269 réponses à ce sujet

[Uncle Jo]

The EMS system is by far not perfect, especially post EC where most of it became redundant, but I found the infamous Galactic Readiness way more out of place. IMO the latter did much more damage than the EMS system, by allowing people to get a full preparation just by playing MP.

[dreman9999]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It did not necessarily have to be based off of numbers as cold and dry as EMS. For instance, how your ground troops did would be dependant on how much Krogan support you got, but would be totally independent from whatever happens with the quarians and the geth. However, the Crucible design might suffer from not having salarian scientists helping with the project.

It's so ridiculous that you could play the game making the tactically worst decisions, not scan for anything, do no sidequests, and as long as you played enough multiplayer you can get the same ending choices and even slides as someone who did all side quests, scanning and put time and effort into every decision.

I tend to agree with your last point. Tying the MP to the single player so heavily was a poor decision. I know they were trying to diversify the ways you can get the ending, while getting people to try multiplayer, but I wish they capped it's influence on the single player campaign. Besides, I doubt most people playing MP are doing it for the War Assets at this point.

Ideally, I'd have preferred that if you managed to do the optimal things for max allegiances in game, you could get the best endings. Then you could use the sidequests to make up for what you lost by not getting the optimal outcomes, all the way up to having to do most of the sidequests if you had totally bungled the different storyline missions. 

If a person does not import and make all the wrong choices with the sp game and does no search and rescue, getting ems is going to take longer to get it they depend on the mp.

The mp only brakes the system if it's easier to get ems then the sp game from the MP GAME.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Netsfn1427]

Vigilant111 wrote...

1. No, just because u saw an ostensible connection between the Genophage and the ending does not make the connection a causal factor, curing the Genophage or not curing it has very little impact on the ending or the theme of "organics vs synthetics"

Welcome to every bioware game ever. What did freeing/killing the Rachni Queen have to do with saving the council in ME1? What did playing light or sideded prior to the temple in KOTOR have to do with the ending? (Nothing, since whatever you decision is at the temple, you get a massive light side/dark side shift). Or whichever side you'd pick when it came to it in DA:O? Yeah you get different allies, but they're fodder anyway. You don't even need to use them to defeat the Archdemon. Their impact is felt as much as your choices in ME3.

The Genophage cure gave you war assets, but it's primary purpose was to finish off a major subplot that had existed in the first two games. Virmire is based around it, as is Mordin's loyalty quest and to a degree Grunt's origin is framed by it as well. It relates to the overall goal of stopping the Reapers for the reasons given in storyline, but it's purpose in the larger narrative is to end a major subplot. 

2. You sound like ME3 have provided you with many paths, but essentially they all lead to the same conclusion: organics must be stopped from being wiped out by synthetics, not just the reapers

MP does not count as a "seperate" path because it is not story related, we are not talking about paragon/renegade or correct/incorrect here, we are talking about thematic choices that are relevant to the story

No, EMS is the purest form of calculation expressed in actual numbers, its like collecting stamps to send the Crucible to Earth, it does not tell anything about what kind of person Shepard is, and it does not reflect the theme of the game well. Getting a high number through ANY means IS the correct path, but not everything can be expressed as EMS

Again, all Bioware games take this path. It's always divergent paths headed towards the exact same goal. There's a major fork in the final two hours of the game providing you with the light/dark ending. That fork never has anything to do with your prior choices. They exist independent from one another. The tone of your ending might change slightly if your choice at the fork was different from the ones you had been selecting before, but for all intents and purposes, it's the exact same ending. 

EMS is merely showing you what the game already does. Your decision on who to leave behind on the Suicide Mission is the exact same thing. That also doesn't tell you who Shepard is either.

I'd argue since the goal of the game is to defeat the Reapers, and EMS drastically improves the state of the galaxy and gives you more options, I'd say it fits fine. Getting the high number is the end goal. It's up to you to choose how to get there. In fact there are more ways to get there than there really should have been. Could EMS have been implemented better? Absolutely, as I said in my last response. But what exists is fine. It certainly isn't the biggest flaw that I could find with ME3 nor is anywhere near the worst designed aspects of the series. 

At least one can argue EMS indirectly affects your ending choices. That's more than you can say about a lot of other Bioware games. 

[Hydralysk]

dreman9999 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It did not necessarily have to be based off of numbers as cold and dry as EMS. For instance, how your ground troops did would be dependant on how much Krogan support you got, but would be totally independent from whatever happens with the quarians and the geth. However, the Crucible design might suffer from not having salarian scientists helping with the project.

It's so ridiculous that you could play the game making the tactically worst decisions, not scan for anything, do no sidequests, and as long as you played enough multiplayer you can get the same ending choices and even slides as someone who did all side quests, scanning and put time and effort into every decision.

