Not to mention whatever the future DLC brings us.
Building Up For Conventional Victory?
Débuté par
CaptainCommander
, août 30 2012 10:26
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 30 août 2012 - 01:50
Aloren
-
- Members
- 297 messages
ZajoE38 wrote...
There is no conventional victory. Ask those hundreds of fallen advanced civilizations who fought the Reapers if you don't believe)
There is no winning in the lottery. Ask the billions who played and never won if you don't believe me. :innocent:
#53
Posté 30 août 2012 - 01:57
Jadebaby
-
- Members
- 13 229 messages
Brovikk Rasputin wrote...
I sure don't hope so.That'd be lame.
why?
#54
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:00
almondroy
-
- Members
- 326 messages
Cheesesack wrote...
I agree with the sentiment that if enough DLC comes out with enough new war assets, you should be able to turn the 'refuse' ending into a 'conventional victory' ending. It would require you to have done literally everything; get all the war assets and secure the help of all the races. it could even function like the Quarian-Geth conflict in as much as you have to have played the other games (plus all the ME3 DLC) to achieve it at all.
I was with you until this part; not because it's a bad idea, but because there would have to be some way of this being achieveable for the PS3 portion of the fanbase that doesn't have access (still) to ME1 gameplay. Even with the comic version of ME1 bundled into ME2, there's still the potential of being shorted enough on requirements to not be able to qualify for the Augmented 4th Ending.
Now, remove that little hurdle, and you have my axe.
#55
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:00
MegaSovereign
-
- Members
- 10 794 messages
Nightwriter wrote...
Do not come near me with that hope. I'll shoot. I'm not joking! I'll shoot! Try me! Just try it!
*paragon interrupt, throws datapad at nightwriter*
#56
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:02
Pitznik
-
- Members
- 2 838 messages
Crucible is an UNKNOWN, which require heavy investment in resources, human life and ships to even see if it works. Employing the Crucible as we know it works only if it is the only way.xlI ReFLeX lIx wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Decision to build and use the Crucible is based on conventional victory being impossible. So adding such possibility makes the decision wrong, no matter if you do it or not. When the possibility to make peace between Quarians and Geth exists, every other choice is made suboptimal.Jade8aby88 wrote...
Pitznik wrote...
Conventional victory would make the whole Crucible plotline pointless. It is not going to happen.
No it wouldn't, because you would still have the choice to use the crucible, should you not buy the dlc, or should you want a Shepard playthrough to use it.
It is not going to happen.
No, because Shepard has no idea what the Crucible is or what it does till the very end. Conventional victory means heavy casualties, so even if conventional victory IS possible, the Crusible can make victory a lot simpler. If I'm at war and want to kill someone, my friend says, you CAN run up and kill him in a fist fight, or I can give you a gun and you can end it right now, you might concider taking the gun. That's what the Crucible is! It would be up to you if you want to use the Crucible and save people, or tell the Catalyst to shove it and have a conventional victory with casualties.
#57
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:03
Pitznik
-
- Members
- 2 838 messages
Winning the war is not a lottery.Aloren wrote...
ZajoE38 wrote...
There is no conventional victory. Ask those hundreds of fallen advanced civilizations who fought the Reapers if you don't believe
There is no winning in the lottery. Ask the billions who played and never won if you don't believe me. :innocent:
#58
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:07
macrocarl
-
- Members
- 1 762 messages
BW has stated a zillion times that the ending for ME3 will not change. The EC was the final word.
#59
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:10
Aloren
-
- Members
- 297 messages
Pitznik wrote...
Winning the war is not a lottery.Aloren wrote...
ZajoE38 wrote...
There is no conventional victory. Ask those hundreds of fallen advanced civilizations who fought the Reapers if you don't believe
There is no winning in the lottery. Ask the billions who played and never won if you don't believe me. :innocent:
Indeed it's not. But my point is still valid : just cause you're almost sure to lose doesn't mean it's impossible to win.
Modifié par Aloren, 30 août 2012 - 02:11 .
