116 réponses à ce sujet

[LucasShark]

Apparently they all just sat still and let glowboy arrange for them to be "reaper-cized" one by one...

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

The problem is "foolish claims" is subjective. What you consider twisting, somone else considers straight. Unless of course, you're referring to people taking facts and manipulating them, in which case they aren't facts anymore.

It's a nicer wording than 'lies', which is what could be said of the chart that was posted earlier.

I really don't know where some of your post came from. It seems like you just went on one long rant lol

It was a response, and explanation, of my disagreement with your post. I am not so much confrontational as I am contrarian, and and plenty of people blow the flaws of ME3 past reasonable proportions.

Meaning blow them out of proportions you consider reasonable. And there was quite a bit of your post that had nothing to do with your contrarian problem.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

The problem is "foolish claims" is subjective. What you consider twisting, somone else considers straight. Unless of course, you're referring to people taking facts and manipulating them, in which case they aren't facts anymore.

It's a nicer wording than 'lies', which is what could be said of the chart that was posted earlier.

I really don't know where some of your post came from. It seems like you just went on one long rant lol

It was a response, and explanation, of my disagreement with your post. I am not so much confrontational as I am contrarian, and and plenty of people blow the flaws of ME3 past reasonable proportions.

Meaning blow them out of proportions you consider reasonable.

Of course. But then, I have a better sense of proportion than the people I disagree with about, say, how Mac Walters is or is not the source of all that is bad in the ME universe, or how the ME3 fetch quests had no application to the war effort.

And there was quite a bit of your post that had nothing to do with your contrarian problem.

Possibly because it was responding to other parts of your post, oh wise one.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 31 août 2012 - 02:44 .

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

The problem is "foolish claims" is subjective. What you consider twisting, somone else considers straight. Unless of course, you're referring to people taking facts and manipulating them, in which case they aren't facts anymore.

It's a nicer wording than 'lies', which is what could be said of the chart that was posted earlier.

I really don't know where some of your post came from. It seems like you just went on one long rant lol

It was a response, and explanation, of my disagreement with your post. I am not so much confrontational as I am contrarian, and and plenty of people blow the flaws of ME3 past reasonable proportions.

Meaning blow them out of proportions you consider reasonable.

Of course. But then, I have a better sense of proportion than the people I disagree with about, say, how Mac Walters is or is not the source of all that is bad in the ME universe, or how the ME3 fetch quests had no application to the war effort.

And there was quite a bit of your post that had nothing to do with your contrarian problem.

Possibly because it was responding to other parts of your post, oh wise one.

Hahaha now that's the kind of humor I can appreciate. I don't have all that much hate for the fetch quests anymore than I do the random sidequests that seemed to be going somewhere and yet didn't. Like the Cerberus abductions on Benning, what was that all about? And the nuclear reactor plant one was just wierd. The squadmate and Captain Riley weren't picking up a signal and then all of a sudden 5 seconds later they're fine and at the entrance of the reactor? It felt to me through a whole lot of the game and especially plot from me2 didn't carryover into anything meaningful, and that was very frustrating. It was as if someone was jotting down ideas, but then stopped and started working on something else, and before you know it there were 10 unfinished ideas, but they just got adden in like that.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Like the Cerberus abductions on Benning, what was that all about?

Besides the ham-fisted 'Cerberus is evil' writing of ME3, it was meant to show how Cerberus is supplementing its forces (namely, by force), as well as indicating how the Cerberus control of its Reaper-tech troops isn't perfect. Something happened to the Cerberus control devices, and the Cerberus troops went rampant as a result of the unrestricted Reaper influence.

And the nuclear reactor plant one was just wierd. The squadmate and Captain Riley weren't picking up a signal and then all of a sudden 5 seconds later they're fine and at the entrance of the reactor?

It's not a nuclear reactor, really, but it was more about a scenario on a multiplayer map. Everything had to work within that restriction, and honestly the Reactor mission offers one of the few glimpses at working with other forces.

It felt to me through a whole lot of the game and especially plot from me2 didn't carryover into anything meaningful, and that was very frustrating. It was as if someone was jotting down ideas, but then stopped and started working on something else, and before you know it there were 10 unfinished ideas, but they just got adden in like that.

They didn't carryover much from ME2, but that's because the ideas were never being jotted down in the first place. It's not that they were abandoned, but the devs have already admitted that the planning of each story only began after the conclusion of the previous: they had no clue Cerberus would star in ME2 during the production of ME1, and ME3 wasn't decided yet when ME2 was being finished.

The Mass Effect trilogy is a great example of the strengths and weaknesses of a lack of forward planning. Weaknesses come in from the flaws of ME3: poor pacing and buildup of events that honestly should have stretched the entire trilogy.

