289 réponses à ce sujet

[Jadebaby]

jsl1016 wrote...

This is for those that hated the ending, like me. If you liked the ending, I am NOT looking to start another thread to fight with you, so please look to other threads for entertainment.
Now, for those of you that hated the ending, would you have found it better if they had made Conventional Victory possible?
This may have been said before, but I for one think they should have just had LESS REAPERS. Yeah they (the Reapers) are powerful, and yeah if you didn't have enough allies you could lose or win with devastating effects. But they (Bioware) clearly showed throughout the series that reapers could be destroyed (Sovereign, Reaper on Rannoch, Reaper in London), but if you just had LESS OF THEM a conventional victory would have been very achieveable.
This way, starbrat could have been taken out of the equation and we could have had a bad ass boss battle at the end with Harbinger and TIM.

Would this have made you happy? It would have made me ecstatic to see all that firepower come to earth and devastate the Reapers while I took out TIM & Harbinger.

Just my thoughts.

Not to mention that another one was killed by a worm.

Yes, I agree OP. I have made a theory for it.

[jsl1016]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

I don't mind the ending and I'm in this thread.

sup haters?

Get out
Edit: also reported

Aww....sensitive are we? Lol don't worry, your report won't do anything. He's not gonna get banned or anything. Especially since you simply did it because he has a different opinion than you. Nice try though.

actually I did it because his comment was there simply to incite, as well as the OP expressly stating that pro-enders were not welcome on this thread.  You have your threads, we have ours.  Also he used the derogitory term "haters" which I take offence to.  I love this series, otherwise I would not still be here.

I NEVER said your weren't welcome. I just said that this post wouldn't be appealing to you.

[jsl1016]

jsl1016 wrote...

This is for those that hated the ending, like me. If you liked the ending, I am NOT looking to start another thread to fight with you, so please look to other threads for entertainment.
Now, for those of you that hated the ending, would you have found it better if they had made Conventional Victory possible?
This may have been said before, but I for one think they should have just had LESS REAPERS. Yeah they (the Reapers) are powerful, and yeah if you didn't have enough allies you could lose or win with devastating effects. But they (Bioware) clearly showed throughout the series that reapers could be destroyed (Sovereign, Reaper on Rannoch, Reaper in London), but if you just had LESS OF THEM a conventional victory would have been very achieveable.
This way, starbrat could have been taken out of the equation and we could have had a bad ass boss battle at the end with Harbinger and TIM.

Would this have made you happy? It would have made me ecstatic to see all that firepower come to earth and devastate the Reapers while I took out TIM & Harbinger.

Just my thoughts.

Man oh man. Sorry I guess this does 'seem' like pro-enders were not welcome. But I didn't mean that at all. I just meant I didn't want to start fights on this thread.

Apologies to pro-enders. I did not meant to imply you are not welcome.

[zambot]

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

[Pitznik]

jsl1016 wrote...

Man oh man. Sorry I guess this does 'seem' like pro-enders were not welcome. But I didn't mean that at all. I just meant I didn't want to start fights on this thread.

Apologies to pro-enders. I did not meant to imply you are not welcome.

It is too late. Now I demand an EC of your original post. I will also never subscribe on your threads again without reading them first and reading at least three answers.

[jsl1016]

Pitznik wrote...

jsl1016 wrote...

Man oh man. Sorry I guess this does 'seem' like pro-enders were not welcome. But I didn't mean that at all. I just meant I didn't want to start fights on this thread.

Apologies to pro-enders. I did not meant to imply you are not welcome.

It is too late. Now I demand an EC of your original post. I will also never subscribe on your threads again without reading them first and reading at least three answers.

I have an EC of my OP in development. It will be free to view and though the wording may be retconned it will not change the ultimate message of my OP as I wish to maintain my view of artistic integrity.

[Jadebaby]

Mcfly616 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

actually I did it because his comment was there simply to incite, as well as the OP expressly stating that pro-enders were not welcome on this thread.  You have your threads, we have ours.  Also he used the derogitory term "haters" which I take offence to.  I love this series, otherwise I would not still be here.

Sorry, but this part is joke. I'm here from the releasing day and there wasn't even one pro-ender thread which wasn't attacked and mostly totally destroyed by anti-enders. And terms, that they used, were sometimes much, much worse then haters.

indeed.

