304 réponses à ce sujet

[ThaDPG]

Pheonix57 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

I hope it won't happen. If something would ever happened to the ending to create some sort of super uber happy ending, make it some high EMS destroy or even new function of the Crucible. Throwing the Crucible away would be moronic, and replacing it with just normal conventional victory would be even worse.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I thought the point of ME3 was to unite the races, something the Protheans weren't able to do. To me, the crucible wasn't the driving force of the game, it was something being created on the side that would strike the final blow.

Well, the Protheans' cycle was united, technically, but that's because everyone else was a "subservient" race, so they weren't willingly united and working together like Shepard's cycle is, which is another thing that gives Shepard's cycle an edge

[SnakeSNMF]

Honestly, as Shepard, I know this is going to sound cliche-- But I've beaten the impossible so many times. Is it not impossible to do the same for the Reapers, if Shepard himself, made sure all the strategies were deployed? If the war was handled correctly, and not idiotically? Which, the Battle at Earth was?

I know people think the Reapers are unbeatable, but the fact that four dreadnoughts alone can take down a capital-ship says a lot.
I will say it again: conventinal warfare should be possible, but only if you gather every man and ship in the goddamned galaxy, if you gather the Leviathan. If you put the most powerful weapons on every ship and build them for speed, that is the most you can do this for the war. And that's the only thing you can do.

No armor can hold up against the Reapers. Make long-distance ships and strip down armor in exchange for pure speed and build eezo-core engines optimized for extreme-fast FTL speeds itself.
That's the most we can do. Just hit them the hardest. The Crucible is a much bigger fallacy and plothole then using fleets is.

No ideas how it works, somehow uses all of the resources in the freaking galaxy for a simple transmission. It makes no sense, nor practical at all. It's a plot-mechanic, that I am not a fan of. Using the Crucible is worse hten the idea of conventinal warfare, and conventional warfare itself is considered generic and cliche by others.
Which, I don't get. We can do it. The problem is, it'd just drag it out, and if we make mistakes, it would cost us the war. It wouldn't be cliche in that order, it would be a war that would make people realize their roots, their nature, and overall, who they really are. And if they won, there would be a greater cultural renaissance that would be better then one used in the Destroy ending of ME3.

There is so much semantics to debate both endings, ultimately that make no sense. If they'd had made ME3 ending with multpial paths that didn't railroad people into things in the first place, it would be for the best.
Now, if you played Mass Effect 1 from the start, I do not believe you should've been railroaded. At all. I've been a loyal fan, like much others, bought every Mass Effect game I could, for every console/system. (PC, 360, PS3. ME2/ME3 for PS3, ME1/2/3 for PC, and again for 360. I've bought books, comics.)

All I ask for as a gamer, is some semblence of influence and control, in a universe of which I've dedicated my life to, in which it can happen, and Bioware has obviously presented the facts for it to be able to happen, refusing to do so, and simply allowing for the community to decide in all of it's semantic glory. "SPECULATION"

No. Just give us choices. That's what makes the old Bioware games so great.
And it's unfortunate that no more Bioware games will have it anymore. Don't get me wrong. ME3 had great choice -- up until the rushed endgame.

That's all I ask for.

[Pitznik]

ThaDPG wrote...

Pheonix57 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

I hope it won't happen. If something would ever happened to the ending to create some sort of super uber happy ending, make it some high EMS destroy or even new function of the Crucible. Throwing the Crucible away would be moronic, and replacing it with just normal conventional victory would be even worse.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I thought the point of ME3 was to unite the races, something the Protheans weren't able to do. To me, the crucible wasn't the driving force of the game, it was something being created on the side that would strike the final blow.

Well, the Protheans' cycle was united, technically, but that's because everyone else was a "subservient" race, so they weren't willingly united and working together like Shepard's cycle is, which is another thing that gives Shepard's cycle an edge

Actually regimes are more succesful in wars than democracies. There is  point to military structure not being democratic, ever. The fault of Prothean cycle mostly was vanguard doing his job, and instead one big war they had multiple smaller wars, with Reapers having a huge edge in logistics, thanks to more effective FTL.

SnakeSNMF wrote...

Honestly, as Shepard, I know this is
going to sound cliche-- But I've beaten the impossible so many times. Is
it not impossible to do the same for the Reapers, if Shepard himself,
made sure all the strategies were deployed? If the war was handled
correctly, and not idiotically? Which, the Battle at Earth was?

Yes, you're right - it is not impossible to beat the Reapers, if we use everything we got. Including the Crucible.

