317 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

The thing that pisses me off most abuot Destroy is that the Geth are gone, not because I'm all like "OMGGeThWeReMyFriEnDz!" But because we have already proved starchild wrong by uniting the Geth and Quarians, to go and kill them again would only cause future synthetics to, in fact, rise against us once they learn we wiped out their entire existence.

The Geth's survival is crucial for organic and synthetic harmony.

Also, Geth have Reaper code now which makes them able to "understand" us, doesn't it?

[Baa Baa]

I think Mass Effect 3 would have turned out much better if Shepard discovered the Reapers were dragons and the only way to defeat them was to stab the Crucible with an ancient Katana owned by Katsumoto.
I mean, Batman looked awesome having a sword in Arkham City.... why not Shepard right?

[Baa Baa]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The thing that pisses me off most abuot Destroy is that the Geth are gone, not because I'm all like "OMGGeThWeReMyFriEnDz!" But because we have already proved starchild wrong by uniting the Geth and Quarians, to go and kill them again would only cause future synthetics to, in fact, rise against us once they learn we wiped out their entire existence.

The Geth's survival is crucial for organic and synthetic harmony.

Also, Geth have Reaper code now which makes them able to "understand" us, doesn't it?

I see where you're coming from (and I really agree with you that it's stupid that the Catalyst doesn't realize that the Geth contridict his beliefs) but I think that the death of the Geth in Destroy could actually have a postive effect, if Shepard survives that is.
If Shepard survives and tells everyone that the only reason they won was because of the sacrifice of synthetic life such as the Geth, they're going to remembered and respected by organics at that point. And future synthetics might even be liked more from the start by organics because of this sacrifice.
That's just one way I saw it as; it still pissed me off that I have to destroy them in the end, mainly because it feels like spitting on Legion's grave.

[Conniving_Eagle]

The Twilight God wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

CronoDragoon wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

So in other words: I'm willing to listen to reason but since you or anyone else can't come up with any you won't bother.

Okay, since you say you are willing to listen I will try:

Scientific breakthroughs are usually a combination of luck, intelligence, and perserverence. It is therefore logical that - since every bright mind in the galaxy is in the same place and has the utmost motivation to fix the relays - someone will eventually be able to discern the correct path to fixing the relays.

Source? Scientists are civillians, I'm not sure why they would be helping escort a superweapon, even if they were the ones who developed it. The Crucible wasn't being built in Sol. They're still restricted to the resources of one, now very over-crowded system. And if what you say is true, then good for Sol. I wonder how the other systems are going to find out how to fix the relays.

The scientist did come along. Kasumi says so if she is alive,

However, it doesn't matter. It's like giving a modern cell phone to a 16th century scientist and saying figure it out. If we just throw enough clueless geniuses at something it automatic fixes itself. The Crucible had instructions. The relays do not.

I can see them making a relay technology based on Crucible tech, but not repairing the rlays themselves within their own lifetimes. The "what if" slide shows is just intended to give false hope so people don;t cry. But people are stupid. Bioware bet on that when they feed them that polished turd.

This much we agree on.

[D24O]

Wow, I'm gone for like an hour, and this thread gets 6 pages.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Baa Baa wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 would have turned out much better if Shepard discovered the Reapers were dragons and the only way to defeat them was to stab the Crucible with an ancient Katana owned by Katsumoto.
I mean, Batman looked awesome having a sword in Arkham City.... why not Shepard right?

Will he be in a race against time with Kai Leng to retrieve the Jade Talismans?

[3DandBeyond]

I agree with this. If they wanted to say it was impossible then show that really being so. Don't put crap in the game that says, hey stupid reapers are vulnerable and then ignore it. Don't tell me when I see the loading screen that I'm winning against them. Don't just have Shepard from the start run around screaming, "it's hopeless, hold me, er let's hold hands and stand together". Don't have Anderson act like getting to the council will make a good darned bit of difference. It's death by a thousand cuts. Why the frack would Anderson think they should just pull forces away from Palaven or Thessia to help Earth? Why not abandon Earth, send all forces to make a stand at Palaven?

