304 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

I think its just because of the Catalyst is telling you.

I disagree..a lot with that actually. I dont think it is as simple as just the catalyst, it is also the what the crucible does as well. Due to the massive scope of this perverbial "I WIN" button it reduces every decision you were making up to this point(thinking it would impact the ending) and turns them into digits that were not crucial at all to the wrapping up of the main plot.

Essetnially everything you were doing up till the crucible was sub plot, and the only thing that attributed to the wrapping up of the story was the numbers that came with all these sub plots. It really is a like a punch in the gut in that regard(assuming you didnt see it coming the 1st time ME3 started mentioning cycles).

Honestly, the endings do everything they could almost possibly do to marginalize the universe for the sake of the idea that the crucible was suppsoed to represent. Your ending choice shouldnt swallow the enitre 3 games.

[Dharvy]

Meltemph wrote...

I think its just because of the Catalyst is telling you.

I disagree..a lot with that actually. I dont think it is as simple as just the catalyst, it is also the what the crucible does as well. Due to the massive scope of this perverbial "I WIN" button it reduces every decision you were making up to this point(thinking it would impact the ending) and turns them into digits that were not crucial at all to the wrapping up of the main plot.

Essetnially everything you were doing up till the crucible was sub plot, and the only thing that attributed to the wrapping up of the story was the numbers that came with all these sub plots. It really is a like a punch in the gut in that regard(assuming you didnt see it coming the 1st time ME3 started mentioning cycles).

Honestly, the endings do everything they could almost possibly do to marginalize the universe for the sake of the idea that the crucible was suppsoed to represent. Your ending choice shouldnt swallow the enitre 3 games.

Well the Crucibles workings is sort of foreshadowed with Legions Loyalty mission in ME2, detroy or rewrite (which can be a control or synthesis). In truth once I learned that the Catalyst/Citadel was needed to work the Crucible I sort of suspected, foresaw that was how the Crucible was going to work.

I understand wanting your choices to matter but how many ways can you beat the Reapers "conventionally" I guessing with ships and tech and weapons that'll mean somehow your choices matter?

But I can accept (if the Crucible was never introduced in the first place) a sort of survival of the Galaxy was linked to the War Assets. The less you have the more lives is lost after the defeat of the reapers, ie whole races extincted. And the more War Assets you have the more lives and less damage is done at the end.

[Meltemph]

Well the Crucibles workings is sort of foreshadowed with Legions Loyalty mission in ME2, detroy or rewrite (which can be a control or synthesis). In truth once I learned that the Catalyst/Citadel was needed to work the Crucible I sort of suspected, foresaw that was how the Crucible was going to work.

Hoenstly, considering how well the trilogy doesnt line up with itself regards to the main plot, I dont beleive at all that the crucible was hinted at in ME2, cause I dont think they new what they were going to do before LotSB(and I would need sinificant proof for me to believe otherwise). Either way the Legion mission is a massive stretch and require a fairly heavy amount of hindsight 20/20 to say it was a hint at synthesis.

I understand wanting your choices to matter but how many ways can you beat the Reapers "conventionally" I guessing with ships and tech and weapons that'll mean somehow your choices matter?

Huh? I never mentioned conventionally. The crucible wasnt the only way to have an unconventional victory. Sure that was what was written, but just because I think the crucible was a massive problem doesnt mean I think unconventional was the reason the crucible was the problem.

But I can accept (if the Crucible was never introduced in the first place) a sort of survival of the Galaxy was linked to the War Assets. The less you have the more lives is lost after the defeat of the reapers, ie whole races extincted. And the more War Assets you have the more lives and less damage is done at the end.

MEh, after ME2 they pretty much made it impossible for ME3 to have a conventional victory. They clearly wanted to portray them as the doom of the galaxy, an unstopable force. A magic gun/tech/ect was clearly the way they were going with it. Problem is, the crucible didnt fit with the rest of the game at all really. It sits in some random spots in the galaxy while it gets built and outside of that doesnt make a significant impact outside of the very end.

The main plot really does feel, to me, completely disconnected from the rest of the story.

[J.Random]

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.

