6432 réponses à ce sujet

[robertthebard]

Alez Zinai wrote...

robertthebard wrote...
So we asked Japan's permission to nuke them in WW II?

 
No you used most powerfull and effective weapon to defeat enemy

robertthebard wrote... 
  You see, we don't get the skinny on what's said in peace talks in wars that don't end that way.  We don't know what kinds of compromises are made between leaders when they put down the guns and talk about it.  We don't know what concessions are made.

  
In fact all terms of surrender were put on paper to avoid any misunderstanding that can possibly come out later - thats how diplomacy works

robertthebard wrote...    
I chose Destroy.  The Reapers are indeed dead, and the galaxy is now free of that threat to begin rebuilding.  I'm sorry that you see doing what you set out to do as compromise simply because SC decided that part of it's moustache twirling exposition should be explaining the function of the crucible.  I don't see it that way.  Perspective is everything.  In your perspective, the whole idea of the catalyst is flawed, and I agree with you there, but I don't agree that it suddenly becomes the focus of the game, any more than any moustache twirling exposition suddenly makes the bad guy into the hero of the tale.  To me, SC was no different than Sovereign on Virmire, or Harbinger on the asteroid at the end of Arrival.  Just looking for a chance to tell you how insignificant you are.  Congratulations for buying it.  I didn't.

No you agreed to SC (why I always read SC=StarCraft but not Star Child ) that it will take all synthetics and EDI with him to hell If you kill him (possible to fulfill his goal - to delay conflict organics vs. synthetics).  Basically SC tells you how you can end war on his terms: kill him but he takes all synthetics and EDI along, replace him with your copy (you will be dead) or do what he thinks is the best solution. Or you can getta f*ck out of here and die on your terms. He is not surrendering - he is using you to make a new solution to HIS problem. There is no victory for Allies in Mass Effect 3.

Agree

So which definition are you wanting to use to validate your arguement?  Did I agree that killing EDI and possibly the Geth, the result of two saves for me that have been this far is one time the Geth died, and one time they were already dead at the hands of the Quarians, would end the war?  No.  I accepted the consequence of killing EDI and the Geth, when it applied, to end the war.  There is no handshake to say "it's a deal".  It is simply doing what I set out to do.  All the mental masturbation in the world isn't going to convince me that destroying the Reapers is what the Catalyst wants me to do, so that I agreed with it to do so.  If it thought that destroying the Reapers would accomplish his goal, it would have never created them.  It believes, as do the Leviathans, that it is fulfilling it's purpose by harvesting.  So the only thing you can do to agree with it is to choose Refusal.  This means that you agree that killing everyone in the galaxy, or turning a lot of them into a new reaper or two is the right thing to do.

[Dragoonlordz]

AresKeith wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Where's the proof that those who died when became used for creation of the ships have any self awareness, you do not which is why you limited to (in your opinion) type stance. I do not go around creating more Reapers in my ending, people are not being harvested, the races all survive and everyone is living as free as they were prior to me taking control the ones that already died (were still dead prior to the war) and became reapers they are not self aware anymore. It's funny the double standards a lot of you have saying I am no longer Shepard, condemn my character when became a new form yet now you claim those who became a new form as in Reapers are still themselves when clearly they are not. All the races are alive in my ending, all the races are free in my ending and I protect them all only when their existance is threatened and even then first with threat of conflict with my forces without firing a single shot and if not enough only taking out the leaders behind the war and not the innocent.

we are not condemning you or your character for choosing Control, we told you that its a Shepard AI thats controlling the Reapers but you automatically choose to ignore it. Even when the Sheplyst says this.

"Through his/her death, I was born"

You fail to answer/reply anything other than one phrase in the entire content I wrote. Says it all really, the only thing can pick on is "who I am". I could be a tellitubbie in my new form for lack of what it matters. What I do is more important and what I did I explained. Regardless of who I am, everything remains the same as I described in my endgame. Every race is alive, everyone is as free as ever was. I (whoever I may be) is protecting all races and the only freedom I took away was the right to wipe out another species or mass murder each other on whims. Everyone carries on their lives, the galaxy is still run by the races in it, I only step in to prevent war and use mere threat of conflict first which if fails only individuals are brought to justice not wiping out races or planets.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 septembre 2012 - 11:53 .