I tend to agree with your last point. Tying the MP to the single player so heavily was a poor decision. I know they were trying to diversify the ways you can get the ending, while getting people to try multiplayer, but I wish they capped it's influence on the single player campaign. Besides, I doubt most people playing MP are doing it for the War Assets at this point.

Ideally, I'd have preferred that if you managed to do the optimal things for max allegiances in game, you could get the best endings. Then you could use the sidequests to make up for what you lost by not getting the optimal outcomes, all the way up to having to do most of the sidequests if you had totally bungled the different storyline missions. 

If a person does not import and make all the wrong choices with the sp game and does no search and rescue, getting ems is going to take longer to get it they depend on the mp.

The mp only brakes the system if it's easier to get ems then the sp game from the MP GAME.

If a person starts ME3 with no import and purposefully makes all the worst choices in the single player and does no side quests they should not be able to get the "best" endings by simply having played a lot of multiplayer.

The fact that you literally can't screw up a playthrough as long as you've grinded enough GR to get a good multiplier makes any choice you make in the game meaningless, since the game doesn't take into account your choices so much as just the EMS total.

The multiplayer was fine, but it had no place doubling as a crutch to make sure we could always get the 'good' endings.

[dreman9999]

Hydralysk wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

plfranke wrote...

It did not necessarily have to be based off of numbers as cold and dry as EMS. For instance, how your ground troops did would be dependant on how much Krogan support you got, but would be totally independent from whatever happens with the quarians and the geth. However, the Crucible design might suffer from not having salarian scientists helping with the project.

It's so ridiculous that you could play the game making the tactically worst decisions, not scan for anything, do no sidequests, and as long as you played enough multiplayer you can get the same ending choices and even slides as someone who did all side quests, scanning and put time and effort into every decision.

I tend to agree with your last point. Tying the MP to the single player so heavily was a poor decision. I know they were trying to diversify the ways you can get the ending, while getting people to try multiplayer, but I wish they capped it's influence on the single player campaign. Besides, I doubt most people playing MP are doing it for the War Assets at this point.

Ideally, I'd have preferred that if you managed to do the optimal things for max allegiances in game, you could get the best endings. Then you could use the sidequests to make up for what you lost by not getting the optimal outcomes, all the way up to having to do most of the sidequests if you had totally bungled the different storyline missions. 

If a person does not import and make all the wrong choices with the sp game and does no search and rescue, getting ems is going to take longer to get it they depend on the mp.

The mp only brakes the system if it's easier to get ems then the sp game from the MP GAME.

If a person starts ME3 with no import and purposefully makes all the worst choices in the single player and does no side quests they should not be able to get the "best" endings by simply having played a lot of multiplayer.

The fact that you literally can't screw up a playthrough as long as you've grinded enough GR to get a good multiplier makes any choice you make in the game meaningless, since the game doesn't take into account your choices so much as just the EMS total.

The multiplayer was fine, but it had no place doubling as a crutch to make sure we could always get the 'good' endings.

The entire point was to allow the player to have many views of the same game.
 Having it so that you had a right way only to get the bestending narrows the view of the game. They want the palyer to have more than one view.If they had it where only one way to get the best ending is play it a spacific way it turns the games from a game of choice to a game of calulation.

The mp only brakes the system if it's easier to get the ending them importing , choices and search and rescued combined.
This is a mp where you only get an up in ems if you exstract, and advance your mp character once it's maxed out. It is not easier then 
importing , choices and search and rescued combined. 

This an concept of letting the player player the game how they want to. It not bad because it's not like how you play your game.

[Vigilant111]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Welcome to every bioware game ever. What did freeing/killing the Rachni Queen have to do with saving the council in ME1? What did playing light or sideded prior to the temple in KOTOR have to do with the ending? (Nothing, since whatever you decision is at the temple, you get a massive light side/dark side shift). Or whichever side you'd pick when it came to it in DA:O? Yeah you get different allies, but they're fodder anyway. You don't even need to use them to defeat the Archdemon. Their impact is felt as much as your choices in ME3.

The Genophage cure gave you war assets, but it's primary purpose was to finish off a major subplot that had existed in the first two games. Virmire is based around it, as is Mordin's loyalty quest and to a degree Grunt's origin is framed by it as well. It relates to the overall goal of stopping the Reapers for the reasons given in storyline, but it's purpose in the larger narrative is to end a major subplot.

Again, all Bioware games take this path. It's always divergent paths headed towards the exact same goal. There's a major fork in the final two hours of the game providing you with the light/dark ending. That fork never has anything to do with your prior choices. They exist independent from one another. The tone of your ending might change slightly if your choice at the fork was different from the ones you had been selecting before, but for all intents and purposes, it's the exact same ending. 

EMS is merely showing you what the game already does. Your decision on who to leave behind on the Suicide Mission is the exact same thing. That also doesn't tell you who Shepard is either.