So you stoop to their level?

How mature...

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Finn the Jakey wrote...

I don't think that conventional victory could have worked, what exactly makes this cycle any better at defeating the Reapers conventially than the hundreds of cycles that came before us?

-Thanix Weapons

-Reapers don't control the relays, thus they are stretched thin. (This is their biggest advantage)

-Reapers had to travel thousands of light years to get here. (If Arrival meant anything, this should have weakened them)

-Various Reaper tech.

-Infometric Arrays (Give us the exact location of every Reaper in the galaxy at all times)

-Thanix Weapons-Must be close to be affective.

-Reapers don't control the relays, thus they are stretched thin. (This is their biggest advantage)-does not men they would lose.Clearly.

-Reapers had to travel thousands of light years to get here. (If Arrival meant anything, this should have weakened them)-No it would not. read the codex. the reapers don't even need fuel.

-Various Reaper tech-The serplus is with Cerberus.

-Infometric Arrays  -distance fire and a over welming amount destroys that.

[dreman9999]

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

1. That's a priority earth problem.
2.The caalyst did the same thing virgil did in ME1.
3. Not really. Remeber that the crusible was alway seen as a possiblem doulbe edge sword. Many times with Garrus, Hackett, Anderson, And Liara we discused the possiblity of the crucible effecting us as well when it took out the reapers. How it out of place with these double edge sword converstions in place in the story and it turned out to be true?

[Blueprotoss]

Olaf_de_IJsbeer wrote...

I just want to point out that the Reaper on Rannoch and the one you nuke with a Thanix missile in London are Destroyers, not capital ships.

Yep and don't forget about the Reaper on Tuchunka.

liggy002 wrote...

And let's not forget the Leviathans that can destroy the Capital Ships in one shot with their magic spheres.  Bioware just shot themselves in the foot if they are trying to get across the point that conventional victory isn't possible.

That was a Destroyer not a Capital.  An example of a Capital ship is Harbinger. 

grey_wind wrote...

The Reapers are purposely overpowered in ME3 so that we are forced to go with the thrice damned Crucible. 
Had the writers actually explored why the Reapers need to shut off the relays and conquer the galaxy one system at a time, then they could have justified a conventional victory by concluding that the Reapers simply don't have the numbers to stand up to a united galaxy, no matter how powerful an individual Reaper is. A conventional victory should have been incredibly hard to achieve, but it should have been possible. It's the only victory that truly resonates with the ME franchise on a thematic level, and would be the most satisfying.

Reapers have always been that strong even when Sovreign in ME1 and the far from complete human Capital ship in ME2 were the lone Reapers. 

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:24 .

[Blueprotoss]

Mcfly616 wrote...

macrocarl wrote...

jsl1016 wrote...

"Video Gamey"

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

Source please!

its in the "Art if the Mass Effect Universe" book. They said a final boss battle with a disfigured and huskified TIM would be "too video-gamey"

Thats not a direct quote but Bioware did say that TIM being a huskified boss is out of character based on how his strength is intelligence not phsyical strength.   TIM is no Saren.

[DrGunjah]

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

[Blueprotoss]

Jawsomebob wrote...

Code_R wrote...

jsl1016 wrote...
 The fact that it still upsets so many people 6 months later SHOULD tell Bioware something. At least you would think...

Who knows what they think <_<

They think this will go away....and I am telling them No way. 

It will just like the general hatred in most games like what happened with ME1 and ME2.

[Blueprotoss]

DrGunjah wrote...

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

Then what would you say about Retaking the Citadel in ME1 and the Suicide Mission in ME2 becuse they were basically the samething with Priority Earth.

[EricHVela]

(Hated is too strong a word, but ...)

I seriously disliked the Synthesis and Control options. I'm okay with the Deus Ex Machina of Destroy (not that the previous two aren't also DEM) and somewhat fine with the new #@*$-it response.

Would I have liked to take the battle to Harby? Yes. How? I don't know.

The fact that the high-EMS sword battle shows that the Soveriegn-class Reapers (not a Destroyer) are not invulnerable suggests to me that it is possible for a "conventional victory".

If they had not had that "good" Sword sequence, I would doubt the ability to win conventionally.