[robertthebard]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Alez Zinai wrote...
No you agreed to SC (why I always read SC=StarCraft but not Star Child ) that it will take all synthetics and EDI with him to hell If you kill him (possible to fulfill his goal - to delay conflict organics vs. synthetics).  Basically SC tells you how you can end war on his terms: kill him but he takes all synthetics and EDI along, replace him with your copy (you will be dead) or do what he thinks is the best solution. Or you can getta f*ck out of here and die on your terms. He is not surrendering - he is using you to make a new solution to HIS problem. There is no victory for Allies in Mass Effect 3.

Exactly.  The choices are in service to the glow boy's goals-each one serves it, just some have more "lasting" effects depending upon how you view them.  Even Synthesis does not guarantee the conflict won't return.  These newly understanding synthetics might actually hate things more-they'd know that organics mistrust them and be more uncertain of their place.  They'd also be more aware of their superior capabilities.  They might want peace, but they might not.  Such is autonomy and individuality-what people keep asserting still exists under synthesis.  Neither choice guarantees an end to the conflict the kid must prevent.  And he is supposedly trying to preserve organics?  How exactly does synthesis do that?  It actually gets rid of organics-a hybrid version takes their place.  If the kid is only supposed to preserve organics, how exactly is synthesis achieving that?  It destroys organics. 

Every choice is supposed to prevent killer robots, but neither does.

None of the choices are supposed to prevent killer robots, they are supposed to end the war.  3 of 4 do.  1 of 3 eliminates the Reapers from the scene completely.

[Gokuthegrate]

Ive haven't played ME3 since before the EC came out. I was excited that the endings would possible be improved upon somehow especially when I heard about the refuse option,but it turns out to be an automatic failure regardless. Can someone explain to me why if the Crucible has enough power to either take complete control over/completely destroy the Reapers, or change the DNA of the entire Galaxy then why couldn't it be used(for refusal) as a way to somehow reduce the Reapers capabilities so that a conventional victory is possible. This could be possible for players with enough assets(around 300 of max).

[drayfish]

EntropicAngel wrote...

drayfish wrote...

Are you kidding?  I cited three examples of thwarted expectation that you chose to summarilly ignore.  The central narrative of the game involves finding and building a giant space magic machine.  'Conventional' wisdom and warfare flew out the window the moment Hacket said 'We don't know what it does'.

If you want to embrace a boring defeatest, nihilist attitude that is your right, but that has never been necessary before the last ten minutes of the game.

I don't recall seeing any three examples that had anything to do with anyone other than Shepard. That was my point. You're basing your belief on: "Shepard can do it!"

The fact is, it isn't Shepard doing it. The rest of the galaxy is famous for being inadequate, to the point that Shepard was the only person actually accomplishing anything in ME1 & 2. Why does it surprise you that when the fight becomes dependent on those people that have failed time and time again they can't win?

Again: depressing, apathetic, boring.  You are welcome to that reading of the game; but giant space magic machine that could almost literally do anything, invalidates such a constricted, narrow view.

Also, I seem to remember a lot of other people along on that ride, not just Shepard.  (Mordin, to select just one, was going to cure the Genophage on his own.)  She may have been the light around which they gathered, but they were all responsible for achieving 'conventionally' impossible things.

[Dragoonlordz]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

You fail to answer/reply anything other than one phrase in the entire content I wrote. Says it all really, the only thing can pick on is "who I am". I could be a tellitubbie in my new form for lack of what it matters. What I do is more important and what I did I explained. Regardless of who I am, everything remains the same as I described.

Begone, foul beast!

Gonna have to Reap you now, sorry.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

drayfish wrote...

Shepard repeatedly, audaciously does what is believed to be conventionally impossible. 

No one can solve the Geth Quarian crisis...

Oh yeah, cause I did.

No one can cure the Genophage.