I'd argue since the goal of the game is to defeat the Reapers, and EMS drastically improves the state of the galaxy and gives you more options, I'd say it fits fine. Getting the high number is the end goal. It's up to you to choose how to get there. In fact there are more ways to get there than there really should have been. Could EMS have been implemented better? Absolutely, as I said in my last response. But what exists is fine. It certainly isn't the biggest flaw that I could find with ME3 nor is anywhere near the worst designed aspects of the series. 

At least one can argue EMS indirectly affects your ending choices. That's more than you can say about a lot of other Bioware games. 

Thank you , but you are not telling me anything that I don't already know. I am well aware of subplot decisions such as Virmire and Tuchanka.

I admit, Genophage is a bad example to provide any link to the ending, apart from that people should get off their lazy a** and stop relying on technology on every single thing, but what about Rannoch? Shouldn't it be reasonable that the presence of peace between the Quarians and the Geth affects the ending positively thematically? rather than doing nothing at all apart from being a simple number on the screen? rather than doing headcanoning?

Also what about an ACTUAL showing of the war assets collected in use? I spent so much time collecting all these wonderful war assets, and I don't even get to see them. The Crucible is only ONE war asset, not everything, that is one of the biggest fallacies of the EMS, where pretty much everthing else gets sidelined... the connection between ending choices and how many war assets collected is extremely weak. I mean, in low EMS destroy, the Crucible is still safely delivered anyway, so the role of fleets escorting the Crucible becomes moot, the only war assets that we really need are scientists, not troops...this does not make sense to me

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

Welcome to every bioware game ever. What did freeing/killing the Rachni Queen have to do with saving the council in ME1? What did playing light or sideded prior to the temple in KOTOR have to do with the ending? (Nothing, since whatever you decision is at the temple, you get a massive light side/dark side shift). Or whichever side you'd pick when it came to it in DA:O? Yeah you get different allies, but they're fodder anyway. You don't even need to use them to defeat the Archdemon. Their impact is felt as much as your choices in ME3.

The Genophage cure gave you war assets, but it's primary purpose was to finish off a major subplot that had existed in the first two games. Virmire is based around it, as is Mordin's loyalty quest and to a degree Grunt's origin is framed by it as well. It relates to the overall goal of stopping the Reapers for the reasons given in storyline, but it's purpose in the larger narrative is to end a major subplot.

Again, all Bioware games take this path. It's always divergent paths headed towards the exact same goal. There's a major fork in the final two hours of the game providing you with the light/dark ending. That fork never has anything to do with your prior choices. They exist independent from one another. The tone of your ending might change slightly if your choice at the fork was different from the ones you had been selecting before, but for all intents and purposes, it's the exact same ending. 

EMS is merely showing you what the game already does. Your decision on who to leave behind on the Suicide Mission is the exact same thing. That also doesn't tell you who Shepard is either.

I'd argue since the goal of the game is to defeat the Reapers, and EMS drastically improves the state of the galaxy and gives you more options, I'd say it fits fine. Getting the high number is the end goal. It's up to you to choose how to get there. In fact there are more ways to get there than there really should have been. Could EMS have been implemented better? Absolutely, as I said in my last response. But what exists is fine. It certainly isn't the biggest flaw that I could find with ME3 nor is anywhere near the worst designed aspects of the series. 

At least one can argue EMS indirectly affects your ending choices. That's more than you can say about a lot of other Bioware games. 

Thank you , but you are not telling me anything that I don't already know. I am well aware of subplot decisions such as Virmire and Tuchanka.

I admit, Genophage is a bad example to provide any link to the ending, apart from that people should get off their lazy a** and stop relying on technology on every single thing, but what about Rannoch? Shouldn't it be reasonable that the presence of peace between the Quarians and the Geth affects the ending positively thematically? rather than doing nothing at all apart from being a simple number on the screen? rather than doing headcanoning?

Also what about an ACTUAL showing of the war assets collected in use? I spent so much time collecting all these wonderful war assets, and I don't even get to see them. The Crucible is only ONE war asset, not everything, that is one of the biggest fallacies of the EMS, where pretty much everthing else gets sidelined... the connection between ending choices and how many war assets collected is extremely weak. I mean, in low EMS destroy, the Crucible is still safely delivered anyway, so the role of fleets escorting the Crucible becomes moot, the only war assets that we really need are scientists, not troops...this does not make sense to me

1. The problem with your point is that ME3 at least changes what the choices and what happens with these choices based on ems.

Low ems choices are not the same as high ems choices. They don't have the same result out side the reapers are stopped.
That means what you do does effect the ending.Have the exact same choice with the same based of results no mater what.
ME3 has it were 2 choices change based on ems, and one choice apears if the ems is high enough.That means choices do effect the end of the game.