No, introducing the Crucible and Starbrat was moronic. Throwing them away is totally OK.

[DirtyPhoenix]

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.

I agree. the crucible was a poor piece of writing, and supplanting it with another, won't fix it. Two wrongs don't make a right. Only a complete ME3 rewrite can fix it, and I don't see that happening.

Also, about that reaper being "uber owned", they were many and there was one reaper, there were a ****load of those artifacts on the ship, I must have destroyed 6-7 of them.They may not be in large numbers, they can't move out of their oceans, and they need alliance soldiers to move their balls (lol) behind enemy territory (Levy war asset description). If they were this powerful against the reapers I wonder why they were hiding at all.

Modifié par pirate1802, 01 septembre 2012 - 08:03 .

[Pitznik]

o Ventus 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.

I fail to see how an asspull plot device is somehow better than a legitimately possible means of victory.

At least, that's what I gathered from your post.

The crucible plot and alliance's willingness to go with it establishes conventional victory as impossible. It could be possible, but before the Crucible, the whole plot would have to be removed entirely to give everyone's actions at least an illusion of reason.

[ThaDPG]

Pitznik wrote...

o Ventus 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.

I fail to see how an asspull plot device is somehow better than a legitimately possible means of victory.

At least, that's what I gathered from your post.

The crucible plot and alliance's willingness to go with it establishes conventional victory as impossible. It could be possible, but before the Crucible, the whole plot would have to be removed entirely to give everyone's actions at least an illusion of reason.

So because the Alliance was willing to go with the crucible, that made conventional victory impossible?  Gathering and uniting the whole galaxy to stand against a threat like the Reapers wouldn't have worked without the crucible?

[Cheesesack]

To my mind, the only reason for the Crucible plot at all is an excuse to rally all the species to Shepard's aid. The whole point of the game was 'Take Back Earth', as that was the tagline in the pre-launch hype and the final mission is set on Earth. The entire game is about gathering help for Earth. They clearly did this because they thought it would make the game more personal and really drive home to the player the fact that the Reapers are destroying your way of life. If the main concentration of Reapers had been at the Salarian homeworld, say, players would not have had as much reason to care about the fate of the planet and the people on it.

The thing is, it would be unbelievable to rally every species just to help reclaim the Sol system from the Reapers. All their own planets are under attack, why would they send any significant amount of help to Earth? That's why they needed a plot device to explain why everyone is willing to come together and make one final push into the Sol system. The Crucible provides a conveniant excuse as to why suddenly everyone is willing to help 'Take Back Earth'.

Also, let's look at the tagline, 'Take Back Earth'. That was the main piece of hype surrounding the game; the Reapers are in the Sol system, and you have to rally support to drive them out again. The trailers showed epic battles, both on land and in space against the Reapers. Conventional battles. Ships going head to head with Reapers. Not once did they even mention or hint at the Crucible in the trailers. If it was really such an essential plot point, shouldn't they have done so? Shouldn't the tagline have been 'Construct The Crucible' or 'Deploy the Crucible'. Face it, based on the trailers alone, it would make perfect sense to assume that the way we won in the end was through 'conventional' means. That's what's been implied and even hinted at for the first two games, that's what the trailers showed us too. It's only once you play the game that it suddenly turns out that, hey, the only way to win is to build this random deus ex machina.

As for people saying that talking about the Crucible beforehand would have been a spoiler, please. It's revealed in the second mission of the game, right after the bit on Earth (and that's not even a true mission, more like a prolouge). If they were willing to spoil that Earth gets attacked by Reapers, then it wouldn't be any more a stretch to say they could spoil that the Crucible features. They wouldn't have had to say what it does, since that isn't found out until the end, but it's known from the very beginning of the game that it's a some kind of solution and they're going to try to build and deploy it.

Modifié par Cheesesack, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[SackofCat]

One problem that I foresee is where to draw the line with rewards to negative consequences to offset, say, the "Destroy" ending consequences.

If the fleets and assets were sufficient for victory, why bother continuing to waste resources on the construction and deployment of the crucible? I would imagine that the tactics and tools necessary for implementing the crucible are different from other tactics. How much would need to be cut or changed in the game to make it fit? Some conversations and scenes would not make sense if the crucible was unnecessary.

