699 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Please.
I even made relevant part bolded in this iteration.
Also, reapers haven't arrived in ME1, and, surprise, - were stopped.
There could be many ways to deal with the story, but EAWare choose to nullify prequels.

So the Reapers do arrive in the galaxy, but they're somehow weaker? How would that happen? The Citadel races never controlled more than, what, 10% of the galaxy or so? So even if the Reapers do arrive low on fuel, they hide out someplace and get ready.

This could be made in any way, like reapers able to get some of them through their end of relay, or they just killed some of their numbers because they need energy to travel to a galaxy, or something else.

And how is this relevant to facts we know?
It is obvious that you can't object the nonsense which displayed in ME3. Why reapers sat in darkspace for thousands of years of Sovereign machinations, when they could just fly into a galaxy, losing completely nothing in the process?
You do understand, that this "revelation" completely destroys need for Citadel relay in dark space?
You do understand, that this "revelation" states, that ME1 events were possible only because reapers decided to sit in dark space for thousands of years, for some retarded reason?

So you can't object my point, and now you asking me to write entire plot for normal ME3(not that standalone garbage we got)?

[Hydralysk]

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...

I can see where this is heading, and the inevitable answer is going to be 'for the sake of a story'. You can't have a flawless godly antagonist.

Why not? Where in the 'laws of storytelling' is this stated? You can pretty much have any antagonist you want in a story, you just need to know how to present it well. It might be hard to write, but there's nothing stopping someone talented from pulling it off.

haha

this is a joke right

uhh... why would it be a joke?

If the antagonist is a flawless god, then you can easily come up with a conflict in which a quest to 'perfect' mankind is the scheme which the protagonist is fighting against. Hell use the theme that the fact that we are flawed is our strength, that's been in TONS of stories.

Flawlessness is based on perception and context anyways, therefore the idea of what 'flawless' means could be the main ideological conflict of the narrative.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:25 .

[Yate]

KingZayd wrote...

Yate wrote...

2. The keepers ARE everywhere. At least, enough to keep the station running.

3. Electricity requires a generator. But the harvested races provide plenty of food and raw biological material for more keepers.

2. So why would the Protheans be able to sneak past? Also, when your tech is so much more advanced than that of the organics you're farming, why wouldn't you be able to have cameras that they can't detect?

Why can't this sophisticated AI detect and prevent the Protheans' attempts to hack into it?


3. ... You do realise the energy from all that organic matter would be more than enough to supply the electricity? You don't really have to worry about CO2 emissions in space.

2. *shrug* We weren't there, so we didn't see it. But weirder things have happened. Maybe they did get caught, and the Catalyst just decided to let them starve to death. You realize that if they did have undetectable cameras it would be called space magic... Anyways, the question is: is it reasonably believeable the protheans could have avoided the keepers' detection? I say yes. I don't know how, but it's a minor plot point and certainly within the realm of possibility.

3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

[Yate]

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...
did you really expect every single sidequest to impact the main plot

Every single sidequest? No.

One of the biggest choices in ME1, literally a choice about whether an entire species lives or dies? Yes.

...except it did make a difference...

[Maxster_]

Yate wrote...

"Either reapers can't be stopped - then they took the Citadel without problem. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot makes no sense.
Either reapers can be stopped - then they can't take Citadel. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot and endings makes no sense."

what

the hell

is this

I know, you have no idea what logic is.
You stated:

They lost the ability to take out the Citadel in one go.

Which contradicts ME3 idea about reapers being unstoppable.
Thus making conventional victory possible.

Because of that, ME3 plot makes no sense. We can stop reapers conventionally, as you stated, this is why they couldn't took the Citadel and turn off the relay - but every character says that reapers can't be beaten conventionaly. And endings are just nonsense with magic device, and not a conventional victory you stated possible.

Well, seeing how you lie to "prove" your point, and fail at basic logic -  it is pointless to explain. You deliberately lying to defend ME3 garbage writing, and can't even understand what you stating.
That's just pathetic.

[Yate]

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...

I can see where this is heading, and the inevitable answer is going to be 'for the sake of a story'. You can't have a flawless godly antagonist.

Why not? Where in the 'laws of storytelling' is this stated? You can pretty much have any antagonist you want in a story, you just need to know how to present it well. It might be hard to write, but there's nothing stopping someone talented from pulling it off.

haha

this is a joke right

uhh... why would it be a joke?

