289 réponses à ce sujet

[knightnblu]

I have said it before and I will say it again, conventional victory was possible. If you played your cards right you combined the fleets of the galaxy and when you dropped into the Sol system it looked like thousands of ships including most of the remaining dreadnaughts. Every time I see the allied fleets arrive I can't help, but thinking that Harby's thinking "oh, sh#t!"

What's more, the game tells you that the Allies are winning key victories and pushing the Reapers back. What does that mean if a conventional win is off of the table? The Reapers grabbed the Citadel and fortified Sol heavily. The bulk of their fleet is there waiting for a knife fight. They are so confident that they believe that they can ****** on the fire and call the dogs. When Shepard opens fire on them I was ready to take them on and win or die trying.

I think that if you had maxed EMS then you should have had an 85% chance of a win on conventional victory with heavy losses. The combined fleets were in and of themselves a force multiplier because of the varied skill sets that could be maximized in the fight. Despite what Anderson and the resistance went through they managed to hold their own while taking 80-90% casualties. If Anderson could do that on a world crawling with Reapers why couldn't Hackett win in space with the galaxy at his back?

There is really only one reason why we couldn't have pulled off a conventional victory and that is because we were denied it. When you have been shut down before you even try then there is really nothing that can be done and that is why we were forced into blue, green, or red. BioWare didn't do that with either ME or ME2. You fought against incredible odds and you managed to pull of a victory that made you feel like you just won the world. ME3 not so much.

[Blueprotoss]

knightnblu wrote...

I have said it before and I will say it again, conventional victory was possible. If you played your cards right you combined the fleets of the galaxy and when you dropped into the Sol system it looked like thousands of ships including most of the remaining dreadnaughts. Every time I see the allied fleets arrive I can't help, but thinking that Harby's thinking "oh, sh#t!"

What's more, the game tells you that the Allies are winning key victories and pushing the Reapers back. What does that mean if a conventional win is off of the table? The Reapers grabbed the Citadel and fortified Sol heavily. The bulk of their fleet is there waiting for a knife fight. They are so confident that they believe that they can ****** on the fire and call the dogs. When Shepard opens fire on them I was ready to take them on and win or die trying.

I think that if you had maxed EMS then you should have had an 85% chance of a win on conventional victory with heavy losses. The combined fleets were in and of themselves a force multiplier because of the varied skill sets that could be maximized in the fight. Despite what Anderson and the resistance went through they managed to hold their own while taking 80-90% casualties. If Anderson could do that on a world crawling with Reapers why couldn't Hackett win in space with the galaxy at his back?

There is really only one reason why we couldn't have pulled off a conventional victory and that is because we were denied it. When you have been shut down before you even try then there is really nothing that can be done and that is why we were forced into blue, green, or red. BioWare didn't do that with either ME or ME2. You fought against incredible odds and you managed to pull of a victory that made you feel like you just won the world. ME3 not so much.

Conventional Victory is only possible against a single Reaper like in the case of ME1 and ME2.  The Reapers outnumber every fleet in the Milky Way and have superior technology to all of the Citadel races, which means a Conentional Victory isn't in the cards for ME3.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 01 octobre 2012 - 01:25 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Yet you keep on contradicting yourself and running away still won't help you.

Putting aside the fact that you quite clearly don't know what most of your key words mean, I don't think I need much help. You're winning this argument for me. 

Actually Reapers are more so classified on scale based n size is one of the major factors of design.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

Prove it. 

And then tell me what the scale is. 

]Again it doesn't matter if Sovreign was dead because the Reapers changed their mind on this cycle especially when looking at humanity.  If it was irrelevent then Harbinger wouldn't be in ME2 with what role he had.

It's irrelevant to the point. 

You assert that Sovereign did not operate alone as a Reaper. Yes, Harbinger started taking an interest in the events of the galaxy, but only after Sovereign was dead. Harbinger can't help Sovereign if Sovereign is dead. Can you help a person that's dead? 

I see how your fiocusing on ad hominemss again and how its still irrelevent when the Leviathans tell some of the story while most of the story is from the Catalyst

Again, are you slow? Whether you think most of the story comes from the Catalyst or not is irrelevant, because its story does not contradict what the Leviathans tell us. 