2. The issue of not seeing your assits in action is an issue of priority earth. Seeing them is not going to make the system any better or worst. It would just improve one mission. All your asking is for bw to make priority earth better..(Which they should.)

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:44 .

[Hydralysk]

dreman9999 wrote...
The entire point was to allow the player to have many views of the same game.
 Having it so that you had a right way only to get the bestending narrows the view of the game. They want the palyer to have more than one view.If they had it where only one way to get the best ending is play it a spacific way it turns the games from a game of choice to a game of calulation.


The mp only brakes the system if it's easier to get the ending them importing , choices and search and rescued combined.
This is a mp where you only get an up in ems if you exstract, and advance your mp character once it's maxed out. It is not easier then 
importing , choices and search and rescued combined. 

This an concept of letting the player player the game how they want to. It not bad because it's not like how you play your game.

What? The fact that any ending you get is decided on a point score that can be increased by playing a completely seperate mode is what narrowed the game. If your choices mattered beyond the point/text/picture you see in the EMS menu then I wouldn't have as much of a problem. If you could get to the ending choice in many different ways based on what you collected then it would be awesome, and the EMS system would carry weight, but there is no difference, there's just an arbitrary point threshold that determines if you do good or do bad. It's as you said, calculation instead of choice, people play mass effect for the choices not spreadsheets that are supposed to represent armies.

If you don't like the choices you've made, don't feel bad! You can get out of the consequences by playing horde mode, one match of which is somehow more beneficial to the entire war effort than finding a friggin heavy cruiser!. Making sure everyone can get to your best ending in practically the exact same way does make it so no one will feel left out, but to do that you have to sacrifice any consequence that your choices could hold.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 21 septembre 2012 - 05:47 .

[Netsfn1427]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Thank you , but you are not telling me anything that I don't already know. I am well aware of subplot decisions such as Virmire and Tuchanka.

I admit, Genophage is a bad example to provide any link to the ending, apart from that people should get off their lazy a** and stop relying on technology on every single thing, but what about Rannoch? Shouldn't it be reasonable that the presence of peace between the Quarians and the Geth affects the ending positively thematically? rather than doing nothing at all apart from being a simple number on the screen? rather than doing headcanoning?

Also what about an ACTUAL showing of the war assets collected in use? I spent so much time collecting all these wonderful war assets, and I don't even get to see them. The Crucible is only ONE war asset, not everything, that is one of the biggest fallacies of the EMS, where pretty much everthing else gets sidelined... the connection between ending choices and how many war assets collected is extremely weak. I mean, in low EMS destroy, the Crucible is still safely delivered anyway, so the role of fleets escorting the Crucible becomes moot, the only war assets that we really need are scientists, not troops...this does not make sense to me

I'm not sure how it would be relevant, besides Shepard saying "I made peace with Quarians/Geth" and the Catalyst rebutting with "Been there, done that. Come back in 100 years and see how that works out for you." Now, it's possible that there could be eternal peace between the two. But the Catalyst doesn't care and never was going to care, and it would have been stupid to have Shepard be able to convince a billion year-old A.I. of anything. He'd have had a better chance at having a heart-to-heart with Harbinger than trying to convince a computer without reprogramming it. 

Post EC, you get Quarian/Geth slides in Control and Synthesis. That's about the max you can expect from Bioware honestly, judging by prior games. 

Yeah, I'd have preferred to see some of the War Assets in action. But I feel that's a failure to time constraints and personally, not really a game breaker for me. There are plenty of other nice cinematics for me in game, that not seeing the Geth fleet in battle isn't too big a deal. 

Logisically they explain the need of troops as how successful you are at getting the Crucible to the Citadel. It works no matter what. How well it works depends on how intact it is when it docks. You can easily look at it like a balance:

If all you got were scientists to get the thing working as great as possible, then you lack the troops to protect it, so it gets damaged. So it works less effectively.

If all you got were soldiers to protect it, then it might arrive fairly intact, but with limited function. 

Admittedly, that's not canon. But it's not too hard to infer in game from what you are told. 

Modifié par Netsfn1427, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:09 .

[Vigilant111]

Netsfn1427 wrote...

I'm not sure how it would be relevant, besides Shepard saying "I made peace with Quarians/Geth" and the Catalyst rebutting with "Been there, done that. Come back in 100 years and see how that works out for you." Now, it's possible that there could be enternal peace between the two. But the Catalyst doesn't care and never was going to care, and it would have been stupid to have Shepard be able to convince a billion year-old A.I. of anything. He'd have had a better chance at having a heart-to-heart with Harbinger than trying to convince a computer without reprogramming it. 

Post EC, you get Quarian/Geth slides in Control and Synthesis. That's about the max you can expect from Bioware honestly, judging by prior games. 