[ThaDPG]

Pitznik wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

Pheonix57 wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

I hope it won't happen. If something would ever happened to the ending to create some sort of super uber happy ending, make it some high EMS destroy or even new function of the Crucible. Throwing the Crucible away would be moronic, and replacing it with just normal conventional victory would be even worse.

Maybe I'm just stupid, but I thought the point of ME3 was to unite the races, something the Protheans weren't able to do. To me, the crucible wasn't the driving force of the game, it was something being created on the side that would strike the final blow.

Well, the Protheans' cycle was united, technically, but that's because everyone else was a "subservient" race, so they weren't willingly united and working together like Shepard's cycle is, which is another thing that gives Shepard's cycle an edge

Actually regimes are more succesful in wars than democracies. There is  point to military structure not being democratic, ever. The fault of Prothean cycle mostly was vanguard doing his job, and instead one big war they had multiple smaller wars, with Reapers having a huge edge in logistics, thanks to more effective FTL.

Didn't Javik say they eventually lost because since they were one regime, or empire, their tactics were predictable and the Reapers took advantage of that?

[Pitznik]

ThaDPG wrote...

Didn't Javik say they eventually lost because since they were one regime, or empire, their tactics were predictable and the Reapers took advantage of that?

Can't remember. If he did, then I'm wrong, even if it seems to be rather counter-intuitive.

[ThaDPG]

Pitznik wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

Didn't Javik say they eventually lost because since they were one regime, or empire, their tactics were predictable and the Reapers took advantage of that?

Can't remember. If he did, then I'm wrong, even if it seems to be rather counter-intuitive.

Eh, it's been awhile for me too, I don't remember the exact wording, but it was something along those lines

[SnakeSNMF]

He did. They were easily predictable, he said, and that's one of the reasons why the Reapers tore them apart at every single measure.

[ThaDPG]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

He did. They were easily predictable, he said, and that's one of the reasons why the Reapers tore them apart at every single measure.

So this cycle, being so diverse, and having all the military leaders of every race working together is actually an edge we have over the Reapers imo

[Pitznik]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

He did. They were easily predictable, he said, and that's one of the reasons why the Reapers tore them apart at every single measure.

When?

[ThaDPG]

Pitznik wrote...

SnakeSNMF wrote...

He did. They were easily predictable, he said, and that's one of the reasons why the Reapers tore them apart at every single measure.

When?

If I remember correctly, it's during one of the conversations you have with him on the Normandy, not sure which.  Maybe SnakeSNMF can be more specific?

[JPN17]

ZajoE38 wrote...

Conventional victory is simply not an option. Reapers are meant to be invulnerable and pose an ultimate threat. It's the basis of ME. Anyone who understands that, knew that deux ex machina - some super weapon of mass destruction was needed to defeat them if there will be final game. For those still don't get it and want to change the narration, it was many times said in game that Reapers can't be defeated conventionally.

The problem with that is that the ME series proves that reapers are not invulnerable. They can be destroyed via conventional means. Just because they turned Hackett into a rambling lunatic in ME3 and he says that they can't be beaten conventionally twice, doesn't mean it can't be done. Is Hackett the reaper expert now? Did he forget that his fleet took one down just a couple years earlier?

I personally would prefer an ending that I fought for and earned, rather than choosing an ending given to me by the enemy.

Modifié par JPN17, 07 septembre 2012 - 09:23 .

[Rommel49]

ThaDPG wrote...

SnakeSNMF wrote...

He did. They were easily predictable, he said, and that's one of the reasons why the Reapers tore them apart at every single measure.

So this cycle, being so diverse, and having all the military leaders of every race working together is actually an edge we have over the Reapers imo

Basically. As I've covered previously, Javik even says that the fact the current cycles' races maintain their diversity may be its only hope. The Prothean Empire conformed to "one doctrine, one strategy"; and couldn't adapt, the subserviant races became disorganized and confused, etc.

There's certainly parallels to that situation in real life; e.g. the performance of Japanese pilots against American ones early in WWII. The Japanese had a pretty exhaustive manual that detailed what to do if an American opponent did X, Y, or Z in combat and how to compensate for it. So what did the Americans start doing? Make up new tactics and manuevers on the spot; the Japanese didn't know how to compensate because it wasn't covered in their manual.

[Blueprotoss]

Pitznik wrote...

I hope it won't happen. If something would ever happened to the ending to create some sort of super uber happy ending, make it some high EMS destroy or even new function of the Crucible. Throwing the Crucible away would be moronic, and replacing it with just normal conventional victory would be even worse.