You don't have a point. 

Again it is an assumption even when the Catalyst has 1st hand knowledge on this and the Leviathans have 2nd hand knowledge.

There's no assumption there. They each tell us more or less the same story. 

Opinion is always wrong when the facts are being used.

Hence why you've been proved wrong so many times. 

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Putting aside the fact that you quite clearly don't know what most of your key words mean, I don't think I need much help. You're winning this argument for me. 

Sadly you aren't Charley Sheen and opinions don't trump facts.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Prove it. 

And then tell me what the scale is.

I love it on how you avoid talking about scale at every turn even when ships are designed around scaling.  Again Reapers are more so classified on scale based n size is one of the major factors of design.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

It's irrelevant to the point. 

You assert that Sovereign did not operate alone as a Reaper. Yes, Harbinger started taking an interest in the events of the galaxy, but only after Sovereign was dead. Harbinger can't help Sovereign if Sovereign is dead. Can you help a person that's dead?

Again it doesn't matter if Sovreign was dead because the Reapers changed their mind on this cycle especially when looking at humanity.  If it was irrelevent then Harbinger wouldn't be in ME2 with what role he had.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Again, are you slow? Whether you think most of the story comes from the Catalyst or not is irrelevant, because its story does not contradict what the Leviathans tell us. 

You don't have a point.

Again ad hominems are useless just like how you're saying everything is irrelevent when you don't agree with something.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

There's no assumption there. They each tell us more or less the same story.

Again it is an assumption even when the Catalyst has 1st hand knowledge on this and the Leviathans have 2nd hand knowledge.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Hence why you've been proved wrong so many times.

Opinion is opinion and fact is fact.  It sounds like you're not a fan of logic.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 10 octobre 2012 - 03:09 .

[AlanC9]

knightnblu wrote...

I have said it before and I will say it again, conventional victory was possible. If you played your cards right you combined the fleets of the galaxy and when you dropped into the Sol system it looked like thousands of ships including most of the remaining dreadnaughts. Every time I see the allied fleets arrive I can't help, but thinking that Harby's thinking "oh, sh#t!"

That isn't what I thought when I saw those scenes.Nor were we supposed to think that.

What's more, the game tells you that the Allies are winning key victories and pushing the Reapers back. What does that mean if a conventional win is off of the table?

Mostly that the writing is a bit incoherent; this is particularly bad if you play MP since Hackett's dialogue gets infected too.Anyone who listens to Citadel news reports or looks at the galaxy map knows that the Reapers are expanding their control rather than being driven back.

[Xellith]

MP galaxy map stuff is just propaganda by the allied forces.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...
Sadly you aren't Charley Sheen and opinions don't trump facts.

Quite correct, hence why you're doing all the work for me. My facts trump your opinions.

]I love it on how you avoid talking about scale at every turn even when ships are designed around scaling.  Again Reapers are more so classified on scale based n size is one of the major factors of design.  Two wrongs don't make a right.

I'm actively trying to start a discussion on the scale but you refuse to tell me what the scale is. 

Again it doesn't matter if Sovreign was dead because the Reapers changed their mind on this cycle especially when looking at humanity.  If it was irrelevent then Harbinger wouldn't be in ME2 with what role he had.

Harbinger wasn't helping Sovereign. Sovereign dies before Harbinger enters the picture. 

Again it is an assumption even when the Catalyst has 1st hand knowledge on this and the Leviathans have 2nd hand knowledge.

What does the Catalyst tell us? 

What do the Leviathans tell us? 

Are their stories different?

No! So your point is irrelevant. 

Opinion is opinion and fact is fact.  It sounds like you're not a fan of logic.

I'm a die-hard fan of logic, that's why I keep insisting that you use some. 

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Quite correct, hence why you're doing all the work for me. My facts trump your opinions.

Yet your "facts" don't trump the facts because you're only using opinion.  Either way you're not winning like Charley Sheen since both of you have lost.

The Night Mammoth wrote...


I'm actively trying to start a discussion on the scale but you refuse to tell me what the scale is.

You aren't trying to start a discussion on scale especially when you're denying that scale isn't involved.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Harbinger wasn't helping Sovereign. Sovereign dies before Harbinger enters the picture.