But at the same time, not fixating to a single idea the entire time gave flexibility that allowed un-intended, un-expected successes to flourish. ME2 was an enjoyable game in its own right, but it wouldn't have existed as we know it had they bothered to force it into a pre-planned outline. Similarly, a number of the bright spots of ME3 could only have existed by building off of the proven successes of ME2. You can't plan to capitalize on what in particular the fanbase will like.

[Themanclaw]

I'm curious, why didn't the Leviathans just kill Harbinger with their minds when it was guarding the beam and shooting at Shepard? Why weren't Reapers randomly dying in the space battle due to the Leviathans?

[LucasShark]

Themanclaw wrote...

I'm curious, why didn't the Leviathans just kill Harbinger with their minds when it was guarding the beam and shooting at Shepard? Why weren't Reapers randomly dying in the space battle due to the Leviathans?

Because the Leviathans were poorly thought out and equally poorly implimented.  Bioware can't really make them effect anything without losing their "artistic integrity", ie: changing the ending.

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Like the Cerberus abductions on Benning, what was that all about?

Besides the ham-fisted 'Cerberus is evil' writing of ME3, it was meant to show how Cerberus is supplementing its forces (namely, by force), as well as indicating how the Cerberus control of its Reaper-tech troops isn't perfect. Something happened to the Cerberus control devices, and the Cerberus troops went rampant as a result of the unrestricted Reaper influence.

And the nuclear reactor plant one was just wierd. The squadmate and Captain Riley weren't picking up a signal and then all of a sudden 5 seconds later they're fine and at the entrance of the reactor?

It's not a nuclear reactor, really, but it was more about a scenario on a multiplayer map. Everything had to work within that restriction, and honestly the Reactor mission offers one of the few glimpses at working with other forces.

It felt to me through a whole lot of the game and especially plot from me2 didn't carryover into anything meaningful, and that was very frustrating. It was as if someone was jotting down ideas, but then stopped and started working on something else, and before you know it there were 10 unfinished ideas, but they just got adden in like that.

They didn't carryover much from ME2, but that's because the ideas were never being jotted down in the first place. It's not that they were abandoned, but the devs have already admitted that the planning of each story only began after the conclusion of the previous: they had no clue Cerberus would star in ME2 during the production of ME1, and ME3 wasn't decided yet when ME2 was being finished.

The Mass Effect trilogy is a great example of the strengths and weaknesses of a lack of forward planning. Weaknesses come in from the flaws of ME3: poor pacing and buildup of events that honestly should have stretched the entire trilogy.

But at the same time, not fixating to a single idea the entire time gave flexibility that allowed un-intended, un-expected successes to flourish. ME2 was an enjoyable game in its own right, but it wouldn't have existed as we know it had they bothered to force it into a pre-planned outline. Similarly, a number of the bright spots of ME3 could only have existed by building off of the proven successes of ME2. You can't plan to capitalize on what in particular the fanbase will like.

The problem is everything you're saying is just speculation. It could have been a rogue faction it could have been Cerberus actually abducting people. And you didn't exactly address my actual problem with the reactor mission. (That's what I'm talking about arguing for the sake of arguing. You say "It's not really a reactor" then you don't explain what it is or talk about the actual problem I bring up lol)
I think I would much rather taken a game, especially one that is choice based, where everything is planned out. That way you have a clear outline of how every choice will play out, not simply not following up on choices because they got lost in the shuffle, some of them major choices.

[Themanclaw]

Because the Leviathans were poorly thought out and equally poorly implimented. Bioware can't really make them effect anything without losing their "artistic integrity", ie: changing the ending.

I was, however satisfied with their explanation behind the Reapers-- it's pretty much what I expected and makes the most sense.

[Dean_the_Young]

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Like the Cerberus abductions on Benning, what was that all about?

Besides the ham-fisted 'Cerberus is evil' writing of ME3, it was meant to show how Cerberus is supplementing its forces (namely, by force), as well as indicating how the Cerberus control of its Reaper-tech troops isn't perfect. Something happened to the Cerberus control devices, and the Cerberus troops went rampant as a result of the unrestricted Reaper influence.

And the nuclear reactor plant one was just wierd. The squadmate and Captain Riley weren't picking up a signal and then all of a sudden 5 seconds later they're fine and at the entrance of the reactor?

It's not a nuclear reactor, really, but it was more about a scenario on a multiplayer map. Everything had to work within that restriction, and honestly the Reactor mission offers one of the few glimpses at working with other forces.

It felt to me through a whole lot of the game and especially plot from me2 didn't carryover into anything meaningful, and that was very frustrating. It was as if someone was jotting down ideas, but then stopped and started working on something else, and before you know it there were 10 unfinished ideas, but they just got adden in like that.