[Ananka]

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

I pretty much agree with this, especially point 2, except that I would have preferred to see Shepard survive in the destroy ending. A conventional victory might've been an interesting option, but I didn't miss it.

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

[Adokat]

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

These are pretty much my problems with it, too.  Particularly 2 and 3.  Everything was great until the elevator.

Additionally, I don't think a conventional victory was needed (or even warranted given how things were presented previously), nor did I necessarily need Shep to live or have total closure for every character. 

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

Then what would you say about Retaking the Citadel in ME1 and the Suicide Mission in ME2 becuse they were basically the samething with Priority Earth.

The former was absolutely fine. 

The latter was great in some ways, terrible in terms of plot. 

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

Then what would you say about Retaking the Citadel in ME1 and the Suicide Mission in ME2 becuse they were basically the samething with Priority Earth.

The former was absolutely fine. 

The latter was great in some ways, terrible in terms of plot. 

I see its "different" when its in ME1 and ME2.  All 3 were handled the same as a good set of multiple missions.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:30 .

[DrGunjah]

Blueprotoss wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

zambot wrote...

I don't need a conventional victory. I don't need a reunion, or Shepard surviving. My problems with the ending (the ones not resolved by the EC are):

1. War assets were not handled well (yay high score meter!)
2. Catalyst was a poor choice of character to add in the last 5 minutes
3. Endings choices were largely anti-thematic and came out of left field.
4. Ending itself was pretty anti-climatic.

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

Then what would you say about Retaking the Citadel in ME1 and the Suicide Mission in ME2 becuse they were basically the samething with Priority Earth.

Actually, now that I have played ME3 I don't get why the final boss in ME2 is a human-like reaper, if all other reapers look like leviathan. Though when playing ME2 I didn't have this information, so it was ok back then.
Priority:earth just feels so wrong to me at so many points.. why don't the reapers turn off the beam? why does shepard survive harbingers beam? why doesn't harbinger shoot the normandy at high EMS ending? how have anderson and TIM made it to the citadel? just some of them...

Modifié par DrGunjah, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

DrGunjah wrote...

this and..
5. the whole priority:earth mission is just absurd.

Then what would you say about Retaking the Citadel in ME1 and the Suicide Mission in ME2 becuse they were basically the samething with Priority Earth.

The former was absolutely fine. 

The latter was great in some ways, terrible in terms of plot. 

I see its "different" when its in ME1 and ME2.  All 3 were handled the same as a good set of multiple missions.

I haven't given my opinion of Priority: Earth as a mission. I already said I thought ME2's ending was terrible in terms of plot, so it's not 'different'. 

Nice try though.

[DrGunjah]

of course it's about the plot and not about the fights

Modifié par DrGunjah, 12 septembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[Blueprotoss]

DrGunjah wrote...

Actually, now that I have played ME3 I don't get why the endboss in ME2 is a human-like reaper, if all other reapers look like leviathan. Though when playing ME2 I didn't have this information, so it was ok back then.
Priority:earth just feels so wrong to me at so many points.. why don't the reapers turn off the beam? why does shepard survive harbingers beam? why doesn't harbinger shoot the normandy at high EMS ending? how have anderson and TIM made it to the citadel? just some of them...

The human-Reaper looked like that in ME2 based on it was far from finished thus it didn't have its shell.  To be fair nobody has those answers other then Shepard wasn't a direct target of Harbinger's blast, the Normandy still has its Reaper IFF from ME2 time, we don't know if Shepard blacked at after the beam, and TIM went to the Citdael before yo fought Kai Leng for the last time.

[Blueprotoss]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

I haven't given my opinion of Priority: Earth as a mission. I already said I thought ME2's ending was terrible in terms of plot, so it's not 'different'. 

Nice try though.

Yet it is "different" because its the "cool thing to do" when its directed at ME3 even when that opinion causes contradicts to appear in ME1 and ME2.  Again all 3 of the last missions in the ME games were handled the same as a good set of multiple missions.

[Pitznik]

Blueprotoss wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

And let's not forget the Leviathans that can destroy the Capital Ships in one shot with their magic spheres.  Bioware just shot themselves in the foot if they are trying to get across the point that conventional victory isn't possible.

That was a Destroyer not a Capital.  An example of a Capital ship is Harbinger.

That was capital ship, actually.