If it was impossible then show some real tactics (oh yeah it wasn't about that) that is not working. Don't show morons running straight at reapers with their pistols blazing being cut down.

I mean why the heck was everyone just running straight at Harbinger at the Conduit? No one thought to maybe distract him, especially after Joker made the pick up. Hmmm, "hey Commander. He's not shooting at me, want me to circle around him and make him pay attention to me?" Yeah, if he shot down the Normandy that would hurt, but the idea was to get Shepard or somebody up the conduit.

They didn't clearly make the case that impossible meant that-my war asset screen (with over 9000EMS) says my chances of victory are even. Sounds doable. But, noooooo.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Baa Baa wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The thing that pisses me off most abuot Destroy is that the Geth are gone, not because I'm all like "OMGGeThWeReMyFriEnDz!" But because we have already proved starchild wrong by uniting the Geth and Quarians, to go and kill them again would only cause future synthetics to, in fact, rise against us once they learn we wiped out their entire existence.

The Geth's survival is crucial for organic and synthetic harmony.

Also, Geth have Reaper code now which makes them able to "understand" us, doesn't it?

I see where you're coming from (and I really agree with you that it's stupid that the Catalyst doesn't realize that the Geth contridict his beliefs) but I think that the death of the Geth in Destroy could actually have a postive effect, if Shepard survives that is.
If Shepard survives and tells everyone that the only reason they won was because of the sacrifice of synthetic life such as the Geth, they're going to remembered and respected by organics at that point. And future synthetics might even be liked more from the start by organics because of this sacrifice.
That's just one way I saw it as; it still pissed me off that I have to destroy them in the end, mainly because it feels like spitting on Legion's grave.

Though we don't know what future AI would think once they learned how organics treated their predecessors.

Lol, but that's pretending there's going a non-retcon sequel to ME3.

[AresKeith]

CronoDragoon wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

sorry to break it to you, but the past two games does relate to ME3 

and a Relay going Supernova should effect them like it does a System

What does any of this have to do with ME3's portrayal of the power of the Reapers, which was the point of my post to which you responded?

you said that Palaven wasn't doing good against the Reapers, well they weren't using the Thanix Cannons they built after ME1 because the Council got retconned after they believed you about the Reapers. Thanix Cannons and Thanix Missles are strong enough to hurt the Reapers because there based off Sovereigns weapons

[CronoDragoon]

The Twilight God wrote...

However, it doesn't matter. It's like giving a modern cell phone to a 16th century scientist and saying figure it out. If we just throw enough clueless geniuses at something it automatic fixes itself. The Crucible had instructions. The relays do not.

I can see them making a relay technology based on Crucible tech, but not repairing the rlays themselves within their own lifetimes. The "what if" slide shows is just intended to give false hope so people don;t cry. But people are stupid. Bioware bet on that when they feed them that polished turd.

We have no clue what the technology gap actually is, so analogies aren't useful. They could be one breakthrough away, they could be ten.

The Crucible had instructions, yes, and it was built within what? Months? I'm not claiming they repaired the relays as easily as they built the Crucible, but I am claiming that there is no galactic dark age.

The what if slide being what? In any case, the reason BioWare gave us reasons to think the relays are repaired is irrelevant.

[StrawberryRainPop]

The Angry One wrote...

No this isn't actually a topic about conventional victory, but rather how Me3 completely failed to give me the impression that we were facing a hopeless battle.

Let's look at War of the Worlds, since ME3 tries to pay homage to it in a few ways.
Specifically, the musical. Because the music is funky: War of the Worlds, Thunderchild

If you're too lazy to listen, the gist of it is that in a naval battle against the Martian tripods, the warship Thunderchild charges at them cannons blazing. It takes down a tripod before being instantly sunk by the others.
The impression I get from this scene is that the Thunderchild and her crew went down fighting. They tried. They took one of the bad guys with them.

