C9316 wrote...
Mass Effect 3 failed simply because it was half-assed.
DecCylonus wrote...
Where is that stated?
Modifié par Ticonderoga117, 23 août 2012 - 06:14 .
Blueprotoss wrote...
Thats if you didn't save the Council.
He was their lead, but all he did was crush one ship and then blow a couple more later.Blueprotoss wrote...
The Geth are strong by themselves but Sovreign was the spear head in that fleet.Baa Baa wrote...
When the hell did I forget that? Sovereign didn't do much in that battle so there's no real way to determine how powerful he really was. He took out like two ships by running into them and then docked with the Citadel. Most of the other casualties of the fleet were a result of it's Heretic allies.
The "Sovereign was taken out by the Normandy in one shot!" and "Sovereign took out nearly an entire fleet!" arguements are both bull****.
Now, when did I forget that Sovereign was a Reaper?
Ice Cold J wrote...
IMO, OP hit the nail on the freakin' head.
Why CAN'T we beat the Reapers? We had advanced warning, unlike previous cycles. We're (presumably) more advanced than previous cyles, as Sovereign was attempting to work around the machinations of the Protheans' development of the Conduit. We are likely greater in number than previous cycles.
We may have never seen anything like the Reapers, but THEY have never seen anything like US.
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Mesina2 wrote...
And guess WHO taken down those shields?
NOT THE DAMN FLEET!
Exactly. Commander Shepard. A mere human.
So, you keep thinking they're invincible. Meanwhile, I'll keep ME1 and ME2 in mind.
Sajuro wrote...
You're right, Bioware should never try anything new
just clones of Baldur's Gate, KOTOR, and Mass Effect
clones forever
Mesina2 wrote...
And do you know how Shepard did it?
By destroying Saren husk avatar that Sovy controlled. After it was destroyed, Sovy was put in some sort of shock that put all it's system's offline.
Alright, a glaring flaw.
But how do you avoid that flaw, my dear Reapers?
By not assuming control without some safety get aways.
Like you severing connection to that husk first.
You know, like Harbinger was doing that whole time in ME2.
And how many Reapers assumed control in ME3?
None.
Yeah, we're screwed.
Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Oh, well here's a simple counter, use weapons that bypass shields. Like lasers, nukes, and Thanix. It's like... using your brain to overcome thier one big advantage.
Mesina2 wrote...
Except that doesn't work that way. They have go through shields too.
Thats a lie because you take a lot of Alliance loses to save thelast few of the Citadel forces and to defeat Sovreign. Its like saying a bee doesn't die when it stings someone.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Blueprotoss wrote...
Thats if you didn't save the Council.
The losses are LESS if you don't save the Council.
How is that when Thanix cannons barely affected the Rannoch Reaper, which means Sovreign wold be fine.Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Mesina2 wrote...
Except that doesn't work that way. They have go through shields too.
Nope. Lasers outright go through, Thanix gets a ton of heat through, and the radiation and heat from nukes go right through.
Modifié par Blueprotoss, 24 août 2012 - 01:19 .
Sovreign did a lot more then lead the Geth especially when he did the most damage and almost released the Reapers. Sovreign didn't do a Conwallis as lead from behind..Baa Baa wrote...
He was their lead, but all he did was crush one ship and then blow a couple more later.Blueprotoss wrote...
The Geth are strong by themselves but Sovreign was the spear head in that fleet.Baa Baa wrote...
When the hell did I forget that? Sovereign didn't do much in that battle so there's no real way to determine how powerful he really was. He took out like two ships by running into them and then docked with the Citadel. Most of the other casualties of the fleet were a result of it's Heretic allies.
The "Sovereign was taken out by the Normandy in one shot!" and "Sovereign took out nearly an entire fleet!" arguements are both bull****.
Now, when did I forget that Sovereign was a Reaper?
Sovereign being there really didn't benefit the Geth that much. The reason they managed to get Sovereign to the Citadel so quickly was because they had the element of surprise (how they destroyed several of the main ships guarding the Citadel without any trouble).
Then when Sovereign was inside the Citadel, the Heretics were on their own and caused the majority of the damage. Such as destroying the Destiny Ascension if you're a renegade.
Seboist wrote...
Deviated from what formula? All the trademark BW elements are in this game from the juvenile power tripping,shallow tacked on "romances", politicians as clowns, shallow binary morality, cliche plot about getting allies against against big bad evil, etc.
These two are very true.AtreiyaN7 wrote...
it didn't fail - this is pretty clearly you cloaking your whining about the endings which I guess you still aren't over yet.
knightnblu wrote...
Why do you think that most people never completed the game?
Atakuma wrote...
It failed because it was poorly written and didn't make any sense. It's got nothing to do with a formula.
:mellow:
Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
By failed I mean the fan backlash at a time when the trilogy was suppose to be at it's apex it hit it's low point instead.
ME3 didn't need PTSD sequences, nihilism, an unbeatable foe, or transhuman nonsense, it just needed a conventional victory with a few varying end choices based on player morality. Nothing fancy but who cares? Stick with what works.
Neither ME3 nor ME as a whole is done yet. Btw there are multiple "original" endings especially when we're talking about revisions and rewrites.knightnblu wrote...
For the most part the game was a success right up until it came time to close the story. Sure there were some fumbles prior to that point, but they could be forgiven if the original ending had not been completely screwed up. But rather than to have redone the offending ending, BioWare chose to fill in some plot holes, add some cut scenes, and give Shepard more dialog and let it go. That made the ending more palatable, but it still wasn't the ending we were looking to get.
If there was no payoff for the player then there would be no ending and using the trilogy excuse is just pathetic. If you didn't like the control that Bioware had over the story in ME3 then why did you play ME1 and ME2? Victory isn't always an easy choice while there are always sacrafices shown whether its ME, DA, KotOR, Jade Empire, Baldur's Gate, or Neverwinter.knightnblu wrote...
There was never any pay off for the player. A lot of us spent a lot of time and money on the trilogy and we were rewarded with crap. No matter which ending you pick, you had to take a bite off of the crap sandwich and enjoy the taste because BioWare wasn't going to let you get away with a clean taste in your mouth. Pick control you die and never see anybody you care about ever again and your friends are all Reapers. Pick synthesis and you rape the galaxy. Pick destroy and you kill the Geth and EDI. The message? Victory always blows.
Most of the fans didn't hammer Bioware just like how most of the professional writes, college professors, and everyone else didn't hammer Bioware. The small uproar with ME3 isn't anything new to games and Bioware while you seem to want to create a straw-mann that something should have a 100% statisfactory rating. Haters gonna hate.knightnblu wrote...
The fans hammered them, professional writers hammered them, college lit professors hammered them, and they thought that everybody just wanted closure. See, when you have your head so far up your backside it is difficult to hear what folks are saying. But the "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude of BioWare persists to this day precisely because of that. The attitude of BioWare couldn't have been made any clearer than by the statements made by them at a college seminar for game creators when they stated that they don't care what gamers think. They only care what the game creator community thinks. Why do you think that they got 75 perfect game reviews? Why do you think that most people never completed the game? How many game reviewers completed the game? Damned few I would bet.
How is that when Bioware owns and created Bioware, which you clearly didn't do. Entitlement is never a good thing.knightnblu wrote...
The problem is that BioWare believes too much of its own press.
Retour en haut