Aller au contenu

Photo

Bioware is it too much to ask for the feeling of victory when we beat ME3


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
495 réponses à ce sujet

#76
Kildin_of_the_Volus

Kildin_of_the_Volus
  • Members
  • 78 messages

legion999 wrote...

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.


You do realise that we did beat it conventionally?


And it even led to this gem:  
http://images.wikia....annon_Codex.ogg 

#77
Jassu1979

Jassu1979
  • Members
  • 1 032 messages

thematic wrote...

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.


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.


Sovereign depended on the element of surprise, and only attacked with the support of a whole geth fleet. Heck, the whole original Reaper invasion strategy pretty much revolved around surprise: taking out the centre of Galactic government and disabling interstellar travel in a single surprise attack.

Was it a powerful ship? Without a doubt.
Was it invincible without special circumstances? By no means, or else it would just have flown to the Citadel on its own, whisked all the warships aside like a swarm of gnats, and then re-established contact with the station. Instead, it relied on the element of surprise, depended on the fact that the station was closed off to the surrounding fleet, kept the defenders busy with the aid of the geth and needed an inside man to sufficiently sabotage the defenses.

It stands to reason that the galaxy could tackle the reapers quite differently once they are prepared for them, and that technological innovation (you know, like the Thanix cannon) would provide you with sufficient means to pull through. Perhaps not easily, and certainly not without losses. But it was only in the third game that the Reapers could basically just waltz through the entire galaxy unchallenged, without either disabling the relay network nor exterminating galaxy-wide communication lines and centres of government first.
Heck, even ME3 still labors to establish that pretty much all the Citadel races are bumbling idiots who ignore the threat up until it appears on their very doorstep, and even then fail to pull themselves together.
The epilogue of ME1 painted a very different picture, with a galaxy that was now alerted to the threat and would work to prepare for the inevitable attack. It was only with ME2 that the creative team gradually started to write itself into a corner by making the galaxy deny and ignore the imminent danger.

#78
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages
But we were not prepared for them, we weren't in ME2 and we weren't in ME3, that is a major problem.

#79
Jassu1979

Jassu1979
  • Members
  • 1 032 messages

xsdob wrote...

But we were not prepared for them, we weren't in ME2 and we weren't in ME3, that is a major problem.

It *was* a failure on the part of the writers, necessitating that whole Crucible nonsense. In their effort to up the ante, they wrote themselves into a corner and apparently could not figure out how to get out of there again without using space magic.

(Now, I might be a bit unfair here: even that McGuffin might have worked as a narrative element if it had actually been PART of the story, rather than just existing in the background and receiving almost no more backstory than "it's an anti-reaper weapon that I conveniently found just now" and "we don't know what it'll do, but it's surprisingly easy to build".)

ME2's ending, however, did have the potential of leading to a very different plot in ME3, particularly in combination with "The Arrival": this might have been the moment when the galaxy (or at the very least the Alliance) finally acknowledged the Reaper threat openly, and put every single day of the six-months delay to good use. Alas, instead they decided to let Shepard sit in detention the entire time, and only start the game when the upper echelons of the Alliance stare at the screens in confusion and fear and go: "Oh no, what shall we do now?"

#80
Jassu1979

Jassu1979
  • Members
  • 1 032 messages
A small aside on the Crucible: it seems the writers themselves did not quite know what they wanted to do with it.

At some point, it's stated that the Crucible needs the Catalyst as an energy source in order to work.
Then, the Catalyst says that the Crucible is an energy source that enables the Citadel to do what it does.

It would be easy to ignore such small inconsistencies if they did not lead up to such a collossal mess.

#81
xsdob

xsdob
  • Members
  • 8 575 messages
I can't help but blame drew for this, since he was the one who wrote that for 2 years, the council did nothing to prepare for the reapers and pretended like it never happened.

#82
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages
Right, if I read through this thread I better not find people defending the billion year old space wizard with green wand that fuses trees with robots on grounds of realism...

OH LORD NO! My sides are bursting!

#83
MassStorm

MassStorm
  • Members
  • 955 messages
What's wrong with you OP??? How dare you criticize Mac & Casey work????........this is pure Artistic Integrity and you have to LIKE. BW commands you to LIKE it! Got it??? Otherwise you are an entitled whiner.

<_<

#84
Sleepdribble

Sleepdribble
  • Members
  • 125 messages

Jassu1979 wrote...

A small aside on the Crucible: it seems the writers themselves did not quite know what they wanted to do with it.

At some point, it's stated that the Crucible needs the Catalyst as an energy source in order to work.
Then, the Catalyst says that the Crucible is an energy source that enables the Citadel to do what it does.

It would be easy to ignore such small inconsistencies if they did not lead up to such a collossal mess.