A new function would at least make way more sense then a high EMS becoming a conventional victory.

[Blueprotoss]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

Honestly, as Shepard, I know this is going to sound cliche-- But I've beaten the impossible so many times. Is it not impossible to do the same for the Reapers, if Shepard himself, made sure all the strategies were deployed? If the war was handled correctly, and not idiotically? Which, the Battle at Earth was?

I know people think the Reapers are unbeatable, but the fact that four dreadnoughts alone can take down a capital-ship says a lot.
I will say it again: conventinal warfare should be possible, but only if you gather every man and ship in the goddamned galaxy, if you gather the Leviathan. If you put the most powerful weapons on every ship and build them for speed, that is the most you can do this for the war. And that's the only thing you can do.

No armor can hold up against the Reapers. Make long-distance ships and strip down armor in exchange for pure speed and build eezo-core engines optimized for extreme-fast FTL speeds itself.
That's the most we can do. Just hit them the hardest. The Crucible is a much bigger fallacy and plothole then using fleets is.

No ideas how it works, somehow uses all of the resources in the freaking galaxy for a simple transmission. It makes no sense, nor practical at all. It's a plot-mechanic, that I am not a fan of. Using the Crucible is worse hten the idea of conventinal warfare, and conventional warfare itself is considered generic and cliche by others.
Which, I don't get. We can do it. The problem is, it'd just drag it out, and if we make mistakes, it would cost us the war. It wouldn't be cliche in that order, it would be a war that would make people realize their roots, their nature, and overall, who they really are. And if they won, there would be a greater cultural renaissance that would be better then one used in the Destroy ending of ME3.

There is so much semantics to debate both endings, ultimately that make no sense. If they'd had made ME3 ending with multpial paths that didn't railroad people into things in the first place, it would be for the best.
Now, if you played Mass Effect 1 from the start, I do not believe you should've been railroaded. At all. I've been a loyal fan, like much others, bought every Mass Effect game I could, for every console/system. (PC, 360, PS3. ME2/ME3 for PS3, ME1/2/3 for PC, and again for 360. I've bought books, comics.)

All I ask for as a gamer, is some semblence of influence and control, in a universe of which I've dedicated my life to, in which it can happen, and Bioware has obviously presented the facts for it to be able to happen, refusing to do so, and simply allowing for the community to decide in all of it's semantic glory. "SPECULATION"

No. Just give us choices. That's what makes the old Bioware games so great.
And it's unfortunate that no more Bioware games will have it anymore. Don't get me wrong. ME3 had great choice -- up until the rushed endgame.

That's all I ask for.

To be fair the impossibilty in ME was always the Reapers because they couldn't be defeated until they were released in ME3 while the rest is true other then a conventional victory.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 07 septembre 2012 - 10:16 .

[Blueprotoss]

JPN17 wrote...

ZajoE38 wrote...

Conventional victory is simply not an option. Reapers are meant to be invulnerable and pose an ultimate threat. It's the basis of ME. Anyone who understands that, knew that deux ex machina - some super weapon of mass destruction was needed to defeat them if there will be final game. For those still don't get it and want to change the narration, it was many times said in game that Reapers can't be defeated conventionally.

The problem with that is that the ME series proves that reapers are not invulnerable. They can be destroyed via conventional means. Just because they turned Hackett into a rambling lunatic in ME3 and he says that they can't be beaten conventionally twice, doesn't mean it can't be done. Is Hackett the reaper expert now? Did he forget that his fleet took one down just a couple years earlier?

I personally would prefer an ending that I fought for and earned, rather than choosing an ending given to me by the enemy.

Reapers can be defeated conventionally when they're vastly outnumbered while the Reapers will win conventionally with equal numbers.

[Blueprotoss]

Rommel49 wrote...

Basically. As I've covered previously, Javik even says that the fact the current cycles' races maintain their diversity may be its only hope. The Prothean Empire conformed to "one doctrine, one strategy"; and couldn't adapt, the subserviant races became disorganized and confused, etc.

Diversity isn't enough when you're vastly outnumbered and your enemy isn't organic.

Rommel49 wrote... 

There's certainly parallels to that situation in real life; e.g. the performance of Japanese pilots against American ones early in WWII. The Japanese had a pretty exhaustive manual that detailed what to do if an American opponent did X, Y, or Z in combat and how to compensate for it. So what did the Americans start doing? Make up new tactics and manuevers on the spot; the Japanese didn't know how to compensate because it wasn't covered in their manual.

