269 réponses à ce sujet

[Urdnot Amenark]

A Bethesda Fan wrote...

arial wrote...

can you all stop derailing this thread? its about the fact Conventional victory is not possible, not about the definition of "Suicide mission"

I said it to counter the argument that NPC's saying you can't do something is irrelevant.
Which it is.

There are even NPC's who suggest that it is possible, which is why I don't like arguments made purely on that basis.

[arial]

Argolas wrote...

You simply need to do some math. Only dreadnoughts can hurt capital ships. We have, let´s be generous, 100 dreadnoughts in our endgame fleet. We need sustained fire of 4 dreads to destroy a capital ship, but let´s be generous again, I will leave the "sustained" part out. A reaper capital ship can destroy a dread with one blow. So we can equal the firepower of 25 reaper capital ships at best.

There you have it.

true

[arial]

Aaleel wrote...

I'll get back on topic. This is why it's not possible.

- Reapers come through to Earth. Hackett sacrifices the entire 2nd fleet just so that the others can live and fight another day.
- You get to Palaven and you hear. 'Oh no, not Palaven', 'the most advanced military in the galaxy and they're being being obliterated', 'they're being decimated'. Then later on Garrus says he's going to recommened preserving the remaining assests for earth.
- Thessia, well that's a complete curb stomping
- Reapers even after beefed up security overwhelm the Citadel and move it before as much as a distress signal can be sent out.
- Hammer forces sustain heavy losses just trying to get to the beam and what's left is decimated and beaten back by one reaper standing next to a beam.

No one even knows how many reapers there are and how many of each type. Nothing I read in the codex, on a war asset, or saw in game leads me to believe it's even close to possible.

[Piplodocus]

arial wrote...

 The Mass Effect universe Is Biowares, not yours. as such Bioware decides what happens, what is possible, and what is impossible.

Mike Gamble: “And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”

"The player's also the
architect of what happens."

Casey Hudson: "You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”

(My emphasis throughout)

[hiraeth]

To me, the concept of war assets really threw me off when I thought about whether winning conventionally was possible or not. Why am I accumulating all these assets and running all these errands across the galaxy if they're not expected to have a chance against the reapers?

I suppose you could say that you wanted to save as many as you could while the Crucible was being built, and that uniting the galaxy would make it easier for the Crucible to be guarded and then used in the final moments.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Piplodocus wrote...

arial wrote...

 The Mass Effect universe Is Biowares, not yours. as such Bioware decides what happens, what is possible, and what is impossible.

Mike Gamble: “And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”

"The player's also the
architect of what happens."

Casey Hudson: "You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”

(My emphasis throughout)

This times 100.

[arial]

Piplodocus wrote...

arial wrote...

 The Mass Effect universe Is Biowares, not yours. as such Bioware decides what happens, what is possible, and what is impossible.

Mike Gamble: “And, to be honest, you [the fans] are crafting your Mass Effect story as
much as we are anyway.”

"The player's also the
architect of what happens."

Casey Hudson: "You know, at this point, I think we’re co-creators with
the fans. We use a lot of feedback.”

“We have a rule in our franchise that there is no canon. You as a player
decide what your story is.”

(My emphasis throughout)

you realize you are taking those quotes completely out of context

[Piplodocus]

How so? Those quotes are from discussions specifically about the narrative of the story, which is exactly what we are discussing, specifically why one possible (and obviously widely desired) branch of narrative was cut off.

Modifié par Piplodocus, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:35 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

Piplodocus wrote...

How so?

Arial's only saying that because it contradicts their opinion.

[AlanC9]

arial wrote...

Argolas wrote...

You simply need to do some math. Only dreadnoughts can hurt capital ships. We have, let´s be generous, 100 dreadnoughts in our endgame fleet. We need sustained fire of 4 dreads to destroy a capital ship, but let´s be generous again, I will leave the "sustained" part out. A reaper capital ship can destroy a dread with one blow. So we can equal the firepower of 25 reaper capital ships at best.