Yeah, I'd have preferred to see some of the War Assets in action. But I feel that's a failure to time constraints and personally, not really a game breaker for me. There are plenty of other nice cinematics for me in game, that not seeing the Geth fleet in battle isn't too big a deal. 

Logisically they explain the need of troops as how successful you are at getting the Crucible to the Citadel. It works no matter what. How well it works depends on how intact it is when it docks. You can easily look at it like a balance:

If all you got were scientists to get the thing working as great as possible, then you lack the troops to protect it, so it gets damaged. So it works less effectively.

If all you got were soldiers to protect it, then it might arrive fairly intact, but with limited function. 

Admittedly, that's not canon. But it's not too hard to infer in game from what you are told. 

The way I look at it, not showing many war assets = lack of artistic integrity

No, not to convince the Catalyst, who exactly is the Catalyst anyway? some schoolyard bully, I am not going to waste time trying to convince it. What I meant was having a totally different solution for the ending if you achieved peace like having the Geth to tweak the Crucible or tweak the Catalyst itself, that sort of thing

I already told you, the Crucible docks fine with the Citadel, and I have not heard any radio traffic saying the Crucible is damaged even with low EMS, because there is still a mimimum EMS you must achieve in order to go to Earth, and high EMS does not exactly help you complete Priority Earth, you still have to do the mission on your own. Also, even if you forgot to collect any scientists but instead you collected mostly troops, you still get a fully functional Crucible once you reached the threshold

Like I said before, the EMS bar does not reflect any previous major decisions or themes well

Modifié par Vigilant111, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:15 .

[AlanC9]

Vigilant111 wrote...
The way I look at it, not showing many war assets = lack of artistic integrity

No, not to convince the Catalyst, who exactly is the Catalyst anyway? some schoolyard bully, I am not going to waste time trying to convince it. What I meant was having a totally different solution for the ending if you achieved peace like having the Geth to tweak the Crucible or tweak the Catalyst itself, that sort of thing

Though since Bio didn't want a perfect ending in the first place, this sort of thing would be difficult to implement within the current design intent. But if I read you right the design intent is the problem, right?

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[Vigilant111]

AlanC9 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...
The way I look at it, not showing many war assets = lack of artistic integrity

No, not to convince the Catalyst, who exactly is the Catalyst anyway? some schoolyard bully, I am not going to waste time trying to convince it. What I meant was having a totally different solution for the ending if you achieved peace like having the Geth to tweak the Crucible or tweak the Catalyst itself, that sort of thing

Though since Bio didn't want a perfect ending in the first place, this sort of thing would be difficult to implement within the current design intent. But if I read you right the design intent is the problem, right?

Yes, and that is why they should have just done a different ending, you know, like movies do...but that boat has sailed and it all seems too wistful now

I mean come on, why not have a little fun having the Geth tweaking the Catalyst? Is that such a bad idea? It is all darkness and grime throughout the whole game, collecting war assets and making allies are supposed to make the ending decision easier, but instead it becomes some kind of damage control, crocked damaged control I might say, since so many are dead in destroy

Well, if they think that synthesis is supposed to "help" ease the pain then I rest my case, there is nothing to talk about really

[Netsfn1427]

Vigilant111 wrote...

The way I look at it, not showing many war assets = lack of artistic integrity

No, not to convince the Catalyst, who exactly is the Catalyst anyway? some schoolyard bully, I am not going to waste time trying to convince it. What I meant was having a totally different solution for the ending if you achieved peace like having the Geth to tweak the Crucible or tweak the Catalyst itself, that sort of thing

I already told you, the Crucible docks fine with the Citadel, and I have not heard any radio traffic saying the Crucible is damaged even with low EMS, because there is still a mimimum EMS you must achieve in order to go to Earth, and high EMS does not exactly help you complete Priority Earth, you still have to do the mission on your own. Also, even if you forgot to collect any scientists but instead you collected mostly troops, you still get a fully functional Crucible once you reached the threshold

Like I said before, the EMS bar does not reflect any previous major decisions or themes well

Sorry, misunderstood your point about the Catalyst. 

The reason why the specific example you gave isn't in the game, I imagine, is because it starts to tailor an ending based on an earlier choice. Like if the only way EDI or synthetics could live was if you saved the Geth. It could certainly be explained away in game.I'm not opposed to a decision you made at the 1/3rd point changing things.  But it does something Bioware's had shown no inclination of doing so far.  It's just not what they like to do.

It isn't stated that the Crucible isn't operating at full strength. But it's apparent from varieties in the ending. It's also clear because certain choices are available or are not available. You can explain this away in either of ways I mentioned before with it being built well and damaged or not being damaged but not being built well. You could have more exposition, but my personal taste is that it's not really necessary. 