Actually, it's NEVER stated that the Crucible needs the Catalyst as an energy source.The Crucible is always refered to as an energy source, the Catalyst is the.. well.. catalyst. The 'trigger', if you will.
You whine more than you play.

#85
Exozze

Exozze
  • Members
  • 135 messages

Jassu1979 wrote...

A small aside on the Crucible: it seems the writers themselves did not quite know what they wanted to do with it.

At some point, it's stated that the Crucible needs the Catalyst as an energy source in order to work.
Then, the Catalyst says that the Crucible is an energy source that enables the Citadel to do what it does.

It would be easy to ignore such small inconsistencies if they did not lead up to such a collossal mess.


Yes, but that is said from someone who dosn't know anything about the Crucible. This cycle was the first to ever attach the Crucible to the Citadel. I think it was the Prothean VI that stated that. The protheans never came that far. They did not know what it was or what it would do. 

The strange thing is that the race that designed the Catalyst must have know what it was and what it would do. They should have left some information. Oh well.

#86
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages
Yes, it's a goddamn shame even whining is more fun than playing this travesty.

#87
Jassu1979

Jassu1979
  • Members
  • 1 032 messages

xsdob wrote...

I can't help but blame drew for this, since he was the one who wrote that for 2 years, the council did nothing to prepare for the reapers and pretended like it never happened.

Aye, Drew certainly contributed to this mess - and his abandoned "Dark Energy"-plot certainly contributed to the narrative disaster we ended up with. Personally, I think that trying to portray the Reapers as some kind of misunderstood/misguided anti-heroes in a plot twist was a HORRIBLE idea to begin with.

The Reapers' menace pretty much depended on them being almost godlike Space Cthulhus: incredibly ancient, seething with amoral malevolence (from our perspective), and with utter disregard for sapient beings that they consider further beneath them than we might consider cattle.

"You exist because we allow it, and you will end because we demand it."

Really, they should have left it at that. It just won't do to have the Reapers repeat "your petty mind cannot possibly comprehend us" the entire time, and then have the plot explained to us in no uncertain (but absolutely nonsensical and hilarious) terms that make them very much comprehensible - and pathetic.

#88
Exozze

Exozze
  • Members
  • 135 messages

MassStorm wrote...

What's wrong with you OP??? How dare you criticize Mac & Casey work????........this is pure Artistic Integrity and you have to LIKE. BW commands you to LIKE it! Got it??? Otherwise you are an entitled whiner.

<_<


Great quote from Babylon 5. "An artist is nothing without his audience". That should have left them something to think about. 

#89
Exozze

Exozze
  • Members
  • 135 messages

Jassu1979 wrote...

xsdob wrote...

I can't help but blame drew for this, since he was the one who wrote that for 2 years, the council did nothing to prepare for the reapers and pretended like it never happened.

Aye, Drew certainly contributed to this mess - and his abandoned "Dark Energy"-plot certainly contributed to the narrative disaster we ended up with. Personally, I think that trying to portray the Reapers as some kind of misunderstood/misguided anti-heroes in a plot twist was a HORRIBLE idea to begin with.


I like to think of it form a differnet perspective. In the Halo universe, a AI can be active for about 7 years, then they go rampant, like crazy. Then they must be shut down because they are not functioning properly. I like to think that what was happend to the catalyst. He became to obsessive with his mission and went crazy. He is just programmed to end wars between synthetics and organics. 

#90
saracen16

saracen16
  • Members
  • 2 283 messages

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

 At the end of ME1 I felt victorious
Same with ME2
ME3 left me feeling like I had lost even post EC
I do not play a game to lose I play it to win.


A conventional victory violates the theme of the Reapers as being unstoppable, so yes, it is.

#91
Conniving_Eagle

Conniving_Eagle
  • Members
  • 6 013 messages

saracen16 wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

 At the end of ME1 I felt victorious
Same with ME2
ME3 left me feeling like I had lost even post EC
I do not play a game to lose I play it to win.


A conventional victory violates the theme of the Reapers as being unstoppable, so yes, it is.


Which was only established in ME3.

#92
clarkusdarkus

clarkusdarkus
  • Members
  • 2 460 messages
I blame it on the lack of actuall end boss/battle with harbinger or of some sorts.....i mean a survival wave of reapers shouldn't be the last bit of gameplay to end a series, otherwise they might aswell remove the levelling up system as u battle reapers at the start of the game and kill them fine.....and there the same reapers 40 levels later......as bad as the bosses may have been in ME/2 it at least gave the illusion of something to aim towards throughout and to test yourself. In ME3 all u do is talk it out with a character introduced 15mins from the end........it was always going to fail which in turn leaves us with confusion and using our own imagination/dissapointment.