How does this compare to ME3? ME3's battles all give me the same impression - nobody's trying. From the opening, to Palaven, to the battles over and on Earth at the end. I see the same thing. Lethargic fools rolling over and giving up before the battle has even begun. Ridiculous tactics and random flailing about. Failure to use the technology and weapons they're supposed to have. All when the codex outright says they can do better.
We have chararacters declare the Reapers undefeatable to the point it almost becomes an informed ability. While ME1 portrayed prevailing against the odds with Sovereign well enough, ME3 seems almost apathetic about what it's supposed to portray.

With the Thunderchild, I sensed that they did their best. The might of the British Empire did everything it could - and it just wasn't enough. With ME3, all I sense is that everybody gave up before the fact, and if I want an actual sense of proper resistance I have to read the codex. I didn't feel it.

It was never impossible. It was just a way for the writers to end the story with a deux ex machina, filtering the numerous plot lines into one nice tube of bad writing.

oh well, at least the masses liked how it pandered to generic heroism.

[Quething]

This sort of goes hand-in-hand with my continuing despair at the complete lack of comprehension from some parties that "unconventional" is not a synonym for "Crucible." Throwing a thresher maw at a Reaper is unconventional. Having a completely mobile population center that isn't forced to defend a specific planet and can freely focus all its attention on single isolated targets and then retreat is unconventional. Dropping an asteroid on a mass relay is unconventional. Sending civilians with bombs into enemy resource production centers is unconventional.

All of those tactics are completely available to the allied organic & geth forces at their current tech level. All are proven successful against Reapers.

I'm honestly less fussed about the game's failure to show me that conventional victory was impossible than I am at it's failure to show me that unconventional victory had to be limited to Starbrat's magic battery. At least the former is only an absence of examples, whereas the latter is a surfeit of straight up contradiction. But in the end it's just two pieces of the same problem: they wanted us to believe something so badly they hung the plot on it and then repeatedly showed us no such thing.

Modifié par Quething, 24 août 2012 - 05:35 .

[Zulufoxtrot]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I agree with this. If they wanted to say it was impossible then show that really being so. Don't put crap in the game that says, hey stupid reapers are vulnerable and then ignore it. Don't tell me when I see the loading screen that I'm winning against them. Don't just have Shepard from the start run around screaming, "it's hopeless, hold me, er let's hold hands and stand together". Don't have Anderson act like getting to the council will make a good darned bit of difference. It's death by a thousand cuts. Why the frack would Anderson think they should just pull forces away from Palaven or Thessia to help Earth? Why not abandon Earth, send all forces to make a stand at Palaven?

If it was impossible then show some real tactics (oh yeah it wasn't about that) that is not working. Don't show morons running straight at reapers with their pistols blazing being cut down.

I mean why the heck was everyone just running straight at Harbinger at the Conduit? No one thought to maybe distract him, especially after Joker made the pick up. Hmmm, "hey Commander. He's not shooting at me, want me to circle around him and make him pay attention to me?" Yeah, if he shot down the Normandy that would hurt, but the idea was to get Shepard or somebody up the conduit.

They didn't clearly make the case that impossible meant that-my war asset screen (with over 9000EMS) says my chances of victory are even. Sounds doable. But, noooooo.

That and pretty much every pre-release trailer made it seem like you would be retaking Earth using conventional forces, so I don't think it's something they had really ruled out until someone got hooked on hardcore drugs and decided to give us the Catalyst. I know Trailers aren't representative of what should be expected in-game all that much, but you'd think the general idea would've related more. 

[Lonsecia]

I think if the story had progressed from the first game at a reasonable pace, and not essentially time-skipped, we'd be in a better situation by the time the Reapers arrive.

