289 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

1. As of the start of Mass Effect 3, it just wasn't possible. The Reapers possess too great of a technological edge for the civilizations of the galaxy to have won conventionally. In order for a conventional victory to have been possible, Mass Effect 2 would have to have been a very different game that ended with the civilizations of the galaxy either greatly narrowing or eliminating the Reapers' technological superiority.

2. A conventional victory leaves Commander Shepard with not much important to do in the main plot. The victory would no longer be in his or her hands, but rather in the hands of Admiral Hackett and his peers in the Turian, Asari and Salarian fleets.

[The Night Mammoth]

Han Shot First wrote...

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

1. As of the start of Mass Effect 3, it just wasn't possible. The Reapers possess too great of a technological edge for the civilizations of the galaxy to have won conventionally. In order for a conventional victory to have been possible, Mass Effect 2 would have to have been a very different game that ended with the civilizations of the galaxy either greatly narrowing or eliminating the Reapers' technological superiority.

Your first and last statements are contradictory. 

2. A conventional victory leaves Commander Shepard with not much important to do in the main plot. The victory would no longer be in his or her hands, but rather in the hands of Admiral Hackett and his peers in the Turian, Asari and Salarian fleets.

Fine by me. I'd rather have something thematically fitting and logical over stupid la shi like space Casper and his wonder machine. 

[Han Shot First]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

1. As of the start of Mass Effect 3, it just wasn't possible. The Reapers possess too great of a technological edge for the civilizations of the galaxy to have won conventionally. In order for a conventional victory to have been possible, Mass Effect 2 would have to have been a very different game that ended with the civilizations of the galaxy either greatly narrowing or eliminating the Reapers' technological superiority.

Your first and last statements are contradictory. 

There isn't any contradiction because I was talking about two different games. The first statement is referring to Mass Effect 3, the last was referring to Mass Effect 2.

Conventional victory wasn't possible at the start of ME3 because Mass Effect 2 did not end with the civilizations of the galaxy greatly narrowing or eliminating Reaper technological superiority. It ends with the civilizations of the galaxy still very much unprepared for the invasion.

In order for conventional victory to have been on the table in ME3, ME2 would have to have been a very different game.

In short, for those that wanted conventional victory as an option...the problem isn't really with ME3, but with ME2.

[The Night Mammoth]

Han Shot First wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

1. As of the start of Mass Effect 3, it just wasn't possible. The Reapers possess too great of a technological edge for the civilizations of the galaxy to have won conventionally. In order for a conventional victory to have been possible, Mass Effect 2 would have to have been a very different game that ended with the civilizations of the galaxy either greatly narrowing or eliminating the Reapers' technological superiority.

Your first and last statements are contradictory. 

There isn't any contradiction because I was talking about two different games. The first statement is referring to Mass Effect 3, the last was referring to Mass Effect 2.

Irrelevant. You can't say the problem begins at the start of ME3, and then say the problem is really in ME2, the two contradict each other. 

Conventional victory wasn't possible at the start of ME3 because Mass Effect 2 did not end with the civilizations of the galaxy greatly narrowing or eliminating Reaper technological superiority. It ends with the civilizations of the galaxy still very much unprepared for the invasion.

We didn't know how superior they were, so that's wrong. 

In order for conventional victory to have been on the table in ME3, ME2 would have to have been a very different game.

In short, for those that wanted conventional victory as an option...the problem isn't really with ME3, but with ME2.

There was nothing in ME2, or ME1, that made the Reapers out to be impossible to beat conventionally. 

[inko1nsiderate]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

1. As of the start of Mass Effect 3, it just wasn't possible. The Reapers possess too great of a technological edge for the civilizations of the galaxy to have won conventionally. In order for a conventional victory to have been possible, Mass Effect 2 would have to have been a very different game that ended with the civilizations of the galaxy either greatly narrowing or eliminating the Reapers' technological superiority.

Your first and last statements are contradictory. 

There isn't any contradiction because I was talking about two different games. The first statement is referring to Mass Effect 3, the last was referring to Mass Effect 2.

Irrelevant. You can't say the problem begins at the start of ME3, and then say the problem is really in ME2, the two contradict each other. 