I agree, the EMS bar doesn't reflect decisions or themes. That's because it's not its job. It never was its job. It was meant to give you the cold calculus of what the decision you made resulted in and the strength you generated as a result of your decision. It sounds like you wanted individual choices to change specific parts of the ending i.e. Saving the Collector's base gives you Control if you have low EMS and destroying the collector's base gives you only Destroy on low EMS. (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong with that analysis.) There's nothing wrong with that, but I suspect a lot of people would have been upset they were "locked into an ending" based on the result of one mid-game storyline mission. In other words, I'm not sure ME3 would have been better with that system opposed to what we got.

[dreman9999]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...

I'm not sure how it would be relevant, besides Shepard saying "I made peace with Quarians/Geth" and the Catalyst rebutting with "Been there, done that. Come back in 100 years and see how that works out for you." Now, it's possible that there could be enternal peace between the two. But the Catalyst doesn't care and never was going to care, and it would have been stupid to have Shepard be able to convince a billion year-old A.I. of anything. He'd have had a better chance at having a heart-to-heart with Harbinger than trying to convince a computer without reprogramming it. 

Post EC, you get Quarian/Geth slides in Control and Synthesis. That's about the max you can expect from Bioware honestly, judging by prior games. 

Yeah, I'd have preferred to see some of the War Assets in action. But I feel that's a failure to time constraints and personally, not really a game breaker for me. There are plenty of other nice cinematics for me in game, that not seeing the Geth fleet in battle isn't too big a deal. 

Logisically they explain the need of troops as how successful you are at getting the Crucible to the Citadel. It works no matter what. How well it works depends on how intact it is when it docks. You can easily look at it like a balance:

If all you got were scientists to get the thing working as great as possible, then you lack the troops to protect it, so it gets damaged. So it works less effectively.

If all you got were soldiers to protect it, then it might arrive fairly intact, but with limited function. 

Admittedly, that's not canon. But it's not too hard to infer in game from what you are told. 

The way I look at it, not showing many war assets = lack of artistic integrity

No, not to convince the Catalyst, who exactly is the Catalyst anyway? some schoolyard bully, I am not going to waste time trying to convince it. What I meant was having a totally different solution for the ending if you achieved peace like having the Geth to tweak the Crucible or tweak the Catalyst itself, that sort of thing

I already told you, the Crucible docks fine with the Citadel, and I have not heard any radio traffic saying the Crucible is damaged even with low EMS, because there is still a mimimum EMS you must achieve in order to go to Earth, and high EMS does not exactly help you complete Priority Earth, you still have to do the mission on your own. Also, even if you forgot to collect any scientists but instead you collected mostly troops, you still get a fully functional Crucible once you reached the threshold

Like I said before, the EMS bar does not reflect any previous major decisions or themes well

1. The allied forced don't fully know how the crucible works. How would they ever know that the damege would effect it preformance.

2. The catalyst, who does know how it works, tells you it's damaged. That changes based on EMS. That still means ems effect the endings.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 06:47 .

[AlanC9]

Netsfn1427 wrote...
The reason why the specific example you gave isn't in the game, I imagine, is because it starts to tailor an ending based on an earlier choice. Like if the only way EDI or synthetics could live was if you saved the Geth. It could certainly be explained away in game.I'm not opposed to a decision you made at the 1/3rd point changing things.  But it does something Bioware's had shown no inclination of doing so far.  It's just not what they like to do.

Yep. From some of Gaider's posts, it's because a substantial majority of players don't replay the games. So Bio doesn't want to lock anyone out of major content because of early choices. This is what they've always done. In ME2, blow off someone's LM and... .well, maybe that character gets killed, and you don't get the post-SM conversation. In KotOR, nothing you do matters once you leave the planet, except for going DS which gives you a few different cutscenes and leaves the rest of the endgame exactly the same.

It isn't stated that the Crucible isn't operating at full strength.

Well, the Catalyst does say that the Crucible is "mostly intact"  or some such in high EMS situations. I don't know what the low EMS line is. But it's pretty clear that the thing can be fired on and damaged.

[AngryFrozenWater]

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So destroying genophage in ME2 has no effect on the plot of ME3 what so ever? Nor who servives the suicide mission?

My point, that pic been dead since ec came out.

Those are minor plots, remember, the theme of ME3 is "organics vs synthetics" as it is introduced at the last ten minutes of the game.

Playing MP also deminishes the effect of past choices, because you can now make up for the detrimental effects of your choices by doing non-story related stuff

You nailed that correctly. The EMS abstraction layer alienated all decisions from the past. It's a failed software engineering trick that disconnects the ending from the story. The game was about people, but their efforts got reduced to numbers.

Let me put my point in a nut shell...
In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in my army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

Of course it is. The game is all about the story, Shepard, Shepard's crew and allies and the decisions made. It's much like Vigilant111 paints. That renders every other aspect of the game useless when all that is replaced by numbers. That you can live with those abstract numbers is not my problem.