There you have it.

true

Well, it's not impossible for lighter ships to hurt Reaper capital ships. The problem with getting away with a Zerg rush is that the Reapers have their own light forces, so there's no reason to think that the force ratio will get any better when we add the light forces in.

In any event, the Reapers have no reason to fight any battle they don't have the strength to win. Forces with Citadel- level tech can't bring an enemy to decisive battle without attacking a high-value target that the enemy must defend. The Reapers have superior drives and sensors, and no high-value targets that they must defend until the Crucible comes into play.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:47 .

[Ratimir]

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

[arial]

Piplodocus wrote...

How so? Those quotes are from discussions specifically about the narrative of the story, which is exactly what we are discussing, specifically why one possible (and obviously widely desired) branch of narrative was cut off.

okay, lets start with quote 1: all he means by that is that, with varying choices in the game, what choices are made in player A's game may not be the same as player Bs.

Quote 2: same as 1

Quote 3: did you write it? did you make the models? all he meant by this is that, without a solid support from the fanebase, a game franchise can not successfully exist

Quote 4: once again, same as 1.



He in no way means that we, as fans, get to decide what is, and isn't, possible lore wise. 

Modifié par arial, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:41 .

[Piplodocus]

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

[arial]

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

classic BSN BS, person realizes their argument does not hold up so they try and derail the thread by bringing up the ending

[Urdnot Amenark]

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

That's what bothers me. We've clearly been metagaming long before the events of Mass Effect 3 even occurred. There's no reason why players can't do so now and debate about the topic, even if it's getting stretched incredibly thin.

[Urdnot Amenark]

arial wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

classic BSN BS, person realizes their argument does not hold up so they try and derail the thread by bringing up the ending

There isn't one shred of evidence for your argument, period. At least someone in this conversation is using facts, however you choose to interpret them.

[arial]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

arial wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

classic BSN BS, person realizes their argument does not hold up so they try and derail the thread by bringing up the ending

There isn't one shred of evidence for your argument, period. At least someone in this conversation is using facts, however you choose to interpret them.

plenty of evidence has been posted in this thread, Be it the force it takes to down a Capital Ship and what we have avaliable, be it the fact it is constrantly stated THROUGHOUT ALL THREE GAMES, and many more reasons.

You, as a close minded individual, choose to ignore these posts as they prove your preconceived notion to be false.

[Piplodocus]

arial wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

How so? Those quotes are from discussions specifically about the narrative of the story, which is exactly what we are discussing, specifically why one possible (and obviously widely desired) branch of narrative was cut off.

okay, lets start with quote 1: all he means by that is that, with varying choices in the game, what choices are made in player A's game may not be the same as player Bs.

Quote 2: same as 1

Quote 3: did you write it? did you make the models? all he meant by this is that, without a solid support from the fanebase, a game franchise can not successfully exist

Quote 4: once again, same as 1.



He in no way means that we, as fans, get to decide what is, and isn't, possible lore wise. 

Ok, I'm going to obsever my personal rule about avoiding getting bogged down in interent arguments and make this my last post on the matter. Feel free to get the last word. 

However - I do agree with you to some extent that in one way Bioware do necessarily decide what can and cannot be done in the game - they are writing and coding every last bit! So of course, there's no way that they can program every single possible action a player might like to take. What I was pointing out was that in terms of the narrative of the story (like it or not, this IS what these quotes are about, not models etc) Bioware has consistently spoken about the influence of fans on the story itself, and I just find this to be at odds with your blanket "it's Bioware's, not yours" summary of the narrative process. 

By all means, BW can have a proprietary attitude towards the trilogy - I have already recognised that to a degree this is obvious and unavoidable. However, if so, don't consistently seek to cultivate a public perception of the opposite.