#60
Posté 30 août 2012 - 02:44
Vortex13
-
- Members
- 4 186 messages
I always thought conventional victory was possible (please note when I and others say "Conventually" we don't mean charging the Reapers head-on in a straight up fire fight). I imagined the allied forces of the galaxy would beat the Reapers over Earth, kill Harbinger and break the Reaper's choke hold on civilization. Maybe not kill all Reaper in the galaxy in one battle but break their leadership and begin the turning point of the war, with us slowly pushing the Reapers back.
Sure millions would die in a long drawn out fight but we would not be sacrifing our friends or individuality, and we would defeating the Reapers on our terms, not because the Reapers let us win by picking on of their choices.
Sure millions would die in a long drawn out fight but we would not be sacrifing our friends or individuality, and we would defeating the Reapers on our terms, not because the Reapers let us win by picking on of their choices.
#61
Posté 30 août 2012 - 03:16
SeptimusMagistos
-
- Members
- 1 154 messages
The Crucible is the main plot of the game.
They're not going to rewrite the main plot. Not with any amount of DLC.
They're not going to rewrite the main plot. Not with any amount of DLC.
#62
Posté 30 août 2012 - 03:28
ph34r-X
-
- Members
- 157 messages
my point exactly. as ive said before. it wouldnt be a completely happy ending. a lot would be sacreficed to get to that goal.Vortex13 wrote...
I always thought conventional victory was possible (please note when I and others say "Conventually" we don't mean charging the Reapers head-on in a straight up fire fight). I imagined the allied forces of the galaxy would beat the Reapers over Earth, kill Harbinger and break the Reaper's choke hold on civilization. Maybe not kill all Reaper in the galaxy in one battle but break their leadership and begin the turning point of the war, with us slowly pushing the Reapers back.
Sure millions would die in a long drawn out fight but we would not be sacrifing our friends or individuality, and we would defeating the Reapers on our terms, not because the Reapers let us win by picking on of their choices.
#65
Posté 30 août 2012 - 03:49
Cheesesack
-
- Members
- 152 messages
I think it's needs re-stating. Such an ending and DLC arc wouldn't re-write the plot of the game. It does not invalidate the Crucible, either from a gameplay or a story perspective.
Story-line wise, the Crucible is going to be built in any event simply because it's a way to possibly defeat the Reapers. Even if there was, like, a 75% that we could beat the Reapers in open combat (which it wouldn't be since a so called 'conventional victory' ending would require massive investment and skill to achieve), it would still make sense for the races of the galaxy to construct the Crucible. You can never have too many back up plans or alternatives when the entire galaxy is at stake. Besides, for most of the game, it would seem to everyone, Shepard included, that conventional victory was impossible. It would only be through achieving the near-impossible (eg. securing the alliance between quarians and geth) and through the uncovery of unexpected, previously unknown allies and technology (eg the Leviathans) that it would become an option. It would still be close, and in the end, it would all come down to that one call Shepard has to make at the end. Whether to take the easy-way out and set off the Crucible, but pay the price of an entire race and/or the mass relays, or, based on what he/she has seen in the final battle, hold off and not make such a massive sacrifice when the war can be won another way. It would be a gamble. We've seen with the current refusal ending what happend when it fails, when Shepard makes the call but we aren't strong enough. But what if, with future DLC, Shepard makes the call and it pays off?
If the people still want to the Crucible to have some function, maybe you could say Shepard uses the power in the Crucible to destroy the StarChild, turning it on him and purging him from the Citadel's systems. Let's face it, the Crucible's function and actual use is hazy at best. It seems to me that, with the current ending, the Crucible is superfluous altogether. It 'makes new options available' or some bull like that, but they could just as easily have said that it isn't necessary. It doesn't have some definite, quantifiable impact that makes it's non-use game-breakingly stupid.
Anyway, it makes perfect sense within the context of the game. To go back to the quarian/geth conflict (using it as an example because it's a very good story arc and not many people seem to dislike it or disagree with the way it's handled), it's only at the very end that a better alternative presents itself. Up until that point, you've been under the impression that you'll have to choose one side or the other, or at least not be able to secure the help of both sides. Even when you do the paragon dialouge option at the end, you have no guarantee that it will work. It would be the same with a 'conventional victory ending'. Of course, afterwards, people would determine exactly what conditions need to be met and how much EMS you need to have to get the ending, but that's meta-gaming, and you don't design games based around that.