He didn't say the problem started in ME3, he says that by the start of ME3 it isn't possible.  The end of ME2 is before the start of ME3 so if it isn't possible by the end of ME2 then it is trivially not possible by the start of ME3.  This isn't a contradiction by any means, this is just a confusion on your part and your inferences on what he meant when he says 'at the start of ME3 it isn't possible'.

It is like saying 'I cannot find a solution to the problem with any x < 3', and then go on to say 'this is because of this behavior that happens at x < 2 that makes solutions impossible for x > 2'.  You saunter along and say 'by saying x < 2 you are contradicting x < 3'.  This is flat out wrong.

Oh, and I liked the ending.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 18 octobre 2012 - 07:02 .

[Maxster_]

The Night Mammoth wrote...



There was nothing in ME2, or ME1, that made the Reapers out to be impossible to beat conventionally. 

Yeah.
EAWare could turn that in any way, they just choose to retcon ME1 and ME2 to nothing.

[The Night Mammoth]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

He didn't say the problem started in ME3, he says that by the start of ME3 it isn't possible.

The end of ME2 is before the start of ME3 so if it isn't possible by the end of ME2 then it is trivially not possible by the start of ME3.  This isn't a contradiction by any means, this is just a confusion on your part and your inferences on what he meant when he says 'at the start of ME3 it isn't possible'.

It is like saying 'I cannot find a solution to the problem with any x < 3', and then go on to say 'this is because of this behavior that happens at x < 2 that makes solutions impossible for x > 2'.  You saunter along and say 'by saying x < 2 you are contradicting x < 3'.  This is flat out wrong.

As of the start, not by the start. The two phrases mean completely different things. If the defined point in time is the start of ME3, the former would mean the problem starts then, and the latter means it starts before it.

He can clarify if this isn't what he means. 

Oh, and I liked the ending.

Eh... okay? Is that relevant? I'm guessing no. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 18 octobre 2012 - 07:24 .

[inko1nsiderate]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

He didn't say the problem started in ME3, he says that by the start of ME3 it isn't possible.

The end of ME2 is before the start of ME3 so if it isn't possible by the end of ME2 then it is trivially not possible by the start of ME3.  This isn't a contradiction by any means, this is just a confusion on your part and your inferences on what he meant when he says 'at the start of ME3 it isn't possible'.

It is like saying 'I cannot find a solution to the problem with any x < 3', and then go on to say 'this is because of this behavior that happens at x < 2 that makes solutions impossible for x > 2'.  You saunter along and say 'by saying x < 2 you are contradicting x < 3'.  This is flat out wrong.

As of the start, not by the start. The two phrases mean completely different things. If the defined point in time is the start of ME3, the former would mean the problem starts then, and the latter means it starts before it.

He can clarify if this isn't what he means. 
 

As of the start means as of the time of the start of ME3 we are told that conventional victory is impossible, that doesn't mean that this is the earliest time in which this statement is true.  Here is an example in a sentence:

I checked my milk yesterday to see if it was bad, it wasn't, as of 2 minutes ago it also wasn't bad.  

See how those two parts of a sentence do not contradict each other?  As of 2 minutes ago my milk hadn't gone bad, but it also hadn't gone bad at earlier times. As of just indicates a specific point in time that you know this fact to be true, but that doesn't mean it is the earliest possible time for that statement to be true.

I checked the end of ME2 to see if conventional victory was possible, it wasn't, as of the start of ME3 it also wasn't possible.

Modifié par inko1nsiderate, 18 octobre 2012 - 10:05 .

[drayfish]

Han Shot First wrote...

Here are the problems with a Conventional Victory:

* cut*

2. A conventional victory leaves Commander Shepard with not much important to do in the main plot. The victory would no longer be in his or her hands, but rather in the hands of Admiral Hackett and his peers in the Turian, Asari and Salarian fleets.

I literally have no idea why this would be a bad thing.

The war is not about Shepard's ego, surely?

(And she did gather that army together, anyway...)

For me, arbitrarilly making her press one of three buttons that are completely antithetical to what both she and that army were fighting for just seems arrogant and self-defeating.

Modifié par drayfish, 18 octobre 2012 - 10:30 .

[The Night Mammoth]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

inko1nsiderate wrote...

He didn't say the problem started in ME3, he says that by the start of ME3 it isn't possible.