I will conclude by asserting agains that these quotes are not out of context. Every single one is in response to questions specifically about the culmination of the narrative in ME3, and two of the four specifically about the ending. They are NOT "general" quotes about fan support.

So long.

[Aaleel]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

That's what bothers me. We've clearly been metagaming long before the events of Mass Effect 3 even occurred. There's no reason why players can't do so now and debate about the topic, even if it's getting stretched incredibly thin.

Well if we're meta-gaming then conventional victory definitely isn't possible because if you choose refuse the our cycle loses.

I've just been basing my argument off what I actually saw in the game, which was heavy loses everywhere you traveled where reapers had significant forces.  The only victories you really see in game are two isolated small class reapers on Rannoch and Tuchunka.  One took an armada bombarding it from space, and the other took the biggest Thresher Maw ever in existence.

Everywhere else was one sided.  Examples.

- Reapers come through to Earth. Hackett sacrifices the entire 2nd
fleet just so that the others can live and fight another day.
- You
get to Palaven and you hear. 'Oh no, not Palaven', 'the most advanced
military in the galaxy and they're being being obliterated', 'they're
being decimated'. Then later on Garrus says he's going to recommened
preserving the remaining assests for earth.
- Thessia, well that's a complete curb stomping
- Reapers even after beefed up security overwhelm the Citadel and move it before as much as a distress signal can be sent out.
-Hammer forces sustain heavy losses just trying to get to the beam and
what's left is decimated and beaten back by one reaper standing next to a
beam.

No one even knows how many reapers there are and how many
of each type. Nothing I read in the codex, on a war asset, or saw in
game leads me to believe it's even close to possible.

Modifié par Aaleel, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:53 .

[Urdnot Amenark]

arial wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

arial wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

classic BSN BS, person realizes their argument does not hold up so they try and derail the thread by bringing up the ending

There isn't one shred of evidence for your argument, period. At least someone in this conversation is using facts, however you choose to interpret them.

plenty of evidence has been posted in this thread, Be it the force it takes to down a Capital Ship and what we have avaliable, be it the fact it is constrantly stated THROUGHOUT ALL THREE GAMES, and many more reasons.

You, as a close minded individual, choose to ignore these posts as they prove your preconceived notion to be false.

It has only been stated explicitly in Mass Effect 3, and by characters in the story while others have suggested it's possible - Garrus, for example, so that's far from definitive. Secondly, I'm neither for nor against the possibility of a conventional victory, so you clearly fail there. Those are what has been established based on their interpetation of the lore. You, on the other hand, have merely used an argument that can't be validated and superimposed your opinion on others without any justification. At least the others who argued against it have.

[Ratimir]

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

I wasn't attacking your quotes (sorry if it came across that way). I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of arial criticising someone else for using poor supporting evidence when he or she has yet to produce a single piece of evidence to support the claim in the OP that "BioWare said so".

[Aaleel]

If you chose refuse the cycle loses, so Bioware basically with that said conventional victory is not possible. But that's meta-gaming and I would rather focus on in game evidence.

[arial]

Aaleel wrote...

If you chose refuse the cycle loses, so Bioware basically with that said conventional victory is not possible. But that's meta-gaming and I would rather focus on in game evidence.

[Piplodocus]

Ratimir wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

I wasn't attacking your quotes (sorry if it came across that way). I was attempting to point out the hypocrisy of arial criticising someone else for using poor supporting evidence when he or she has yet to produce a single piece of evidence to support the claim in the OP that "BioWare said so".

Ok, breaking my promise not to post again simply to thank Ratimir for explaining this, and to say no hard feelings!

Modifié par Piplodocus, 14 octobre 2012 - 05:57 .

[FFHAuthor]

Oh, I know this one. The answer is that the lore got so convoluted and confusing in ME3 that there's no way to make a coherent argument that Conventional Victory is impossible, while at the same time the lore seems to make it seem that a Conventional Victory is possible...and yet basic logic could back up either point.