...Really, cause all my Krogan friends seem pretty sweet now.

No one could come back from a suicide mission and defeat the Collector threat.

Well I did, and I bought you this sweet t-shirt while I was there.

The whole game series has been about defying 'conventional' wisdom, breaking tedious old ways of thought, by staying true to the principles of fellowship, humanity and belief.  Hearing people say 'That's impossible, stop having faith', and then showing those people just how wrong they were to doubt...

Then you get to the end and the Catalyst puts you in a nihilistic headlock and destroys your universe.

i guess you're right.  We never should have believed in the first place.  Thanks for the message Bioware.

You know we are not talking about a classical hero here. Shepard is not a classical hero. I've said this a number of times. This is not a hero who was born under mysterious circumstances, and follows the classical hero motif throughout the story. We have been led to believe we are playing a modern day action hero. Why?

* one liners
* throwing mercenaries out windows
* if we shot wrex (ME1)
* beating the crap out of Elias Kelham
* shooting Joram Talid because "he was a bad man"
* shooting the hostage (LOTSB) and saying "you'll live."
* Kasumi's loyalty mission (play it again for fun)
* why don't you guys ever play the game as a renegon sometime and see the fun side of it. Paragons are so bloody serious and nice all the time. I've rarely met a renegade interrrupt I didn't like.
* because of Zaeed "burn you son of a b*tch"
* "slap some face paint on and no one will notice"
* "the Quarians? They're doing just fine, you're the one's who should worry. Tell your friends we're coming for them. *BOOM* Nevermind. I'll tell them myself." -  great renegade interrupt
* "I'll toss Wasea about like a rag." -- the Biotic God.
* the council was the comic relief -- especially when you pissed off Sparatus.

All you needed was a cigar and a pair of Raybans. We defied the odds. We beat the Suicide Mission. We settled the Geth/Quarian war. We settled the Krogan crisis. However this was a bait and switch wasn't it?

Because it changes at the laser beam. Afterward things get "mysterious" leading to the classical "sacrifice" that doesn't go along with the comic book story shoot 'em up at all. We're not dealing with classical Literature here. Sorry Mac. You're not Homer. You don't get to suddenly draw on traditional classical Literature themes suddenly and rip the foundation of the comic book story you've been writing out from under the player and put them into a different realm. It was like someone injected me with some weird drug called what the f*** is this sh**?

Your antagonist put me in a nihilistic headlock. No. It was worse than that. More like had me by the ankles and was dangling me out a window telling me I must pick one of three ways to blow up the galaxy, and there was this one way that was distasteful as hell, but there was a very small chance I might land on this ledge either dead or alive I wouldn't know until I got there.

What's funny about this is that the feeling doesn't go away. The feeling of being totally emotionally beaten down.

[Jadebaby]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Where's the proof that those who died when became used for creation of the ships have any self awareness, you do not which is why you limited to (in your opinion) type stance. I do not go around creating more Reapers in my ending, people are not being harvested, the races all survive and everyone is living as free as they were prior to me taking control. The ones that already died in becomming Reapers (were still dead prior to the war) and became reapers at that time they are not self aware anymore.

Stopped reading here, not getting into debates about which endings are better as I feel they are all equally bad.

However;

Sovereign "we are each a nation, free of weakness"
Catalyst: "We don't kill them, we help to preserve them by ascending them to Reaper form."

The Human Reaper became alive at the end of ME2 despite not being completely built because why? Because most of the minds had already been 'uploaded' to it.

I know for a fact that their minds live on in Reaper form, it doesn't matter in what way or manner, they are there. Period.

Lastly, I saw you type "double-standards" and I know what you're going to say about how people can't say Shepard isn't alive in control and then turn around and say these peoples mind live on. They are totally different things. The catalyst already existed before Shepard uploaded their consciousness to it.

Whereas a Reaper's existence requires organics minds to fuel it from the get go.

[Jadebaby]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Never played FF so can't comment on that. LA Noire is a standalone game that takes about 20-25 hours to complete.

