Modifié par legion999, 31 juillet 2012 - 09:03 .
Guest_thematic_*
Jassu1979 wrote...
And you do realize that the people who established this "irrevocable fact" are the ones responsible for the ending? Mass Effect 1 certainly did not establish that the Reapers were completely invincible - neither did ME2. It was only in the third game that the Reapers suddenly became absolutely unstoppable; and even then, a single person with a laser pointer could bring one of them down if the plot demanded it.
But of course, the Reapers had to be "unstoppable" if you wanted to give the game the kind of ending we got: the worst possible mixture of the "magical Off-button" and unavoidable tragedy.
thematic wrote...
You're kidding, right? In ME1, the only reason--the only reason--that Sovereign--a single Reaper--is defeated is because his shields were down from reanimating Saren. The Codex says this. We couldn't even beat a single Reaper conventionally. From the very beginning. The Reapers were always nearly unstoppable, if not completely so. ME3 was where they became fragile, unfortunately: to allow the ending that we got, which is far too kind of an ending based on ME1 info.
I'd love to keep discussing this, but it's early morning here so I must go. But remember--we could not have defeated Sovereign in ME1 were it not for him reanimating Saren.
thematic wrote...
You're kidding, right? In ME1, the only reason--the only reason--that Sovereign--a single Reaper--is defeated is because his shields were down from reanimating Saren. The Codex says this. We couldn't even beat a single Reaper conventionally. From the very beginning. The Reapers were always nearly unstoppable, if not completely so. ME3 was where they became fragile, unfortunately: to allow the ending that we got, which is far too kind of an ending based on ME1 info.
I'd love to keep discussing this, but it's early morning here so I must go. But remember--we could not have defeated Sovereign in ME1 were it not for him reanimating Saren.
Why should Sovereign bring a Geth fleet when he is invincible? Better cinematics?thematic wrote...
I'd love to keep discussing this, but it's early morning here so I must go. But remember--we could not have defeated Sovereign in ME1 were it not for him reanimating Saren.
^thisConniving_Eagle wrote...
Conventional Victory = Impossible was only established in ME3. Before then it wasn't.
Retour en haut