I worry that the solution would exacerbate the problem. If it can be made coherent, I am not opposed but I would have to see it to believe it.

I get the impression that Bioware intends to "double down", as it were.

[ThaDPG]

Cheesesack wrote...

To my mind, the only reason for the Crucible plot at all is an excuse to rally all the species to Shepard's aid. The whole point of the game was 'Take Back Earth', as that was the tagline in the pre-launch hype and the final mission is set on Earth. The entire game is about gathering help for Earth. They clearly did this because they thought it would make the game more personal and really drive home to the player the fact that the Reapers are destroying your way of life. If the main concentration of Reapers had been at the Salarian homeworld, say, players would not have had as much reason to care about the fate of the planet and the people on it.

The thing is, it would be unbelievable to rally every species just to help reclaim the Sol system from the Reapers. All their own planets are under attack, why would they send any significant amount of help to Earth? That's why they needed a plot device to explain why everyone is willing to come together and make one final push into the Sol system. The Crucible provides a conveniant excuse as to why suddenly everyone is willing to help 'Take Back Earth'.

Also, let's look at the tagline, 'Take Back Earth'. That was the main piece of hype surrounding the game; the Reapers are in the Sol system, and you have to rally support to drive them out again. The trailers showed epic battles, both on land and in space against the Reapers. Conventional battles. Ships going head to head with Reapers. Not once did they even mention or hint at the Crucible in the trailers. If it was really such an essential plot point, shouldn't they have done so? Shouldn't the tagline have been 'Construct The Crucible' or 'Deploy the Crucible'. Face it, based on the trailers alone, it would make perfect sense to assume that the way we won in the end was through 'conventional' means. That's what's been implied and even hinted at for the first two games, that's what the trailers showed us too. It's only once you play the game that it suddenly turns out that, hey, the only way to win is to build this random deus ex machina.

As for people saying that talking about the Crucible beforehand would have been a spoiler, please. It's revealed in the second mission of the game, right after the bit on Earth (and that's not even a true mission, more like a prolouge). If they were willing to spoil that Earth gets attacked by Reapers, then it wouldn't be any more a stretch to say they could spoil that the Crucible features. They wouldn't have had to say what it does, since that isn't found out until the end, but it's known from the very beginning of the game that it's a some kind of solution and they're going to try to build and deploy it.

I hear you man, I think Bioware just got rushed at the end by we all know who, and had to cut ALOT of content, which we're just now starting to get in bits and pieces through DLC.  Because honestly, Javik and Leviathan are pretty important to the story as it is.  I'm sure the Crucible made alot more sense before they cut and altered everything

[Cheesesack]

I'm not suggesting that such an ending would cause them to decide to stop production of the Crucible mid way through. That would cause way too many problems for simple DLC to impliment. All I'm suggesting is that the 'refusal' option at the end yields a successful outcome if you have enough war assets and have completed relevant plot lines.

[Pitznik]

ThaDPG wrote...

Pitznik wrote...

o Ventus 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.

I fail to see how an asspull plot device is somehow better than a legitimately possible means of victory.

At least, that's what I gathered from your post.

The crucible plot and alliance's willingness to go with it establishes conventional victory as impossible. It could be possible, but before the Crucible, the whole plot would have to be removed entirely to give everyone's actions at least an illusion of reason.

So because the Alliance was willing to go with the crucible, that made conventional victory impossible?  Gathering and uniting the whole galaxy to stand against a threat like the Reapers wouldn't have worked without the crucible?

No. But the decision about going with the Crucible is sane only under the condition that conventional victory is absolutely impossible. If some hope of conventional victory would show up during the story, Hackett and Shepard would be all like "let's stop that Crucible bs, we have something much more substantial to rely on". Check the post of SackofCat above, he explained the problem in better words than I did. If the plot is still going like there is no hope, but it turns out that suddenly there is hope, you don't remove the one idiocy we have, you just add another one on top of it. Two wrongs don't make right.

Modifié par Pitznik, 01 septembre 2012 - 10:55 .