Mass Effect 3 is the last installment in a trilogy that takes about 100 hours to get to. Also Mass Effect's protagonist is an idol. The piercing light that cut back the black veil the galaxy was covered in.

Cole Phelps was just a cheating detective.

So not true. I still don't like the cheating, I think it's out-of-character but outside of that he was a guy so committed to being by-the-book that it caused the...events, in he war and he's still haunted by it. He can certainly be a sympathetic character, looking back fom the end.

And, irregardless of one's opinion on the characters, irregardless of how long the story is, that doesn't mean optional, side stories are supposed to affect the main story. Where do you come up with that?

huh?

[Killdren88]

I got an email from Bioware it was a survey They sent out. I thought it was a chance to vent, but no. Just questions on what games I own.

[Dragoonlordz]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Stopped reading here, not getting into debates about which endings are better as I feel they are all equally bad.

However;

Sovereign "we are each a nation, free of weakness"
Catalyst: "We don't kill them, we help to preserve them by ascending them to Reaper form."

The Human Reaper became alive at the end of ME2 despite not being completely built because why? Because most of the minds had already been 'uploaded' to it.

I know for a fact that their minds live on in Reaper form, it doesn't matter in what way or manner, they are there. Period.

Lastly, I saw you type "double-standards" and I know what you're going to say about how people can't say Shepard isn't alive in control and then turn around and say these peoples mind live on. They are totally different things. The catalyst already existed before Shepard uploaded their consciousness to it.

Whereas a Reaper's existence requires organics minds to fuel it from the get go.

Bolded part, yes it does matter. You missed my entire point if did not pick up on that. You wish to butcher and mass murder them even in your idea. My Reapers protect people, save lives, prevent war and never start one anymore. They do not cull races, do not mass murder, they protect every race from such atrocities ever happening again. The galaxy runs itself the people alive are free and nothing about that has changed. The only freedom I took away was the freedom to mass murder or wipe out another species.

In your happy ever after your races war with each other, your races mass murder each other just like always have done. You only have to look at human history to know this, let alone millions of years in ME universe. People come together to fight a common foe but when that foe is no longer they fight amongst themselves over resources, beliefs or strong pick on the weak because they can plus more. Mine protects them all does not harvest or wipe out races in order to do so anymore once I took control (whatever I may be).

Now seems to me out of your happy ever after and my ending more people live, more races are protected from harm in mine than yours. In fact you want to mass murder these people who became Reapers long ago without any idea of whether they wish to be culled by you or whether they even are self aware or have any individuality anymore, to you in your own words it doesn't matter you would kill aka butcher them all anyways.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 04 septembre 2012 - 12:28 .

[Jadebaby]

Logan Cloud wrote...

What makes you think that? Bioware is a company. Companies need money to function. DLC adds new content to a game, which brings in sales for the content itself, and sometimes even increases sales for the actual game. 

The only thing the EC is proof of, is that the Mass Effect team is worthy of some serious respect, because they don't back down on their vision because of bullies. 

lol it had nothing to do with 'bullies', what are you like 16?

It was about their integrity as artists, whether that be cine creator or a writer. You can't completely change a story you have set to tell because other people don't like it.

And not once, EVER, have I said they need to 'take it back to the drawing board' because THAT would be compromising their intergirty as artists. However, adjusting certain elements of the ending to incorporate a result that fits more in-line with the lore, themes and plot, would not tarnish their integrity but instead bolster it higher than it already has been.

[AresKeith]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

huh?

Optional DLC is not expected, ever, to change the main game's ending.

Asura's Wrath, Fallout 3

[Warrior Craess]

Logan Cloud wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Logan Cloud wrote...

How does Bioware working with EA change anything? They had a vision, they created that vision, and they stuck to that vision.

Because if they weren't, Mass Effect 3 might not be out yet, because they'd be putting Omega, Leviathan and EC all in the original game.

BioWare already got a time extention. They probably asked for more time and were denied. Hell, the EC is proof of this.

What makes you think that? Bioware is a company. Companies need money to function. DLC adds new content to a game, which brings in sales for the content itself, and sometimes even increases sales for the actual game. 