As for the argument that it would invalidate the other endings, that's also false. Like I said before, there are already gradients of good and bad endings, with one commonly accepted as the best since it requires the most EMS and Shepard gets to live. Does this ending invalidate all the existing endings? No, because people still willingly choose others, even if the option for this 'best' ending is present.
Take ME2. It is possible, through methodically and diligently taking the time to complete every aspect of the game (get every upgrade, do every loyalty mission etc.) to get a 'best' ending where everyone lives. Using the arguments that some people have made in this thread, this should be the only ending. After all, it's the best. Why would anyone ever get or want any other ending? Never mind the fact that it's difficult to achieve (actually, it isn't really, but a 'conventional victory' ending for ME3 should be) or that fact that as roleplayers, people may want to explore other choices. Nope, this is the best ending, so all others are pointless and invalidated.
In case you forgot, that was listed as a suicide mission. The entire point of the game was that Shepard was quite possibly going to his/her death. But there was the ability and option to do the 'impossible' and survive, with everyone else living as well. It's not a big jump to use the same premise in a 'conventional victory' ending for ME3. Just raise the stakes, make it actually hard to achieve unlike ME2 where by simply playing through the game, you got everything you needed to get everyone through easily. For ME3, make people buy the DLC, make them hunt down every last war asset, make them have to make the right choices that forge tentative alliances, make them have to have played past games (ok, maybe not ME1 for those playing on PS3, and maybe not multiplayer because again, everyone doesn't have access to it).
The final argument people seem to have is that Bioware have already stated they are not changing the endings. Again, this seems to be a flase argument because such a series of DLC would not change the ending. Remember how EC would not change the endings, just expand and clarify what was already there? Well, guess what, they added a new choice. This was in line with what they said; they did not change anything. Nothing that was there already was overwritten, they just expanded the existing stuff. And a logical expansion of what twas said in the final moments of the game was to give Shepard the option to refuse.
Similarly, and 'conventional victory' ending works in the same way. It doesn't change what's there; it doesn't even add a new choice. The conversation could play out exactly the same. It's just that after deciding not to give in to StarChild's demands, the combined might of the entire galaxy, including it's most advanced tech and deepest, darkest secrets, manages to win, rather than lose. You could argue that this is 'changing' the ending, but it's really not changing it any more than EC did. And with EC, Bioware stated they were not changing the endings.
Story-line wise, the Crucible is going to be built in any event simply because it's a way to possibly defeat the Reapers. Even if there was, like, a 75% that we could beat the Reapers in open combat (which it wouldn't be since a so called 'conventional victory' ending would require massive investment and skill to achieve), it would still make sense for the races of the galaxy to construct the Crucible. You can never have too many back up plans or alternatives when the entire galaxy is at stake. Besides, for most of the game, it would seem to everyone, Shepard included, that conventional victory was impossible. It would only be through achieving the near-impossible (eg. securing the alliance between quarians and geth) and through the uncovery of unexpected, previously unknown allies and technology (eg the Leviathans) that it would become an option. It would still be close, and in the end, it would all come down to that one call Shepard has to make at the end. Whether to take the easy-way out and set off the Crucible, but pay the price of an entire race and/or the mass relays, or, based on what he/she has seen in the final battle, hold off and not make such a massive sacrifice when the war can be won another way. It would be a gamble. We've seen with the current refusal ending what happend when it fails, when Shepard makes the call but we aren't strong enough. But what if, with future DLC, Shepard makes the call and it pays off?
If the people still want to the Crucible to have some function, maybe you could say Shepard uses the power in the Crucible to destroy the StarChild, turning it on him and purging him from the Citadel's systems. Let's face it, the Crucible's function and actual use is hazy at best. It seems to me that, with the current ending, the Crucible is superfluous altogether. It 'makes new options available' or some bull like that, but they could just as easily have said that it isn't necessary. It doesn't have some definite, quantifiable impact that makes it's non-use game-breakingly stupid.