[Dubozz]

 Nice post OP. Still i see no chance for conventional victory or any sense about it at all. There is a good dialog about powerful beings in the uviverse in one of my favourite sci-fi shows. Its pretty much explains it all.

[SackofCat]

If the crucible works, what benefits of refusing would outweigh the enormous risk?

[Quintega]

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.

Ever heard the phrase "You can't slay god with his own sword?" The crucible may have been made by races outside the reapers. However it is still a part of the thing that created the Reapers. So In a sense using it at all is moronic.

[Pitznik]

Quintega 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.

Ever heard the phrase "You can't slay god with his own sword?" The crucible may have been made by races outside the reapers. However it is still a part of the thing that created the Reapers. So In a sense using it at all is moronic.

Doesn't matter. Using it is justified only when there is no other hope, so you have nothing to lose. So what if it doesn't work, not using it certainly won't help. What worse can happen to your galaxy than being murdered and harvested?

Also, I never heard this phrase before, and I don't understand how it can make sense. One would think that god's own sword could be a fitting tool to end said god's life.

[Cheesesack]

SackofCat wrote...

If the crucible works, what benefits of refusing would outweigh the enormous risk?

Every one of the Crucible's options has a drawback, either physically (people die) or ethically (enforced uniformity). By choosing not to use it, you avoid those options, at the potential cost of a lot of life. Still, you could argue for example that a large loss of life by all the races is better than the total extinction of one race (eg the geth in destroy ending).

Let me point out to people that, like it or not, Refuse is a legitimiate choice and is canonical (as in, is a potential ending to the game). To everyone saying that Shepard would not choose to try and attempt a conventional victory over the insta-win Crucible button, guess what; you can already do that. Clearly, Shepard thinks they can win conventionally if you pick this choice. Otherwise why bother? Is it's gurananteed (from Shepard's POV) that everyone will die by picking this option, why not just pick destroy? Sure, it kills the geth, but they'll be dead anyway, or worse, if you lose the fight against the Reapers. Clearly, at the moment, there is a choice for Shepard to believe you can win conventionally (even if, at the moment, you can't).

Of course, there's the whole IT theory which would argue that this proves Shepard is indoctrinated. But dealing purely with what's in the game, it shows that Shepard thinks they can win. All a 'conventional victory' ending would do is prove that Shepard was actually right, rather than wrong, if you've acquired the necessary assets.

Modifié par Cheesesack, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:42 .

[Pitznik]

Cheesesack wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

If the crucible works, what benefits of refusing would outweigh the enormous risk?

Every one of the Crucible's options has a drawback, either physically (people die) or ethically (enforced uniformity). By choosing not to use it, you avoid those options, at the potential cost of a lot of life. Still, you could argue for example that a large loss of life by all the races is better than the total extinction of one race (eg the geth in destroy ending).

Let me point out to people that, like it or not, Refuse is a legitimiate choice and is canonical (as in, is a potential ending to the game). To everyone saying that Shepard would not choose to try and attempt a conventional victory over the insta-win Crucible button, guess what; you can already do that. Clearly, Shepard thinks they can win conventionally if you pick this choice. Otherwise why bother? Is it's gurananteed (from Shepard's POV) that everyone will die by picking this option, why not just pick destroy? Sure, it kills the geth, but they'll be dead anyway, or worse, if you lose the fight against the Reapers. Clearly, at the moment, there is a choice for Shepard to believe you can win conventionally (even if, at the moment, you can't).

Of course, there's the whole IT theory which would argue that this proves Shepard is indoctrinated. But dealing purely with what's in the game, it shows that Shepard thinks they can win. All a 'conventional victory' ending would do is prove that Shepard was actually right, rather than wrong, if you've acquired the necessary assets.

Refusal isn't really a legitimate ending - it doesn't give you a game completed achievement (or so I've heard). That would mean it is nothing more than glorified game over screen.

Also, Shepard picks refuse on some perceived moral grounds, not because he believes in conventional victory. If he would believe in conventional victory, he wouldn't deploy the Crucible at all, period. If you believe in conventional victory you don't waste all of your forces on some BS device you don't know much about, because by doing that you are actively lowering your chances of that conventional victory.