The only thing the EC is proof of, is that the Mass Effect team is worthy of some serious respect, because they don't back down on their vision because of bullies. 

bullies?  hahahahahahahaha  really...  The only threat (which is required in some form to be a bully) from the fans is to with hold our money in the future. 

As a consumer it is my right to refuse to purchase anything any company makes if it doesn't meet my expectations. It is also my right to inform those companies that if they can't meet my expectations that I will not be buying anything from them. 

I've been a big fan of biowares work for a long time. I am disappointed in the direction in which they are going. I am losing the faith I had in their product, which means that as it stands I will not be buying any products until after I've seen fan reviews. I also realise that if enough people have this attitude that Bioware may very well not exist as a game developing company much longer. I haven't reached that point of disillusionment with them, and I am hoping that they can salvage their reputation.

By asking them to create an optional paid for DLC that add to the endings we are providing them with a way to win back our trust, and business. 

I really enjoyed the ME universe from the beginning of Mass Effect, all the way until the london mission of ME3. If the narrative had remains consistant until the ending I could have accepted that.  However the introduction of the "real" antagonist" in the last few moments of the game, and then being given 3 logic challanged endings, has completely ruined the replay value of all the games. I simply know too well how everything will turn out, so what is the point of playing the games again? 

The endings make me belieave that they simply said wouldn't this be cool, and never thought about what the possible consequences of said actions would be. To make matters worse they then expected the customers to create their own head canon for what happened afterwards. There is a reason that they made the EC. 

There is a reason that the could make an optional paid for DLC that expands the ending options. 

Lastly if you don't think that the presence of leviathan's doesn't alter the possiblities of conventional war, then you need to quit thinking along the lines of  the World wars, and American military doctrine. And start thinking more as insurgents, and guerilla warfare. The ability to have a single Leviathan defeat or control a reaper leads to all kinds of possiblities. That this isn't reflected in the war, or the endings is yet another failure that contributes to my losing faith in Bioware. 

[Jadebaby]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

I know for a fact that their minds live on in Reaper form, it doesn't matter in what way or manner, they are there. Period.

Dude, people are processed in grey goo then placed in the Reaper.

The minds are gone. Period.

Jade8aby88 wrote...

huh?

Optional DLC is not expected, ever, to change the main game's ending.

Azura's Wrath, Fallout 3 Broken Steel, Alan Wake, to an extent. Prince of Persia epilogue, I'm sure there's more.

Again, "we are each a nation" - Sovereign
"We help them live on, in Reaper form" - Catalyst

I'm taking the games quotes over you and DragonHorde's interpretation anyday.

And it's not grey, it's orang-y.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 04 septembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[robertthebard]

drayfish wrote...

EntropicAngel wrote...

drayfish wrote...

What a perfect encapsulation of existantial apathy.  You and I were playing very different games.

And what was the point of the fiction then?  To realise that hope is just a false promise?  An opiate for the blind?

Forgive me for saying that such a reading of this game is immeasurably depressing, and you are welcome to it.

So, you have no response to my argument then? About how things were in ME, not some ethereal "theme" of the game?

Are you kidding?  I cited three examples of thwarted expectation that you chose to summarilly ignore.  The central narrative of the game involves finding and building a giant space magic machine.  'Conventional' wisdom and warfare flew out the window the moment Hacket said 'We don't know what it does'.

If you want to embrace a boring defeatest, nihilist attitude that is your right, but that has never been necessary before the last ten minutes of the game.

In my eyes, it is defeatist to believe that choosing one of the three methods that actually counts as a finished game is "making a deal", or "asking" to win.  No where did I say, I agree with that, and shoot the tube, and no where did I get a line that said "can I shoot the tube now please".

To me the point of the fiction was to tell a story.  Which is what fiction is.  This is what the fiction did, it told a story.  It wasn't a butterflies and rainbows kind of story.  Every day that you spent chasing around after resources, 10's of millions of people are dying, or worse, being converted into a new Reaper.  There is nothing happy about that.  Over the course of the fiction, we have pulled off some impressive victories.