ME3 takes place nearly three years after the first, and because we spend 2 1/2 years of that time inactive (and seemingly the galaxy does as well) we're in no better position than we were before we knew about them.
I'd say the whole reason they killed shepard was to make the task more difficult for the galaxy, and then they realised they'd given us no alternatives to winning. When it came to making the third game, I honestly feel the Crucible was deemed the only option they had left that they could integrate. They'd given us a pretty solid victory over Sovereign, but after that they seemed to hammer home that 'it was only one Reaper who was in a weakened state'.
Doing that basically left us with 'well, how're we going to defeat them?' The solution being the Crucible, because they couldn't backtrack on how powerful and numerous the Reaper threat is.
It felt to me (well, still feels) that they should never have implied such a vast number of Reapers. They should have made them strong (and shown what a fully strengthened and prepared Reaper was truly capable of) but also had the galaxy planning for the invasion.
I also suspect they panicked at that possibility because it felt too mundane and cliche.

But to cut a long post short: I feel Bioware gave themselves - and us - no other choice because they ended up boxed in.

[Baa Baa]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

I think Mass Effect 3 would have turned out much better if Shepard discovered the Reapers were dragons and the only way to defeat them was to stab the Crucible with an ancient Katana owned by Katsumoto.
I mean, Batman looked awesome having a sword in Arkham City.... why not Shepard right?

Will he be in a race against time with Kai Leng to retrieve the Jade Talismans?

Most certainly yes.

[DubVee12]

I never thought conventional victory was impossible until ME2 where everyone sat around doing nothing to prepare for the Reapers.

While I agree the tactics shown by the galactic military leaders were awful, I don't believe smarter tactics would have actually allowed for conventional victory. Kill a few dozen more Reapers, perhaps. But actually win against the entire Reaper armada? Would seem rather silly to me.

[Baa Baa]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Baa Baa wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

The thing that pisses me off most abuot Destroy is that the Geth are gone, not because I'm all like "OMGGeThWeReMyFriEnDz!" But because we have already proved starchild wrong by uniting the Geth and Quarians, to go and kill them again would only cause future synthetics to, in fact, rise against us once they learn we wiped out their entire existence.

The Geth's survival is crucial for organic and synthetic harmony.

Also, Geth have Reaper code now which makes them able to "understand" us, doesn't it?

I see where you're coming from (and I really agree with you that it's stupid that the Catalyst doesn't realize that the Geth contridict his beliefs) but I think that the death of the Geth in Destroy could actually have a postive effect, if Shepard survives that is.
If Shepard survives and tells everyone that the only reason they won was because of the sacrifice of synthetic life such as the Geth, they're going to remembered and respected by organics at that point. And future synthetics might even be liked more from the start by organics because of this sacrifice.
That's just one way I saw it as; it still pissed me off that I have to destroy them in the end, mainly because it feels like spitting on Legion's grave.

Though we don't know what future AI would think once they learned how organics treated their predecessors.

Lol, but that's pretending there's going a non-retcon sequel to ME3.

I know, it's how I like to think of it because I'd like the Catalyst to be as wrong as possible

[Baa Baa]

DubVee12 wrote...

I never thought conventional victory was impossible until ME2 where everyone sat around doing nothing to prepare for the Reapers.

While I agree the tactics shown by the galactic military leaders were awful, I don't believe smarter tactics would have actually allowed for conventional victory. Kill a few dozen more Reapers, perhaps. But actually win against the entire Reaper armada? Would seem rather silly to me.

This is pretty much my thoughts as well.
It seems reasonable in ME1 but not at all in future games.

[garf]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Of course, because if every soldier and general and admiral didn't hold the stupid ball the need for the Crucible would feel even more contrived and the whole Catalyst bit would feel even worse, and remember, that is the entire point of ME3.

To crush Shepard's personality and get him to the Catalyst.

(emphasis mine)

And that is basically why the ending was a franchise souring betrayal.

[The Twilight God]

CronoDragoon wrote...

We have no clue what the technology gap actually is, so analogies aren't useful. They could be one breakthrough away, they could be ten.

The Crucible had instructions, yes, and it was built within what? Months? I'm not claiming they repaired the relays as easily as they built the Crucible, but I am claiming that there is no galactic dark age.

The what if slide being what? In any case, the reason BioWare gave us reasons to think the relays are repaired is irrelevant.

