269 réponses à ce sujet

[hiraeth]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

As the story was written it isn't, the crucible is the only way.  Nothing in the game supports a conventional victory, and if you're metaa-gaming it's shown it's not possible.

I guess my follow-up question would be: What's your point? I agree that I will be hard-pressed to find anything that concretely supports that a conventional victory is possible; although some people have raised really good points that could suggest it is possible, what we see throughout ME3 clearly points at the writers wanting us to buy that it's not. Do I believe that conventional victory is completely unfathomable in the Mass Effect universe? No. Give the writers some time and I have no doubt that they could use existing codex entries, dialogue, and plot devices to create a perfectly coherent ending in which it is. That all being said, what does proving that-as the story is currently written-conventional victory is impossible gain us? Does it mean that we should be more accepting of the RGB finale?

EDIT: If discussing the implications of buying that conventional victory isn't possible is not a part of the motivation behind this forum, then you can ignore this post. I don't mean to derail the thread, it just seems like the next logical question.

I don't know why you just focused on that part, I was agreeing with you that it should have been an option.

I only quoted you because you were a recent poster, it's nothing personal. It's an open question both to OP and anyone on this thread who follows my train of thought.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

So we can safely assume they used the Crucible. But, to play devil's advocate, is it implied that they could not beat them without it? No.

[Raging_Pulse]

moater boat wrote...

I completely agree. Had Bioware decided on a conventional victory, the games could have been written to allow for it. The only reason conventional victory isn't possible is because the writers disregarded every opportunity to allow for it to support their crappy ending.

Edit:
I can't believe how many people are citing in-game evidence to prove that conventional victory is not possible. I have a message for these geniuses, this isn't a historical documentary, the events of the game could have been written in ANY way. You can't cite the writing in the game as evidence of why the game must be written a certain way. This is such a simple concept and the fact that so many people don't understand it makes me worry about the future of the human race.

^^
Especially bolded part.

[Ratimir]

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

No one said they didn't use the crucible.  Liara saying we tried and couldn't win with the crucible is no different that the VI on Thessia saying many cycles have tried to build to crucible but none have defeated the reapers with it.

Just like Shepard said we'll be the first, they could have to.

The (frustratingly scarce) evidence we have says that previous cycles tried to build the crucible and failed. Liara's message says "we built the crucible, but it didn't work.

[arial]

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

No one said they didn't use the crucible.  Liara saying we tried and couldn't win with the crucible is no different that the VI on Thessia saying many cycles have tried to build to crucible but none have defeated the reapers with it.

Just like Shepard said we'll be the first, they could have to.

The (frustratingly scarce) evidence we have says that previous cycles tried to build the crucible and failed. Liara's message says "we built the crucible, but it didn't work.

once again, you are ignoreing evidence (the prior link) because it proves your belief incorrect

[wantedman dan]

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"

It's called adding context, Arial. I'm not surprised, given your lack of contextual analysis of each topic you've posted as well as corresponding data, that you'd be blissfully unaware of this.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Domecoming wrote...

moater boat wrote...

I completely agree. Had Bioware decided on a conventional victory, the games could have been written to allow for it. The only reason conventional victory isn't possible is because the writers disregarded every opportunity to allow for it to support their crappy ending.

Edit:
I can't believe how many people are citing in-game evidence to prove that conventional victory is not possible. I have a message for these geniuses, this isn't a historical documentary, the events of the game could have been written in ANY way. You can't cite the writing in the game as evidence of why the game must be written a certain way. This is such a simple concept and the fact that so many people don't understand it makes me worry about the future of the human race.

^^
Especially bolded part.

Bravo bravo

[arial]

wantedman dan 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"

It's called adding context, Arial. I'm not surprised, given your lack of contextual analysis of each topic you've posted as well as corresponding data, that you'd be blissfully unaware of this.

LOL, try and troll me all you like, it will always result in Failure because it does not bother me

[Ratimir]

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Twitter is not a press release.

https://twitter.com/GambleMike
"Producer on the Mass Effect franchise at BioWare. Opinions here may not be shared by BioWare or EA."

[Samtheman63]

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Twitter is not a press release.

https://twitter.com/GambleMike
"Producer on the Mass Effect franchise at BioWare. Opinions here may not be shared by BioWare or EA."

thats to cover himself incase he says anything offenive

he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

[wantedman dan]

Samtheman63 wrote...

thats to cover himself incase he says anything offenive

he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

It is his personal interpretation of the events, not necessarily shared by Bioware or EA as his description states.