This is th ething your not getting. This is a game the devs want the player to play more then once with differnt views, morities and perspectives.

If the player is give 2 choices in the game and finds out that choice is the wrong choice, the player when he repays it will no choose that choice. It will narrow trhe player perspective. The entire idea is to branch it out.
Even Witcher 2 does this. That game also does not have any choice that lead to a bad result of the story.

That the point of the quetion I stated. BW wants you to see both what happen if you pick th eelves or the wolves in my perspectives.

You don't get it either. To you these numbers are relevant. To me they mean absolutely nothing.

[RiouHotaru]

ZombieGambit wrote...

The only real problem I see with EMS is that there is no real difference in playing one way or another. So I can trick the krogan and get salarian support or vice versa and the ending is exactly the same as long as I played MP a little to get my readiness up and if I didn't and my EMS is too low it's the same either way again.

There should be real consequences and a single "correct" way to get the best ending, like in ME2.

But then you'd get the same issue you got in ME2 where Renegade players argued that Paragon players inherently got better outcomes because they were Paragon.

The very reason the point differences aren't greater is to give everyone playing a fair shake at victory regardless of playstyle.

[dreman9999]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So destroying genophage in ME2 has no effect on the plot of ME3 what so ever? Nor who servives the suicide mission?

My point, that pic been dead since ec came out.

Those are minor plots, remember, the theme of ME3 is "organics vs synthetics" as it is introduced at the last ten minutes of the game.

Playing MP also deminishes the effect of past choices, because you can now make up for the detrimental effects of your choices by doing non-story related stuff

You nailed that correctly. The EMS abstraction layer alienated all decisions from the past. It's a failed software engineering trick that disconnects the ending from the story. The game was about people, but their efforts got reduced to numbers.

Let me put my point in a nut shell...
In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in my army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

Of course it is. The game is all about the story, Shepard, Shepard's crew and allies and the decisions made. It's much like Vigilant111 paints. That renders every other aspect of the game useless when all that is replaced by numbers. That you can live with those abstract numbers is not my problem.

This is th ething your not getting. This is a game the devs want the player to play more then once with differnt views, morities and perspectives.

If the player is give 2 choices in the game and finds out that choice is the wrong choice, the player when he repays it will no choose that choice. It will narrow trhe player perspective. The entire idea is to branch it out.
Even Witcher 2 does this. That game also does not have any choice that lead to a bad result of the story.

That the point of the quetion I stated. BW wants you to see both what happen if you pick th eelves or the wolves in my perspectives.

You don't get it either. To you these numbers are relevant. To me they mean absolutely nothing.

That because you don't like the ending choices. If make no difference what happen in the end because you don't like it.
The ending choices have all different out comes adn those out comes change based on EMS LEVEL. That means your choice do effect the ending. You problem is that the out comes are not what you want for any of the choices.

You not liking he end result doe snot mean the choices arn't different.

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:26 .

[dreman9999]

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
The reason why the specific example you gave isn't in the game, I imagine, is because it starts to tailor an ending based on an earlier choice. Like if the only way EDI or synthetics could live was if you saved the Geth. It could certainly be explained away in game.I'm not opposed to a decision you made at the 1/3rd point changing things.  But it does something Bioware's had shown no inclination of doing so far.  It's just not what they like to do.

Yep. From some of Gaider's posts, it's because a substantial majority of players don't replay the games. So Bio doesn't want to lock anyone out of major content because of early choices. This is what they've always done. In ME2, blow off someone's LM and... .well, maybe that character gets killed, and you don't get the post-SM conversation. In KotOR, nothing you do matters once you leave the planet, except for going DS which gives you a few different cutscenes and leaves the rest of the endgame exactly the same.

It isn't stated that the Crucible isn't operating at full strength.

Well, the Catalyst does say that the Crucible is "mostly intact"  or some such in high EMS situations. I don't know what the low EMS line is. But it's pretty clear that the thing can be fired on and damaged.

At low ems he says the crucible is damaged.

[AngryFrozenWater]

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

So destroying genophage in ME2 has no effect on the plot of ME3 what so ever? Nor who servives the suicide mission?

My point, that pic been dead since ec came out.

Those are minor plots, remember, the theme of ME3 is "organics vs synthetics" as it is introduced at the last ten minutes of the game.

Playing MP also deminishes the effect of past choices, because you can now make up for the detrimental effects of your choices by doing non-story related stuff

You nailed that correctly. The EMS abstraction layer alienated all decisions from the past. It's a failed software engineering trick that disconnects the ending from the story. The game was about people, but their efforts got reduced to numbers.