They didn't carryover much from ME2, but that's because the ideas were never being jotted down in the first place. It's not that they were abandoned, but the devs have already admitted that the planning of each story only began after the conclusion of the previous: they had no clue Cerberus would star in ME2 during the production of ME1, and ME3 wasn't decided yet when ME2 was being finished.

The Mass Effect trilogy is a great example of the strengths and weaknesses of a lack of forward planning. Weaknesses come in from the flaws of ME3: poor pacing and buildup of events that honestly should have stretched the entire trilogy.

But at the same time, not fixating to a single idea the entire time gave flexibility that allowed un-intended, un-expected successes to flourish. ME2 was an enjoyable game in its own right, but it wouldn't have existed as we know it had they bothered to force it into a pre-planned outline. Similarly, a number of the bright spots of ME3 could only have existed by building off of the proven successes of ME2. You can't plan to capitalize on what in particular the fanbase will like.

The problem is everything you're saying is just speculation. It could have been a rogue faction it could have been Cerberus actually abducting people.

If you ignore the narrative, sure. But Mass Effect has always been pretty heavy with narrative exposition: unless it gets specifically overturn by someone else later, what exposition characters say can be taken as truth. That's the format of this franchise, and always has been. Character deception in Mass Effect is about as subtle as bricks, especially vis-a-vis Hackett.

And you didn't exactly address my actual problem with the reactor mission.
(That's what I'm talking about arguing for the sake of arguing. You say "It's not really a reactor" then you don't explain what it is or talk about the actual problem I bring up lol)

Except I did. Not only are you not actually quoting what I said, but you're ignorring the actual body of the response to this point.

People deliberatly ignorring points that address their arguments and misrepresenting what I do say are the reasons I have limited patience with the likes of you.

I think I would much rather taken a game, especially one that is choice based, where everything is planned out. That way you have a clear outline of how every choice will play out, not simply not following up on choices because they got lost in the shuffle, some of them major choices.

Fair enough, but would you still say that even if it meant ME2 was never made?

ME2 was the real outlier in the series in terms of tone (the game that celebrates avoidable casualties and consequences via the almighty persuasion check), overarching themes (the most tone-based, as opposed to position-based, morality system of the trilogy, in which the same alignment can flipflop an issue in the same mission), and in connection to the plot of the trilogy. You could honestly remove the second act entirely and pretty much transition from ME1 to ME3 with barely any plot confusion.

None of that changes that ME2 was a lot of fun... but it was a great example of unplanned creation. From Tali and Garrus as squadmates (two of the most popular), the Collectors and the Crew, and even Cerberus, none of them were planned from the start.


(If they had, ME2 might well have been placed first in the trilogy.)

[plfranke]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Like the Cerberus abductions on Benning, what was that all about?

Besides the ham-fisted 'Cerberus is evil' writing of ME3, it was meant to show how Cerberus is supplementing its forces (namely, by force), as well as indicating how the Cerberus control of its Reaper-tech troops isn't perfect. Something happened to the Cerberus control devices, and the Cerberus troops went rampant as a result of the unrestricted Reaper influence.

And the nuclear reactor plant one was just wierd. The squadmate and Captain Riley weren't picking up a signal and then all of a sudden 5 seconds later they're fine and at the entrance of the reactor?

It's not a nuclear reactor, really, but it was more about a scenario on a multiplayer map. Everything had to work within that restriction, and honestly the Reactor mission offers one of the few glimpses at working with other forces.

It felt to me through a whole lot of the game and especially plot from me2 didn't carryover into anything meaningful, and that was very frustrating. It was as if someone was jotting down ideas, but then stopped and started working on something else, and before you know it there were 10 unfinished ideas, but they just got adden in like that.

They didn't carryover much from ME2, but that's because the ideas were never being jotted down in the first place. It's not that they were abandoned, but the devs have already admitted that the planning of each story only began after the conclusion of the previous: they had no clue Cerberus would star in ME2 during the production of ME1, and ME3 wasn't decided yet when ME2 was being finished.

The Mass Effect trilogy is a great example of the strengths and weaknesses of a lack of forward planning. Weaknesses come in from the flaws of ME3: poor pacing and buildup of events that honestly should have stretched the entire trilogy.

But at the same time, not fixating to a single idea the entire time gave flexibility that allowed un-intended, un-expected successes to flourish. ME2 was an enjoyable game in its own right, but it wouldn't have existed as we know it had they bothered to force it into a pre-planned outline. Similarly, a number of the bright spots of ME3 could only have existed by building off of the proven successes of ME2. You can't plan to capitalize on what in particular the fanbase will like.

The problem is everything you're saying is just speculation. It could have been a rogue faction it could have been Cerberus actually abducting people.

If you ignore the narrative, sure. But Mass Effect has always been pretty heavy with narrative exposition: unless it gets specifically overturn by someone else later, what exposition characters say can be taken as truth. That's the format of this franchise, and always has been. Character deception in Mass Effect is about as subtle as bricks, especially vis-a-vis Hackett.