Refuse was put there for fans who prefer empty pathos over reason. That is why it wasn't even there before EC, because no Shepard would ever do it.

Modifié par Pitznik, 01 septembre 2012 - 02:50 .

[Cheesesack]

It still makes sense for Shepard to deploy the Crucible. They have no idea how it works, or that the Catalyst was even there right up until the end. For all they knew (and what they probably assumed) was that it would just send out a pulse that killed all the Reapers. Problem solved. Of course, if it worked that way, which is the way it's implied the in-game characters think, no one would ever do anything else. There's no point in taking a moral stand if literally all it would do is mean you die or win at a much higher cost. The crucible would obviously be the best option and it would be illogical to think otherwise.

But that's not what the Crucible does. It also can destroy the mass relays, exterminate an entire race (as well as other important characters) and set-technology back to the dark ages (I'm using destroy as it's the most similar option to a conventional victory and it's the ending the Reaper AI 'doesn't want'). Based on those facts, I'd say it's perfectly justifiable for Shepard to say 'that's too high a price' and at that point refuse and go for a conventional victory.

Let me re-iterate. A conventional victory would not mean that they decide not to use the Crucible, as for all they know the Crucible will work perfectly with no frawback whatsoever. It would be a split-second decision by Shepard after hearing what the true price of using the Crucible would be.

[Dean_the_Young]

Cheesesack wrote...

SackofCat wrote...

If the crucible works, what benefits of refusing would outweigh the enormous risk?

Every one of the Crucible's options has a drawback, either physically (people die) or ethically (enforced uniformity). By choosing not to use it, you avoid those options, at the potential cost of a lot of life. Still, you could argue for example that a large loss of life by all the races is better than the total extinction of one race (eg the geth in destroy ending).

The implicit consequence of not using the Reapers isn't a large loss of life: it's the total loss of life of all the space-faring species.

Let me point out to people that, like it or not, Refuse is a legitimiate choice and is canonical (as in, is a potential ending to the game). To everyone saying that Shepard would not choose to try and attempt a conventional victory over the insta-win Crucible button, guess what; you can already do that. Clearly, Shepard thinks they can win conventionally if you pick this choice. Otherwise why bother? Is it's gurananteed (from Shepard's POV) that everyone will die by picking this option, why not just pick destroy? Sure, it kills the geth, but they'll be dead anyway, or worse, if you lose the fight against the Reapers. Clearly, at the moment, there is a choice for Shepard to believe you can win conventionally (even if, at the moment, you can't).

Shepard never claims in refusal to believe that a conventional victory is possible.

Shepard never claims to believe in a conventional victory anywhere in the game.

[Pitznik]

Cheesesack wrote...

It still makes sense for Shepard to deploy the Crucible. They have no idea how it works, or that the Catalyst was even there right up until the end. For all they knew (and what they probably assumed) was that it would just send out a pulse that killed all the Reapers. Problem solved. Of course, if it worked that way, which is the way it's implied the in-game characters think, no one would ever do anything else. There's no point in taking a moral stand if literally all it would do is mean you die or win at a much higher cost. The crucible would obviously be the best option and it would be illogical to think otherwise.

But that's not what the Crucible does. It also can destroy the mass relays, exterminate an entire race (as well as other important characters) and set-technology back to the dark ages (I'm using destroy as it's the most similar option to a conventional victory and it's the ending the Reaper AI 'doesn't want'). Based on those facts, I'd say it's perfectly justifiable for Shepard to say 'that's too high a price' and at that point refuse and go for a conventional victory.

Let me re-iterate. A conventional victory would not mean that they decide not to use the Crucible, as for all they know the Crucible will work perfectly with no frawback whatsoever. It would be a split-second decision by Shepard after hearing what the true price of using the Crucible would be.

No, it doesn't. They have NO IDEA what Crucible does, noone assumes any pulse, all they know it is "somehow supposed to deafeat Reapers" and that is what it does. This is at best backup plan, not a primary plan, unless there is nothing else.

Information about Crucible destroying relays is metagaming.

Destroy does NOT set the tech back to dark age, unless you're talking super low EMS.