#93
hostaman

hostaman
  • Members
  • 1 741 messages
Sounds like you wanted shep to ride off into the sunset with the LI on your arm!

You've missed the point of ME. It's all about making dificult decisions. Do you save Ashley of Kaiden, The Quarians or the Geth? And when it came to the end do you sacrifice yourself to save the galxay or attempt to go out all guns blazing?

There are plenty of "F*** yeah" testosterone filled shooter games out there, but ME dares to be different. Maybe it's not the game for you.

I for one didn't feel too euphoric at the end of ME2 as I lost two of my squad and the entire crew of the Normandy (I waited too long), hardly a victory.  But I still enjoyed the game becuase hey, life is full of choices.

Try Super Mario - He always gets the princess :P

#94
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages

hostaman wrote...

Sounds like you wanted shep to ride off into the sunset with the LI on your arm!

You've missed the point of ME. It's all about making dificult decisions. Do you save Ashley of Kaiden, The Quarians or the Geth? And when it came to the end do you sacrifice yourself to save the galxay or attempt to go out all guns blazing?

There are plenty of "F*** yeah" testosterone filled shooter games out there, but ME dares to be different. Maybe it's not the game for you.

I for one didn't feel too euphoric at the end of ME2 as I lost two of my squad and the entire crew of the Normandy (I waited too long), hardly a victory.  But I still enjoyed the game becuase hey, life is full of choices.

Try Super Mario - He always gets the princess :P


Woohoo, another straw man ablaze!

#95
Dormiglione

Dormiglione
  • Members
  • 780 messages
"Destroy" is the only option that gives me a slight feeling of victory, not much, but enough.

#96
Jassu1979

Jassu1979
  • Members
  • 1 032 messages

hostaman wrote...

There are plenty of "F*** yeah" testosterone filled shooter games out there, but ME dares to be different. Maybe it's not the game for you.
[...]
Try Super Mario - He always gets the princess :P


And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: a toffee-nosed hipster who actually believes that what ME3 delivered was High Art rather than just bad writing, looking down at the lowly masses who are just too primitive to get it.

Wait a minute... is that you, Mac Walters?

#97
SpamBot2000

SpamBot2000
  • Members
  • 4 463 messages

Dormiglione wrote...

"Destroy" is the only option that gives me a slight feeling of victory, not much, but enough.


Sadly not enough for me, since it's still doing the spaceboy's bidding. And can't help but see the EDI/Geth thing for what it so blatantly is: authorial punishment for wrong choice.

#98
Persephone

Persephone
  • Members
  • 7 989 messages
So more player-pandering, less in game consequences (War on such a scale NEVER ends in a clear victory. Wait, no, any war never ends in complete victory that makes everybody happy. War does not work like that).

After EC-ME3 (Paragon Control), I felt fulfilled, moved and inspired. The "I DID IT!" rush wasn't there, no. It was even better: It wasn't just "Wooooooohoooooooo! Killed the dragon/reaper/blah! I rock!" feeling, but a lingering feeling of bittersweet affection. The feeling I usually get after reading a book like "Anna Karenina" or "Wuthering Heights".

*Shrugs* 

#99
hostaman

hostaman
  • Members
  • 1 741 messages

Jassu1979 wrote...

And here we have it, ladies and gentlemen: a toffee-nosed hipster who actually believes that what ME3 delivered was High Art rather than just bad writing, looking down at the lowly masses who are just too primitive to get it.

Wait a minute... is that you, Mac Walters?


Not too keen on toffee, and I've never hugged a tree. I just hold a different opinion to you. I understand how the majority of players didn't like the ending of ME, hoping for something more akin to blowing up the death star. But I personally enjoyed it, and preferred it to a typical Hollywood ending.

I've written on other treads that the gaming industry will learn a great deal from this, that gamers are not ready for games to take on more complex less black and white stories. This is no criticism of players such as yourself, just stark reality.

I am able to understand your feellings toward the game, it's just a shame you can't understand mine.

Holding a daisy as I speak :lol:.

#100
Dormiglione

Dormiglione
  • Members
  • 780 messages

SpamBot2000 wrote...

Dormiglione wrote...

"Destroy" is the only option that gives me a slight feeling of victory, not much, but enough.


Sadly not enough for me, since it's still doing the spaceboy's bidding. And can't help but see the EDI/Geth thing for what it so blatantly is: authorial punishment for wrong choice.


Know what you mean. Im not satisfied with the "Destroy" option, but its the only option that gives me a slight feeling of revenge because:
- all reapers get destroyed
- spaceboy gets destroyed (blows up with the station)

Sure, it leaves a bad taste because geth and edi will not survive.