In ME 1, we beat a single Reaper, that took out who knows how many Council ships, and if you save the Council, you lose 8 Alliance ships, on top of what was already lost.  Most of the Geth are dealt with before the Alliance gets there.  Every time Sovereign fires his laser, ships are destroyed.  In ME 2, we get an IFF that lets us navigate a Relay that nobody has ever returned from.  We then fight our way into the heart of a base that seems to be remarkably understaffed, and destroy a human Reaper that isn't finished yet.  Then we get to cutscene kill a bunch of Collectors on the way out before blowing up the base, or just killing all the Collectors, depending on Cerberus lap dog rating.  In ME 3 we do the impossible, we survive getting shot with a laser that rips cruisers in half so that we can go get lectured to by TIM, and then SC.  It's amazing to me how many people overlook, rationalize, or justify surviving the laser to say how bad the choices are.  I say, you chose to get there, why are you surprised at a bit more space magic?

[Jadebaby]

Logan Cloud wrote...

I use the term bullies, because most people who want the endings changed are using petty insults against Bioware and their staff. Some have even threatened. You challenge their competence and intelligence. You try to make them do what you want because you feel like you're entitled, and somehow superior to them.

The term "bully" is appropriate, because that's all most of you are. You continuously harass and insult Bioware because they did something you don't like. That's the very definition of a bully.

.....

Logan Cloud wrote...

Please don't pull out the generalization card because you can't think of anything else to say.

Well done, by referring to everyone who doesn't like the endings as "you", you have not only become an incredibly narrow-minded person, but you're also a hypocrite too.

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 04 septembre 2012 - 12:23 .

[Warrior Craess]

EntropicAngel wrote...

Gokuthegrate wrote...

Ive haven't played ME3 since before the EC came out. I was excited that the endings would possible be improved upon somehow especially when I heard about the refuse option,but it turns out to be an automatic failure regardless. Can someone explain to me why if the Crucible has enough power to either take complete control over/completely destroy the Reapers, or change the DNA of the entire Galaxy then why couldn't it be used(for refusal) as a way to somehow reduce the Reapers capabilities so that a conventional victory is possible. This could be possible for players with enough assets(around 300 of max).

Being able to kill something is not the same as being able to weaken it, really.

The Reapers' strength is tied to their massive shells. How exactly is the Catalyst going to weakn that shell? It's not electircal or anything. And their might is tied to their lasers. How exactly is the Catalyst going to weaken that? There isn't some button insde the Reaper that says "laser strength" after all.

drayfish wrote...

Again: depressing, apathetic, boring.  You are welcome to that reading of the game; but giant space magic machine that could almost literally do anything, invalidates such a constricted, narrow view.

Also, I seem to remember a lot of other people along on that ride, not just Shepard.  (Mordin, to select just one, was going to cure the Genophage on his own.)  She may have been the light around which they gathered, but they were all responsible for achieving 'conventionally' impossible things.

 

Again: Reading of the game? Let's deal with facts here, not subjective "themes" we can make up on the fly.

A lot of people along for the ride? I'm not so sure. A turian stuck on some backwater asteroid fighting on a warlord's turf and thus by her rules. A baby Krogan that would have died, had not Shepard stepped in at that moment. A pretty much insane individual locked in cryo that only escaped when Shepard arrived to get her out.

And, when was Mordin working on curing the Genophage? In ME3, perhaps, after Shepard has brought him from Omega, and after he has encountered his student Maelon...with Shepard.

Was anyone actually doing anything before SHepard came along? Were they really?

Um pretty sure that TIM started out trying to resist, and defeat the reapers. Mordin's assistant was attempting (succeding) in curing the genophage. Mordin was having a crisis on conscienousness at the beginning of ME2, it was the reason why he was running the clinic. 

I will grant that Bioware wrote the rest of the galaxy as complete idiots. Even people that believed Shepard didn't do anything to prepare for an invasion.  But that poor writing and story telling. Which is why they are backed into the corner of no way of winning a conventional war. Leaving us with the abhorent 3 color choices.