"as for all they know the Crucible will work perfectly with no frawback whatsoever" - this statement has no basis in game whatsoever. Crucible isn't and never was the alternative, it is the only hope, as far as Hackett or Shepard know. There is no mention about conventional victory, it is established as impossible.

That is everything I have to say on this topic, can't really repeat myself all the time.

[Oransel]

Conventional victory was neither stated to be possible or impossible in ME1-2. For reference play those games. It was never stated it sould be easy. Neither it was stated that the Reapers are unstoppable and invulnerable. Conventional victory is impossible in ME3 setting. Because of writers. However, I would like to present what should have been if authors haven't went with Mass Effect retcon super weapon mumbo jumbo:

Upon my calculations there are ~ 14000 destroyer Reapers and ~ 500 Sovereign class ones. + unlimited resources they have + indoctrinated husks. Tough. Too tough for our Galaxy. Conventional victory is impossible, right, but our 3 trillion lives Galaxy has everything we need to make it possible through various means.

1. Diplomacy like we have in original ME3. Uniting all those diverse and hostile races to work as one is hard, but it is the most important part about beating the enemy. That's what we have Shepard, btw
2. Technology. Galaxy has a lot of brilliant minds which can be used to close the gap between our tech and Reaper tech. Just look at Crucible statistics. Imagine how much more we could have achieved if those minds were upgrading our ships with even more advanced Thanix guns, advanced ships and such? I bet many of our ships like Quarian flagman and Destiny Ascension would qualify as Destroyer class.
3. Logistics. All those small colonies? All those quiet Reaper-free outposts? Perfect places to build industrial masses we need to produce ships we need (Soviets did the same with Siberia and Kazachstan when ****s invaded). ME3 could have much more interesting Galaxy exploration. Revisiting planets from previous games, upgrading them through special terminal, all contributing to the economic power we need. Resource scanning? Some have not liked it, but it would make sense here.
4. Strategy. Here is where side-missions would come in masse and would look cool. Scorched earth tactics avoiding Indoctrination maybe? Evacuation of scientists and martial leaders, old squadmates, everything would be good.
5. Artifacts. Replacing anomalies from ME2. Those would be the raw material we need for scientists to do this job.

Accumulating all this, upgrde the ships, organize the opposition - and we have damn good chance.

P.S. (but no we have starbrat. Easier this way)

Modifié par Oransel, 01 septembre 2012 - 03:14 .

[D24O]

Pitznik wrote...

"as for all they know the Crucible will work perfectly with no frawback whatsoever" - this statement has no basis in game whatsoever. Crucible isn't and never was the alternative, it is the only hope, as far as Hackett or Shepard know. There is no mention about conventional victory, it is established as impossible.

Man, we must really have been deep in the s*** to go with such a stupid plan. "Hey Shepard, we found a microphone thingy underground the other day, we dunno what it does, but it releases energy and might kill the reapers, so lets build it and see what happens!"

[inversevideo]

Conniving_Eagle 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.

Wrong. This concept is very poorly established by the writers in Mass Effect 3 with Hackett's "Omfg, I just got pwned. There's no way we can beat them conventionally, Shepard." after the Alliance got caught by the Reapers with their pants down. Do even know what a deus-ex machina is? The Reapers are meant to be invulnerable and a deus ex machina was necessary to beat them - both of these are incorrect and objectively poor from a literary standpoint, and both were forced upon the plot by the writers in Mass Effect 3. 

Well said!

[o Ventus]

inversevideo wrote...

Conniving_Eagle 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.

Wrong. This concept is very poorly established by the writers in Mass Effect 3 with Hackett's "Omfg, I just got pwned. There's no way we can beat them conventionally, Shepard." after the Alliance got caught by the Reapers with their pants down. Do even know what a deus-ex machina is? The Reapers are meant to be invulnerable and a deus ex machina was necessary to beat them - both of these are incorrect and objectively poor from a literary standpoint, and both were forced upon the plot by the writers in Mass Effect 3. 

Well said!

This.

I've always felt that the Reapers were honestly the weakest part of the franchise, because of the "OMFG WE CANT BEAT THEM" mentality.

Modifié par o Ventus, 01 septembre 2012 - 03:31 .