And you didn't exactly address my actual problem with the reactor mission.
(That's what I'm talking about arguing for the sake of arguing. You say "It's not really a reactor" then you don't explain what it is or talk about the actual problem I bring up lol)

Except I did. Not only are you not actually quoting what I said, but you're ignorring the actual body of the response to this point.

People deliberatly ignorring points that address their arguments and misrepresenting what I do say are the reasons I have limited patience with the likes of you.

I think I would much rather taken a game, especially one that is choice based, where everything is planned out. That way you have a clear outline of how every choice will play out, not simply not following up on choices because they got lost in the shuffle, some of them major choices.

Fair enough, but would you still say that even if it meant ME2 was never made?

ME2 was the real outlier in the series in terms of tone (the game that celebrates avoidable casualties and consequences via the almighty persuasion check), overarching themes (the most tone-based, as opposed to position-based, morality system of the trilogy, in which the same alignment can flipflop an issue in the same mission), and in connection to the plot of the trilogy. You could honestly remove the second act entirely and pretty much transition from ME1 to ME3 with barely any plot confusion.

None of that changes that ME2 was a lot of fun... but it was a great example of unplanned creation. From Tali and Garrus as squadmates (two of the most popular), the Collectors and the Crew, and even Cerberus, none of them were planned from the start.


(If they had, ME2 might well have been placed first in the trilogy.)

Lol you take everything so personally. You said it's more about working in the restriction of a multiplayer map and working with other forces, but that doesn't at all address what I was talking about, your squadmate's radio all of a sudden going offline, same with riley's and then they're fine all of a sudden, with no explanation at all about what just happened.

I'm not gonna argue with you on the Cerberus on Benning thing because it is plausible though it should have been a little better explained. Saying you can always trust what Hackett says  could be applied to the same thing as "Destroy is the only good ending because Hackett says 'Dead Reapers is how we win this'" That's a major point used by the Indoctrination theorists and I kind of support it and I kind of don't. I think it introduces an interesting element into the story when you have to wonder whether characters are right or wrong.

And if it meant that Mass Effect 3 could have come out the way I feel it should? Yes I think I would have rather Mass Effect 2 be done differently. There is too much wrong with Mass Effect 3 to condone it in any way.

[Han Shot First]

LucasShark wrote...

Apparently they all just sat still and let glowboy arrange for them to be "reaper-cized" one by one...

Speculation time...

Or more likely, the Catalyst used indoctrination to create its own thralls that in turn enslaved the Leviathans and forced them to become Reapers. The Catalyst may not have even needed to entirely rely on indoctrination to build an army, as the Leviathans had forged an Empire that dominated 'lesser' races. Being dominated by a stronger entity that treats your kind as some lower form of life, has to create a lot of natural hostility that is ripe for exploitation. Some of those dominated species may have willingly allied with the Catalyst and its thralls, initially viewing the Catalyst and the newly formed Reapers as liberators. Once the rebellion against the Leviathans was successfully concluded, the Catalyst probably then turned his Reaper fleet on his 'allies' and had them Reaperized as well.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 31 août 2012 - 05:06 .

[dreman9999]

fil009 wrote...

Yes I too wonder how they were overthrown. Its glossed over quite quickly in the DLC.

They tell you how directly.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

Themanclaw wrote...

I'm curious, why didn't the Leviathans just kill Harbinger with their minds when it was guarding the beam and shooting at Shepard? Why weren't Reapers randomly dying in the space battle due to the Leviathans?

Because the Leviathans were poorly thought out and equally poorly implimented.  Bioware can't really make them effect anything without losing their "artistic integrity", ie: changing the ending.

You don't understand how someone great to fall due to arragance. It's not that they were not though out. It's just that they are arragant.

[LystAP]

I believe the only reason why the Leviathans lost in the first place was because they weren't as powerful as back then as they are now. They had eons upon eons to improve themselves, while observing the Reapers and developing appropriate countermeasures.

They probably occasionally interfered in a cycle to acquire any technology that may prove useful, then wiped their thralls of their memories once they got what they needed. The reason why they could take down a capital-ship class Reaper with their thoughts now, is due to generations upon generations of research and development. The Leviathans are literally the oldest species in the galaxy now, and they probably considered the Reapers their sole and greatest threat.

Modifié par LystAP, 31 août 2012 - 08:07 .

[XxproknifaxX]

Themanclaw wrote...

I'm curious, why didn't the Leviathans just kill Harbinger with their minds when it was guarding the beam and shooting at Shepard? Why weren't Reapers randomly dying in the space battle due to the Leviathans?

Why does Harbinger fly away? Leviathan. The Leviathans were killed first by surprise then they were made into Harbinger.