Anyway, it makes perfect sense within the context of the game. To go back to the quarian/geth conflict (using it as an example because it's a very good story arc and not many people seem to dislike it or disagree with the way it's handled), it's only at the very end that a better alternative presents itself. Up until that point, you've been under the impression that you'll have to choose one side or the other, or at least not be able to secure the help of both sides. Even when you do the paragon dialouge option at the end, you have no guarantee that it will work. It would be the same with a 'conventional victory ending'. Of course, afterwards, people would determine exactly what conditions need to be met and how much EMS you need to have to get the ending, but that's meta-gaming, and you don't design games based around that.
As for the argument that it would invalidate the other endings, that's also false. Like I said before, there are already gradients of good and bad endings, with one commonly accepted as the best since it requires the most EMS and Shepard gets to live. Does this ending invalidate all the existing endings? No, because people still willingly choose others, even if the option for this 'best' ending is present.
Take ME2. It is possible, through methodically and diligently taking the time to complete every aspect of the game (get every upgrade, do every loyalty mission etc.) to get a 'best' ending where everyone lives. Using the arguments that some people have made in this thread, this should be the only ending. After all, it's the best. Why would anyone ever get or want any other ending? Never mind the fact that it's difficult to achieve (actually, it isn't really, but a 'conventional victory' ending for ME3 should be) or that fact that as roleplayers, people may want to explore other choices. Nope, this is the best ending, so all others are pointless and invalidated.
In case you forgot, that was listed as a suicide mission. The entire point of the game was that Shepard was quite possibly going to his/her death. But there was the ability and option to do the 'impossible' and survive, with everyone else living as well. It's not a big jump to use the same premise in a 'conventional victory' ending for ME3. Just raise the stakes, make it actually hard to achieve unlike ME2 where by simply playing through the game, you got everything you needed to get everyone through easily. For ME3, make people buy the DLC, make them hunt down every last war asset, make them have to make the right choices that forge tentative alliances, make them have to have played past games (ok, maybe not ME1 for those playing on PS3, and maybe not multiplayer because again, everyone doesn't have access to it).
The final argument people seem to have is that Bioware have already stated they are not changing the endings. Again, this seems to be a flase argument because such a series of DLC would not change the ending. Remember how EC would not change the endings, just expand and clarify what was already there? Well, guess what, they added a new choice. This was in line with what they said; they did not change anything. Nothing that was there already was overwritten, they just expanded the existing stuff. And a logical expansion of what twas said in the final moments of the game was to give Shepard the option to refuse.
Similarly, and 'conventional victory' ending works in the same way. It doesn't change what's there; it doesn't even add a new choice. The conversation could play out exactly the same. It's just that after deciding not to give in to StarChild's demands, the combined might of the entire galaxy, including it's most advanced tech and deepest, darkest secrets, manages to win, rather than lose. You could argue that this is 'changing' the ending, but it's really not changing it any more than EC did. And with EC, Bioware stated they were not changing the endings.
#66
Posté 30 août 2012 - 03:53
Yeulia
-
- Members
- 111 messages
unless bioware is building up to something bigger in a potential ME4 title with "one more story about the shepard". idk. that would be kinda cool. somehow or another the DLC from ME2 became canon in ME3 so if they make an ME4 with an imported save (unless next gen comes first) or they make DLC canon to everyone even if they didn't buy it then it could lead to a whole new conflict. we'll see i guess.
#67
Posté 30 août 2012 - 07:49
Anacronian Stryx
-
- Members
- 3 129 messages
blacqout wrote...
Anacronian Stryx wrote...
Leviathan DLC makes a conventional victory seem more and more likely - The Leviathans have a pulse weapon(or ability) that totally cripples a Sovereign class reaper in one hit - so study that, find a way to mimic that ability and mass produce that effect, Hell if the Leviathans wont cooperate attack them instead, find out how they make the pulse.
Shepard calls Hackett.
"Hackett are you still building that big construct we don't know what does or if it will even help against the reapers?"
Hackett :"Yes"
Shepard :"Well i found something concrete that i have seen work".
Hackett :"I'm gonna order the entire fleet there".
The remaining Leviathans are not vast enough in number to engage the Reapers. This is demonstrated in the DLC, so i suggest you play it again while paying attention.