Let me put my point in a nut shell...
In dragon age origins...My goal is to build an army. I'm given a choice to recuit the elves or werewolves...Ether side is willing to fight in my army but differnt things will happen on the short term based on my choice now but in the end in the long term they join my army.....Does it matter who I pick?

Of course it is. The game is all about the story, Shepard, Shepard's crew and allies and the decisions made. It's much like Vigilant111 paints. That renders every other aspect of the game useless when all that is replaced by numbers. That you can live with those abstract numbers is not my problem.

This is th ething your not getting. This is a game the devs want the player to play more then once with differnt views, morities and perspectives.

If the player is give 2 choices in the game and finds out that choice is the wrong choice, the player when he repays it will no choose that choice. It will narrow trhe player perspective. The entire idea is to branch it out.
Even Witcher 2 does this. That game also does not have any choice that lead to a bad result of the story.

That the point of the quetion I stated. BW wants you to see both what happen if you pick th eelves or the wolves in my perspectives.

You don't get it either. To you these numbers are relevant. To me they mean absolutely nothing.

That because you don't like the ending choices. If make no difference what happen in the end because you don't like it.
The ending choices have all different out comes adn those out comes change based on EMS LEVEL. That means your choice do effect the ending. You problem is that the out comes are not what you want for any of the choices.

You not liking he end result doesnot mean the choices are different.

I have clearly stated my reasons. If I thought the ending choices had anything to do with it then I would have said so. I didn't, so whatever your reasoning is when you take my liking or disliking for the ending into account, is irrelevant.

Modifié par AngryFrozenWater, 21 septembre 2012 - 07:27 .

[AresKeith]

dreman9999 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Netsfn1427 wrote...
The reason why the specific example you gave isn't in the game, I imagine, is because it starts to tailor an ending based on an earlier choice. Like if the only way EDI or synthetics could live was if you saved the Geth. It could certainly be explained away in game.I'm not opposed to a decision you made at the 1/3rd point changing things.  But it does something Bioware's had shown no inclination of doing so far.  It's just not what they like to do.

Yep. From some of Gaider's posts, it's because a substantial majority of players don't replay the games. So Bio doesn't want to lock anyone out of major content because of early choices. This is what they've always done. In ME2, blow off someone's LM and... .well, maybe that character gets killed, and you don't get the post-SM conversation. In KotOR, nothing you do matters once you leave the planet, except for going DS which gives you a few different cutscenes and leaves the rest of the endgame exactly the same.

It isn't stated that the Crucible isn't operating at full strength.

Well, the Catalyst does say that the Crucible is "mostly intact"  or some such in high EMS situations. I don't know what the low EMS line is. But it's pretty clear that the thing can be fired on and damaged.

At low ems he says the crucible is damaged.

the crucible is damaged regardless of EMS, but not severely damaged in high EMS

[Vigilant111]

dreman9999 wrote...
At low ems he says the crucible is damaged.

Point for Dreman, it is confirmed, I just saw it on Youtube

[Vigilant111]

AresKeith wrote...

the crucible is damaged regardless of EMS, but not severely damaged in high EMS

Does this confirm my suspicion that the Crucible is really a reaper device designed to serve Catalyst's purpose rather than to serve the people who built it? Because it looks like reapers have deliberately let it through

[AresKeith]

Vigilant111 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

the crucible is damaged regardless of EMS, but not severely damaged in high EMS

Does this confirm my suspicion that the Crucible is really a reaper device designed to serve Catalyst's purpose rather than to serve the people who built it? Because it looks like reapers have deliberately let it through

I think the same way, but in high EMS the Starbrat says the crucible is largely intacted, which means it either got damaged or its not complete. And it does sound like he scolds you in low EMS

[Netsfn1427]

AngryFrozenWater wrote...

Of course it is. The game is all about the story, Shepard, Shepard's crew and allies and the decisions made. It's much like Vigilant111 paints. That renders every other aspect of the game useless when all that is replaced by numbers. That you can live with those abstract numbers is not my problem.

You don't get it either. To you these numbers are relevant. To me they mean absolutely nothing.

I'm going to admit, I don't understand your point. EMS plays a role in the ending. You may not like the role it plays, but it does influence the ending. So Dreman is right in that regard. You can say that EMS doesn't do enough, but you can't say that EMS means nothing. It's factually incorrect. 

The game isn't replaced with numbers any more than most other Bioware games. The storylines involving Shep and his/her allies are there for emotional impact first and foremost. But it's a game too, so they had to reward your choices somehow. Hence, EMS. Bioware then went further and set it up so that you wouldn't be prevented from choosing a specific ending if you played Paragon/Renegade. As AlanC9 and I have said repeatedly, this is the exact same as every other Bioware game. The only difference is that it's shown in this game opposed to other games. 

Are people just upset that Bioware pulled back the curtain for ME3? Cause seriously, it's always been there.