[wantedman dan]

arial wrote...

wantedman dan 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"

It's called adding context, Arial. I'm not surprised, given your lack of contextual analysis of each topic you've posted as well as corresponding data, that you'd be blissfully unaware of this.

LOL, try and troll me all you like, it will always result in Failure because it does not bother me

The fact that you dismiss the completely valid point speaks volumes enough, dear.

[AlanC9]

MassEffectFShep wrote...
I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

What's unfair about that? 

But yeah, it is futile to debate the specific technologies and numbers even if we had the data. All anyone could possibly accomplish is a demonstration that Bio botched their presentation of the situation. The situation itself wouldn't be changed. The game is organized around a situation where conventional victory is impossible. The writers could have set up a situation where conventional victory was possible, but they did not.

And yet, we've had many, many threads where people try to prove that it would be possible  (Conniving_Eagle's made a specialty of it). This thread's just unusual in that it was started by someone trying to prove that it isn't possible.

Modifié par AlanC9, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:57 .

[FOX216BC]

 

[arial]

FOX216BC wrote...

 

Once again, people on these forums don't know what actual Trolling is.

I am 100% Serious, therefore I am not trolling.

[The Spamming Troll]

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Twitter is not a press release.

https://twitter.com/GambleMike
"Producer on the Mass Effect franchise at BioWare. Opinions here may not be shared by BioWare or EA."

needing to rely on twitter upradates to make sense of the story someone so incoherently made is pretty crappy for the developer.

but i think basing the whole argument on "it was mentioned on twitter" even tho the game suggests otherwise is even more crappy.

[The Spamming Troll]

AlanC9 wrote...
words.

y u no like underdog story?

[FOX216BC]

arial wrote...

FOX216BC wrote...

 

Once again, people on these forums don't know what actual Trolling is.

I am 100% Serious, therefore I am not trolling.

www.youtube.com/watch

[arial]

FOX216BC wrote...

arial wrote...

FOX216BC wrote...

 

Once again, people on these forums don't know what actual Trolling is.

I am 100% Serious, therefore I am not trolling.

www.youtube.com/watch

Yes, I am serious

[Samtheman63]

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

thats to cover himself incase he says anything offenive

he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

It is his personal interpretation of the events, not necessarily shared by Bioware or EA as his description states.

events which he helped create, i think we should take his word for it when he says what it is meant to imply

[wantedman dan]

Samtheman63 wrote...

events which he helped create, i think we should take his word for it when he says what it is meant to imply

Irrelevant.

[hiraeth]

Ratimir wrote...

Twitter is not a press release.

https://twitter.com/GambleMike
"Producer on the Mass Effect franchise at BioWare. Opinions here may not be shared by BioWare or EA."

I wouldn't base my belief in story lore on his tweets, as he's tweeted things before that tend to raise eyebrows and be a bit on the emotional side (<- don't get me wrong, the guy got sh**stormed on twitter after ME3's release so I totally understand his reaction). Also, as Ratimir pointed out, his twitter is his own opinion/interpretation and shouldn't be equivalent to, say, in-game codex entries. 

Samtheman63 wrote...
he helped make the game, its not an opinion, its a fact

He's a producer, not a writer. I'm sure he has some input on how it all ends up, but my understanding is that any in-depth theory or description about how the universe works is largely up to the writers.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

arial wrote...

I am 100% Serious, therefore I am not trolling.

lmao what?

did you actually say that?

arial wrote...

I am 100% Serious, therefore I am not trolling.

Wow you did, ok then as long as everyone here remains 100% serious there is no trolling.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

Ratimir wrote...
Twitter is not a press release.

https://twitter.com/GambleMike
"Producer on the Mass Effect franchise at BioWare. Opinions here may not be shared by BioWare or EA."

This is irrefutable

[Samtheman63]

wantedman dan wrote...

Samtheman63 wrote...

events which he helped create, i think we should take his word for it when he says what it is meant to imply

Irrelevant.

no, it isn't

its heavily implied that the next cycle used the crucible to defeat the reapers, and is backed up on twitter by somone who helped make the game when asked by a confused fan



derp

Modifié par Samtheman63, 14 octobre 2012 - 07:10 .