The end of ME2 is before the start of ME3 so if it isn't possible by the end of ME2 then it is trivially not possible by the start of ME3.  This isn't a contradiction by any means, this is just a confusion on your part and your inferences on what he meant when he says 'at the start of ME3 it isn't possible'.

It is like saying 'I cannot find a solution to the problem with any x < 3', and then go on to say 'this is because of this behavior that happens at x < 2 that makes solutions impossible for x > 2'.  You saunter along and say 'by saying x < 2 you are contradicting x < 3'.  This is flat out wrong.

As of the start, not by the start. The two phrases mean completely different things. If the defined point in time is the start of ME3, the former would mean the problem starts then, and the latter means it starts before it.

He can clarify if this isn't what he means. 
 

As of the start means as of the time of the start of ME3 we are told that conventional victory is impossible, that doesn't mean that this is the earliest time in which this statement is true.  Here is an example in a sentence:

I checked my milk yesterday to see if it was bad, it wasn't, as of 2 minutes ago it also wasn't bad.  

See how those two parts of a sentence do not contradict each other?  As of 2 minutes ago my milk hadn't gone bad, but it also hadn't gone bad at earlier times. As of just indicates a specific point in time that you know this fact to be true, but that doesn't mean it is the earliest possible time for that statement to be true.

Your example is gramatically different to how the phrase was used by the other poster. You're talking about how something hasn't happened, he's talking about something that has. 

So, as of defines the start of an event in that context. 

I checked the end of ME2 to see if conventional victory was possible, it wasn't, as of the start of ME3 it also wasn't possible.

Except you have no proof of the former. The Reapers were not made out to be impossible to beat conventionally. 

[Han Shot First]

Inko1nsiderate understood the point I was trying to get across.

Definition of AS OF

:on, at, from —used to indicate a time or date at which something begins or ends <takes effect as of July 1>

Merriam-Webster

I was saying that by the start of Mass Effect 3, conventional victory is not possible because the ground work for it wasn't laid in Mass Effect 2. ME3 opens with a galaxy woefully unprepared for the invasion, and fielding ships that are greatly outclassed by the Reapers.

I literally have no idea why this would be a bad thing.

The war is not about Shepard's ego, surely?

(And she did gather that army together, anyway...)

For me, arbitrarilly making her press one of three buttons that are completely antithetical to what both she and that army were fighting for just seems arrogant and self-defeating.

The problem from my perspective would be that if the Reapers were defeated conventionally, Shepard wouldn't have anything important to do after gathering the fleet. From that point on he or she would be a spectator to the Reapers' destruction rather than its' agent. It isn't so much about Shepard's ego as it is about an ending that would be anti-climactic. 

Of course that's just my opinion, and having the opposite opinion is equally valid.

As for whether or not the way the Crucible was implemented worked as an ending, that is really a different discussion than whether or not there should have been an option to win without a superweapon. It isn't really an either/or scenario.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 19 octobre 2012 - 04:06 .

[Spectre Impersonator]

Have the devs ever said anything about their many lies pre-release?

[Blueprotoss]

JohnShepard12 wrote...

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.

To be fair this statement is only an opinion especially when actors of any kind aren't cheap to do more work and writing is subjective by nature.

JohnShepard12 wrote...

Have the devs ever said anything about their many lies pre-release?

Ironically Bioware hasn't lied but the ones who did lie are just upset like in anything else.  Either way choices did matter in ME3 and there weren't ABC endings in ME3.  Btw if you're interested in ABC endings that happen to be labeled as letter based endings are the old school Resident Evil games.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 21 octobre 2012 - 05:31 .

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

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.

I see that you're still not interested in a discussion even when George Lucas did win against a case based on the original concpet designs of Chewbacca, which happened like 3-5 years ago.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

I'm not the one denying things even when the Reapers didn't focus on humans until after they caused Sovreign to be defeated.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

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.

Yet you're the one denying the facts to avoid a simple discussion.

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

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

Maybe it's a language barrier!

Unless if you don't understand logic or don't use common sense.

[Blueprotoss]

Aeden Cousland wrote...

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

The Shepard breathe scene is a reward in itself.

OniTYME wrote...

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.

It wasn't that hard to understand the endings before the EC as long as you enough attention throughout playing the trilogy.

GimmeDaGun wrote...

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?

This is true that some people go over the endings with the EC, but the people hating the endings are still in the minority.