Again it doesn't matter if Sovreign was dead because the Reapers changed their mind on this cycle especially when looking at humanity.  If it was irrelevent then Harbinger wouldn't be in ME2 with what role he had.  I see that you're still missing the point.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

What does the Catalyst tell us? 

What do the Leviathans tell us? 

Are their stories different?

No! So your point is irrelevant.

Again it is an assumption even when the Catalyst has 1st hand knowledge on this and the Leviathans have 2nd hand knowledge. I'm not surprised that you're still missing the point.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I'm a die-hard fan of logic, that's why I keep insisting that you use some.

If you were using logic then opinion wouldn't be your backbone.

[Han Shot First]

I didn't like the original endings, but am okay with the the extended cut. So I'm not sure where exactly I fit it in on this discussion...

But I wouldn't have liked if conventional victory was possible, and I'm glad Bioware didn't go that route. I always expected that the Reapers would end up being defeated by a superweapon of some point. I just think the original endings were very poorly executed, didn't have enough to differentiate them other than a different color explosion, and involved an introduction to what seemed at the time to be an entity like Q.

[clarkusdarkus]

jsl1016 wrote...

"Video Gamey"

Likely the WORST phrase ever put "out there" by a video game company representative.

This.........i mean im stumped as to why they even said that and thought it would sit well.

[frostajulie]

Conventional victory after refuse is my ideal ending even if it means Shepard is dead. That ending would actually allow me to replay the game and make me happy enough to purchase all DLC.

[Arxduke]

Synthesis + Live Shepard + Room for another sequel + No more reapers = One flipping happy fan.

<--------- me.

But that would of been too good to be true. I am overall happy with the Synthesis ending. :/ Meh.

[Asch Lavigne]

It wasn't the choices, or lack of, that bothered me, it was the synthetics vs organics thing that came out of nowhere. Maybe if Leviathan had been part of the main game it wouldn't have snuck up on me like that.

Before the EC I would add lack of closure. Still didn't get enough (what does Garrus go do without his FemShep?!?) with the EC but it was better than before.

[Grubas]

i thought this thread is for people who didnt like the endings. a conventonal victory would be epic, it would need some tweking of the lore, a smal efort for a writer. does this mean blutoss is an antiender? i was always suspecting sarcasm...

[Noelemahc]

Thread hop:
Mandatory link to pre-EC Conventional Victory discussion/justification hub thread.

I highly recommend any of Raynulf's analysis posts listed in the index, like this one.

Basically, to justify conventional victory being impossible, BW retconned a goodly portion of lore away and ignored what they didn't retcon; Thanix Cannons and Citadel Relay Controls having been ignored being the worst offense.

[Iakus]

Noelemahc wrote...

Thread hop:
Mandatory link to pre-EC Conventional Victory discussion/justification hub thread.

I highly recommend any of Raynulf's analysis posts listed in the index, like this one.

Basically, to justify conventional victory being impossible, BW retconned a goodly portion of lore away and ignored what they didn't retcon; Thanix Cannons and Citadel Relay Controls having been ignored being the worst offense.

And this is why the Refuse ending in EC demonstrates Bioware was only half-listening to our concerns.  There was never any intention of "fixing" anything.  Or providing alternatives.  Only justifying The Art.

Modifié par iakus, 18 octobre 2012 - 01:39 .

[CaptainCommander]

I honestly thought the Crucible would do what killing Saren did and send a virus or emp type thing that would corrupt the Reapers for a period of time and would allow the Galactic fleet time to kill all or the majority. To me that leaves an awesome ME4 to develop. You would be hunting Reapers instead of them hunting them and you have to find new Alpha relays or try activate the Citadel relay to get to dark space and destroy the Reapers that fled and then you could learn the Dark Matter plot and that could be ME5. Instead we got the 3 colours and those are just bonkers

[Yate]

Conventional victory is boring.

[DeathWingKingUltimate]

There is no War, There is only Harvest
There is no genocide, There is only ascension
There is no peace, There is only Catalyst solutions
There is no victory, There is only Crucible

[HK-90210]

I always saw the endings as a missed opprotunity, more than anything else. I pick destroy for all my Shepards, and I really wish I didn't. I wish that my Shepards, varied as they are, COULD pick another ending. But none of them accept what the Starchild says. None of them trust him, as he is the leader of the Reapers, the enemy they have been fighting for 3 games. THAT is what makes him a poor choice or presenting the endings. In my opinion, the Starchild should be separate from the Reapers, an observer, not an active participant, of the Reaper's harvests.