The slides are narrated by a single entity who talks about what they think, hope or plan will happen. None of the events in the slides actually occur in game. It's just wishful thinking. That is why they insist on keeping the relays fubar no matter what. Everyone is cut off. Galactic civilization as we know it is over. It is a "dark age". There are whole worlds in ruin and you think their first priority is sending repair fleets via FTL to fix thousands of relays? Imagine how much time it will take to FTL to just the short distance secondary relays. The primary relays will take decades or centuries to reach. They'd have to make liveships like the Quarians to get people out there and tech their children how to fix them becaus the initial crews would probably die off before they get there.

Modifié par The Twilight God, 24 août 2012 - 05:46 .

[garf]

Lonsecia wrote...

I think if the story had progressed from the first game at a reasonable pace, and not essentially time-skipped, we'd be in a better situation by the time the Reapers arrive.

ME3 takes place nearly three years after the first, and because we spend 2 1/2 years of that time inactive (and seemingly the galaxy does as well) we're in no better position than we were before we knew about them.
I'd say the whole reason they killed shepard was to make the task more difficult for the galaxy, and then they realised they'd given us no alternatives to winning. When it came to making the third game, I honestly feel the Crucible was deemed the only option they had left that they could integrate. They'd given us a pretty solid victory over Sovereign, but after that they seemed to hammer home that 'it was only one Reaper who was in a weakened state'.
Doing that basically left us with 'well, how're we going to defeat them?' The solution being the Crucible, because they couldn't backtrack on how powerful and numerous the Reaper threat is.
It felt to me (well, still feels) that they should never have implied such a vast number of Reapers. They should have made them strong (and shown what a fully strengthened and prepared Reaper was truly capable of) but also had the galaxy planning for the invasion.
I also suspect they panicked at that possibility because it felt too mundane and cliche.

But to cut a long post short: I feel Bioware gave themselves - and us - no other choice because they ended up boxed in.

Sounds like a failure of imagination then, so much for 'artistic integrety' then.

[garf]

megamacka wrote...

Tbh, do they really HAVE to put exactly EVERYTHING in a cinematic to you? They already say that you can't win conventionally, do they have to show you one reaper taking out five cruisers on his own?

And by the way. The reason that you may have felt this way as you say in the OP '' no one is trying ''..... Easy explanation..... 50% of the developers lost all passion in ME3..... 50% + of the game lacks any sort of real emotion and passion put into it. Look how poorly Thessia was executed for example.

   No one looked like they were trying because the developer stopped caring.

actually... yes.

[thearbiter1337]

If the Galaxy started preparing for the Reapers and did something like in WWII and start saving supply's up,building more destroyers and armaments we could have taken on the reapers conventionally
Sadly the only force that did this was the Alliance but they took some of the worst hits at Earth

Plus if i learned there is some Reaper killswitch that we found hell yeah i'm taking it as if millions of Civilians are dying each day because of the Reapers i wouldn't want to waste millions of troops just to beat the Reapers conventionally
Also milllions would be lost just trying to defeat their ground troops as what ever the Reapers had were once ours unless every damn troop is a Chuck Mawhinney against reapers i say those odds are slim

[lillitheris]

Meh, I had higher expectations for this post!

They were clearly losing. Minor storytelling flaws.

Also, goddess on a ******. Wish for a game that had an option for a conventional victory all you want, but in ME, there isn’t one. It’s the way it is, the Reapers are unbeatable.

Modifié par lillitheris, 24 août 2012 - 06:21 .

[Mazebook]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

maaaze wrote...

 I can´t argue against against the OP feelings but for me the starting screen alone


and the multiple enviromental storytelling elements in the skybox(earth/palavan/thessia) were enough for me to convey that feeling.

So, generic war imagery equals "Oh God! We're all going to die and we can't do anything!!!"

Huh?

generic?..the a whole fleet is raining down on earth is not generic for me...it is an image of incredible loss.

Modifié par maaaze, 24 août 2012 - 06:52 .