There are also more variables with that like the Zeros not having a rubber bladder for their fuel and the Mustang's engine are some of those varaiables.

[ThaDPG]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Basically. As I've covered previously, Javik even says that the fact the current cycles' races maintain their diversity may be its only hope. The Prothean Empire conformed to "one doctrine, one strategy"; and couldn't adapt, the subserviant races became disorganized and confused, etc.

Diversity isn't enough when you're vastly outnumbered and your enemy isn't organic.

Not every Reaper is even on or near Earth, there are other planets being attacked and harvested at the same time, plus pretty much every fleet is at or around Earth during that final battle

[Eterna]

 

TL;DR: The possibility exists that Bioware will/should add the ability to win 'conventionally' as a result of choosing the refusal ending. Such an ending should be implemented, and fits with the existing lore and gameplay in ME3.

Hahahahahha no

[ThaDPG]

Eterna5 wrote...

 

TL;DR: The possibility exists that Bioware will/should add the ability to win 'conventionally' as a result of choosing the refusal ending. Such an ending should be implemented, and fits with the existing lore and gameplay in ME3.

Hahahahahha no

I like this guy's reasoning, he pretty much convinced me that conventional victory is stupid and not even possible

[Blueprotoss]

ThaDPG wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Basically. As I've covered previously, Javik even says that the fact the current cycles' races maintain their diversity may be its only hope. The Prothean Empire conformed to "one doctrine, one strategy"; and couldn't adapt, the subserviant races became disorganized and confused, etc.

Diversity isn't enough when you're vastly outnumbered and your enemy isn't organic.

Not every Reaper is even on or near Earth, there are other planets being attacked and harvested at the same time, plus pretty much every fleet is at or around Earth during that final battle

A good amount of the Reapers are based in the Sol System while the Reapers have most of the advantages like Mass Relay control, greater numbers, and the more advanced technology.  Its like the Colonials fighting the British on British terms in the Revolutionary War or the US fighting the Taliban on US terms in Afghanistan.

[SnakeSNMF]

Blueprotoss wrote...

ThaDPG wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

Rommel49 wrote...

Basically. As I've covered previously, Javik even says that the fact the current cycles' races maintain their diversity may be its only hope. The Prothean Empire conformed to "one doctrine, one strategy"; and couldn't adapt, the subserviant races became disorganized and confused, etc.

Diversity isn't enough when you're vastly outnumbered and your enemy isn't organic.

Not every Reaper is even on or near Earth, there are other planets being attacked and harvested at the same time, plus pretty much every fleet is at or around Earth during that final battle

A good amount of the Reapers are based in the Sol System while the Reapers have most of the advantages like Mass Relay control, greater numbers, and the more advanced technology.  Its like the Colonials fighting the British on British terms in the Revolutionary War or the US fighting the Taliban on US terms in Afghanistan.

 

That's a really poor example considering how well the people fighting against the United States millitary is actually holding up surprisingly well. Just like how the French sent over 4,000 of their most well trained to Mexico to destroy a town, the town rose up and drove them off with ease, and were undermanned and extremely outgunned and geared.

Yes, I will admit, there is a lot of Reapers, just like there is a lot of ships on our end. Which the number constantly increases.
The Reapers have no increase, they simply gain; they bleed out. If we play this war right, we -can- bleed them until they're dead. It'd be difficult, and that's the problem with conventional warfare; it takes so much longer. It is possible ,however. Don't get me wrong. 

Javik said that the Protheans were easily predictable and thus everytime they were caught by the Reapers, they were killed and bled out. They did manage to deal some damage to the Reapers; but at this point and time, it's apparent that the current cycle possesses even further ability to deal heavier damage to the Reapers, and if they play it off right, perhaps even destroy them all. 

The overall quality in the point of conventional warfare is time and planning; which we can do. Easily.

[Dragoonlordz]

It should not happen and it will not happen.

[SnakeSNMF]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It should not happen and it will not happen.

well that's certainly and wonderfully constructive, thank you for that.

It will not happen, but it should happen.
There's my opinion. I won't back with anything else, just that.

[ThaDPG]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

It should not happen and it will not happen.

well that's certainly and wonderfully constructive, thank you for that.

It will not happen, but it should happen.
There's my opinion. I won't back with anything else, just that.

Also if you notice, that guy has a link at the bottom of his post that says "Why I liked the Mass Effect 3 Endings". 

[The_Other_M]

@OP
Conventional victory should've been possible or be a f***ing option at the very least.
Too late now.