If the antagonist is a flawless god, then you can easily come up with a conflict in which a quest to 'perfect' mankind is the scheme which the protagonist is fighting against. Hell use the theme that the fact that we are flawed is our strength, that's been in TONS of stories.

Flawlessness is based on perception and context anyways, therefore the idea of what 'flawless' means could be the main ideological conflict of the narrative.

Since you seem to be misunderstanding I'll say it again:

YOU CANNOT HAVE A FLAWLESS ANTAGONIST.

It is an absolute impossibility. There's always going to be something the Catalyst could've done to stop Shepard and allies. You are babbling now. Please go away.

[Hydralysk]

Yate wrote...
3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

Where the hell did you get THAT? The Catalyst is the Citadel. The Citadel is his home. He was created to solve a problem. That''s all we know. We're never told one way or another just what the hell he is so how do you think he's not an AI? He dies in destroy right? So that means he was at least partly synthetic.

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Yate wrote...

2. The keepers ARE everywhere. At least, enough to keep the station running.

3. Electricity requires a generator. But the harvested races provide plenty of food and raw biological material for more keepers.

2. So why would the Protheans be able to sneak past? Also, when your tech is so much more advanced than that of the organics you're farming, why wouldn't you be able to have cameras that they can't detect?

Why can't this sophisticated AI detect and prevent the Protheans' attempts to hack into it?


3. ... You do realise the energy from all that organic matter would be more than enough to supply the electricity? You don't really have to worry about CO2 emissions in space.

2. *shrug* We weren't there, so we didn't see it. But weirder things have happened. Maybe they did get caught, and the Catalyst just decided to let them starve to death. You realize that if they did have undetectable cameras it would be called space magic... Anyways, the question is: is it reasonably believeable the protheans could have avoided the keepers' detection? I say yes. I don't know how, but it's a minor plot point and certainly within the realm of possibility.

3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

2. Not justifiably called space magic. Would it be that surprising to us if the millitary could use cameras to spy on us that we wouldn't notice, or detect with whatever's commercially available? The Reapers are far more advanced than we are.  I think It's a bit of a major plot point, considering it's responsible for the events of ME1.
Even if the Keepers didn't detect the Protheans, an advanced AI should detect the Protheans' attempts to hack into it. Particularly, when the Protheans in question aren't even aware of the AI's existence.

3. You're kidding right? It's an AI.

[Yate]

Maxster_ wrote...

Yate wrote...

"Either reapers can't be stopped - then they took the Citadel without problem. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot makes no sense.
Either reapers can be stopped - then they can't take Citadel. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot and endings makes no sense."

what

the hell

is this

I know, you have no idea what logic is.
You stated:

They lost the ability to take out the Citadel in one go.

Which contradicts ME3 idea about reapers being unstoppable.
Thus making conventional victory possible.

Because of that, ME3 plot makes no sense. We can stop reapers conventionally, as you stated, this is why they couldn't took the Citadel and turn off the relay - but every character says that reapers can't be beaten conventionaly. And endings are just nonsense with magic device, and not a conventional victory you stated possible.

Well, seeing how you lie to "prove" your point, and fail at basic logic -  it is pointless to explain. You deliberately lying to defend ME3 garbage writing, and can't even understand what you stating.
That's just pathetic.

....

That's like saying that because Shepard can't take out the Collector Base by himself that success in ME2 is impossible and ME2 makes no sense.

The reason you can't beat reapers conventionally is because they don't do stupid things like charge into fortified areas when the enemy is expecting them.

[Yate]

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...
3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

Where the hell did you get THAT? The Catalyst is the Citadel. The Citadel is his home. He was created to solve a problem. That''s all we know. We're never told one way or another just what the hell he is so how do you think he's not an AI? He dies in destroy right? So that means he was at least partly synthetic.

Yes. That doesn't mean he runs on electricity.

Geth can't do anything without a platform. They're just abstract intelligence. The Catalyst had no need for such a platform, it would only present a target. It's strength lies in controlling minions.

[Yate]

I mean, these arguments are coming from hindsight being 20/20. The Catalyst couldn't have predicted the protheans would disrupt the signal, it had no reason to change what had been working perfectly for millenia.

[Hydralysk]

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...

I can see where this is heading, and the inevitable answer is going to be 'for the sake of a story'. You can't have a flawless godly antagonist.

Why not? Where in the 'laws of storytelling' is this stated? You can pretty much have any antagonist you want in a story, you just need to know how to present it well. It might be hard to write, but there's nothing stopping someone talented from pulling it off.

haha

this is a joke right

uhh... why would it be a joke?