Hey buddy can you read?
I'm talking about studying the Leviathans abilities not getting the Leviathans to fight the reapers - I suggest you read the post again and pay attention.
#68
Posté 30 août 2012 - 07:53
Fixers0
-
- Members
- 4 434 messages
Any conventional victory is better then any victory involving the Crucible.
Modifié par Fixers0, 30 août 2012 - 07:54 .
#69
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:09
saracen16
-
- Members
- 2 283 messages
masseffect420 wrote...
Read the Leviathan war assets their making a army. I think the truth DLC is coming!
...read the war assets again: they have severe limitations, namely few volunteers and probable Reaper countermeasures (i.e. shooting the orbs).
And a "truth" DLC would turn the entire plot that they have been building this entire time even after development completely pointless and irrelevant.
#70
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:16
kaotician
-
- Members
- 806 messages
God I hope conventional victory is never possible. Just think how much duller the whole series would be if all it amounted to was a run and gun. Like it or loathe it, the fact remains that Bioware were bold and imaginative with the ending they went with, and to push the whole thing through to you having to make a choice, even if you didn't like the options given, vindicates the view that choice itself runs like a steel spine through the whole storyline. This isn't a fps with a preordained plotline; this is choice, to the bitter end.
#71
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:29
sH0tgUn jUliA
-
- Members
- 16 812 messages
CaptainCommander wrote...
If there is already a topic on this please direct me to it but. . .
Was just wondering after playing Leviathan if Bioware is building up with all the DLC to a conventional victory over the Reapers without the Crucible. I say for the simple reason that Leviathan included 11 new war assets and what's the point of adding them in because the best ending has been decreased to 4000 EMS with the EC. And that's easily achievable with a normal game play through so why add new assets to find (Not the Leviathan assets, the actually Planet scanning ones).
Was just wondering if EA was trying to milk the unhappy fan base through DLC to get to an ending where we can actually just blow the Reapers up and not have colour coded choices?
#72
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:31
saracen16
-
- Members
- 2 283 messages
kaotician wrote...
God I hope conventional victory is never possible. Just think how much duller the whole series would be if all it amounted to was a run and gun. Like it or loathe it, the fact remains that Bioware were bold and imaginative with the ending they went with, and to push the whole thing through to you having to make a choice, even if you didn't like the options given, vindicates the view that choice itself runs like a steel spine through the whole storyline. This isn't a fps with a preordained plotline; this is choice, to the bitter end.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
#73
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:43
insomniak9
-
- Members
- 439 messages
kaotician wrote...
God I hope conventional victory is never possible. Just think how much duller the whole series would be if all it amounted to was a run and gun. Like it or loathe it, the fact remains that Bioware were bold and imaginative with the ending they went with, and to push the whole thing through to you having to make a choice, even if you didn't like the options given, vindicates the view that choice itself runs like a steel spine through the whole storyline. This isn't a fps with a preordained plotline; this is choice, to the bitter end.
So instead of run and gun, woohoo we won, we got "shoot this red thing and they'll all die!!", and you think that's better because it's "unconventional"??
#74
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:46
Rokayt
-
- Members
- 5 990 messages
Well, If each of the SP DLC adds a line or two to the ending that allows for a new dialogue option, we may be able to access an ending that may otherwise be secret or hidden to us now.
I have a feeling it will be the "Interrupt ending."
I have a feeling it will be the "Interrupt ending."
#75
Posté 30 août 2012 - 08:50
kaotician
-
- Members
- 806 messages
insomniak9 wrote...
kaotician wrote...
God I hope conventional victory is never possible. Just think how much duller the whole series would be if all it amounted to was a run and gun. Like it or loathe it, the fact remains that Bioware were bold and imaginative with the ending they went with, and to push the whole thing through to you having to make a choice, even if you didn't like the options given, vindicates the view that choice itself runs like a steel spine through the whole storyline. This isn't a fps with a preordained plotline; this is choice, to the bitter end.
So instead of run and gun, woohoo we won, we got "shoot this red thing and they'll all die!!", and you think that's better because it's "unconventional"??
Thanks for asking, and no, that isn't it.