But even disregarding that, I feel that Control and Synthesis fail as endings for two reasons. One, there's no way for the player to know how their chosen ending REALLY pans out. In Control, how can we be sure what the Shepard AI will do with the Reaper's power? How will they 'protect the many'? And with synthesis, even EDI isn't sure what the heck the future is going to be like in this senario. In then end, I think there were too many unknowns about these two endings for them to be accepted by a lot of players. With a little refinement, they could have, but as they are, we just don't know. 

But the other reason I think these two endings fail is that Shepard ALWAYS dies in them. Shepard is the player's personal connection to the universe. They always view the world through Shepard's perspective. So to kill Shepard is to sever that connection. So all the sacrifices that the player has made to reach this point are now, at least on some level, disconnnected. The universe is a lot less 'real' to a lot of players. Do I think that Shepard should have been dead in SOME of the endings? Heck yes. Do I think he should be dead in all but one? No. This leaves the ending with less of an impact, in the end. Plus, they already killed off Shepard once in the beginning of ME2, so if feels kind of redundant to kill him again. Great, Shepard's dead just like at the start of ME2. Wow, I feel really sad.

So in Control and Synthesis it is unknown what really happens to the galaxy at large in the long run, and the player has less of a reason to care in the first place. So all in all, they simply fail as endings, IMO.

And that leaves us with Destroy, which requires the destruction of all the Geth and EDI in order for the player to maintain their connection to the universe, as well as have a good idea of what happens after ME3 is over. This is not a sacrifice a lot of players feel is warranted, given that Control and Synthesis are so unappealing in the first place. So yeah, I think the endings could have been pulled off better. Mass Effect 3, to me, will always be one of those 'could have been so great' games. And it was so close to being so. Unfortunately, I think Bioware made some mistakes(the treatment of Jacob's 'romance' being the worst turd of the bunch). This made what was a GREAT series into a so-so series. And that makes me, as a ardently passionate Bioware fan, very sad.

Forrest Gump: And that's about all I have to say about that.

Modifié par CastonFolarus, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:11 .

[Spectre Impersonator]

I would pay money for a better conclusion all around. Bioware would rather release the **** they already recorded dialogue for, though. It's just too much effort to get all those actors back I guess.

[Aeden Cousland]

I just think they need to reward players with an ending in which the destroy optioned is refined into destroy reapers only if ems is high enough. Then there is a good (well goodish) conclusion

[Oni Changas]

I don't see how any thinking person can just be okay with EC. It only makes things worse. I was better off not knowing the ghostkid or its past. I was better off without nonsensical Normandy extractions during a slaughterfest headed by Harbinger. I was better off without illogical and insulting disney endings (syn) or middle fingers to those who wanted a new choice. I'll never touch sp again as all it consists of to me anymore is the systematic unraveling of a once great franchise. MP all the way.

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...
You aren't trying to start a discussion on scale especially when you're denying that scale isn't involved.

I'm sure there's a phrase for the kind of argument technique you use. 

Chewbacca defense maybe? Troll logic? Not sure. 

Again it doesn't matter if Sovreign was dead because the Reapers changed their mind on this cycle especially when looking at humanity.  If it was irrelevent then Harbinger wouldn't be in ME2 with what role he had.  I see that you're still missing the point.

Telling yourself that won't make it so.

Again it is an assumption even when the Catalyst has 1st hand knowledge on this and the Leviathans have 2nd hand knowledge. I'm not surprised that you're still missing the point.

I'd inform you of the irony, but I doubt you'd understand. 

If you were using logic then opinion wouldn't be your backbone.

Maybe it's a language barrier!

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 18 octobre 2012 - 02:45 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Don't mean to be a smartass OP, but I was one of those who "hated" the endings, but now that the EC is out I do not "hate" them any more. So is this thread for my kind as well or maybe it would be a clever idea to take one "d" from the topic's title?

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 18 octobre 2012 - 04:54 .