If the antagonist is a flawless god, then you can easily come up with a conflict in which a quest to 'perfect' mankind is the scheme which the protagonist is fighting against. Hell use the theme that the fact that we are flawed is our strength, that's been in TONS of stories.

Flawlessness is based on perception and context anyways, therefore the idea of what 'flawless' means could be the main ideological conflict of the narrative.

Since you seem to be misunderstanding I'll say it again:

YOU CANNOT HAVE A FLAWLESS ANTAGONIST.

It is an absolute impossibility. There's always going to be something the Catalyst could've done to stop Shepard and allies. You are babbling now. Please go away.

And once again what does it mean to be 'Flawless'? Physical Flaws? Mental Flaws? Emotional Flaws? Does being flawless mean you can no longer comprehend flawed beings? Is that in itself a flaw that can be exploited? Being flawless doesn't mean you always succeed. You can be a flawless martial artist, but if you go up against a tank that doesn't mean crap.

[KingZayd]

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...
3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

Where the hell did you get THAT? The Catalyst is the Citadel. The Citadel is his home. He was created to solve a problem. That''s all we know. We're never told one way or another just what the hell he is so how do you think he's not an AI? He dies in destroy right? So that means he was at least partly synthetic.

Yes. That doesn't mean he runs on electricity.

Geth can't do anything without a platform. They're just abstract intelligence. The Catalyst had no need for such a platform, it would only present a target. It's strength lies in controlling minions.

What does he run on then?
Teeth?

[Hydralysk]

Yate wrote...

Hydralysk wrote...

Yate wrote...
3. You're assuming the Catalyst is capable of using electricity, I haven't seen that. It's not an AI like the geth, it's not a computer. It's pure intelligence. Leviathans... do things by controlling neural implants, it's likely all the Catalyst knows.

Where the hell did you get THAT? The Catalyst is the Citadel. The Citadel is his home. He was created to solve a problem. That''s all we know. We're never told one way or another just what the hell he is so how do you think he's not an AI? He dies in destroy right? So that means he was at least partly synthetic.

Yes. That doesn't mean he runs on electricity.

Geth can't do anything without a platform. They're just abstract intelligence. The Catalyst had no need for such a platform, it would only present a target. It's strength lies in controlling minions.

True it doesn't mean he runs on electricity. but once again it doesn't mean he runs on something else. The real question I was asking was how did you come up with the conclusion that the Catalyst is 'pure intelligence'? You're saying we can't prove he runs on electricity, and then immediately state that he doesn't. How do you know this? 

Also isn't the Citadel his platform? Sure it's bigger than a geth hunter but it's still a platform.

Modifié par Hydralysk, 22 novembre 2012 - 04:51 .

[Yate]

k just babbling now

closing tab

[Maxster_]

Yate wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

Yate wrote...

"Either reapers can't be stopped - then they took the Citadel without problem. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot makes no sense.
Either reapers can be stopped - then they can't take Citadel. This is one of the reasons ME3 plot and endings makes no sense."

what

the hell

is this

I know, you have no idea what logic is.
You stated:

They lost the ability to take out the Citadel in one go.

Which contradicts ME3 idea about reapers being unstoppable.
Thus making conventional victory possible.

Because of that, ME3 plot makes no sense. We can stop reapers conventionally, as you stated, this is why they couldn't took the Citadel and turn off the relay - but every character says that reapers can't be beaten conventionaly. And endings are just nonsense with magic device, and not a conventional victory you stated possible.

Well, seeing how you lie to "prove" your point, and fail at basic logic -  it is pointless to explain. You deliberately lying to defend ME3 garbage writing, and can't even understand what you stating.
That's just pathetic.

....

That's like saying that because Shepard can't take out the Collector Base by himself that success in ME2 is impossible and ME2 makes no sense.

The reason you can't beat reapers conventionally is because they don't do stupid things like charge into fortified areas when the enemy is expecting them.

As i said, you just fail at basic logic.
You just contradicting yourself.

The reason you can't beat reapers conventionally is because they don't
do stupid things like charge into fortified areas when the enemy is
expecting them.

I'd like to see fortifications in space. Trenches, pillboxes, enthrenched artillery positions

You speak gibberish. There is no such thing as fortification in space. Do you have any idea what orbital mechanics is? Obviously not. Do you have any idea about ME lore in regard to space combat, planetary assaults, trans-relay assaults? Obviously not.

And now for contradictions. Do you even know what conventional warfare is?
So, reapers can't beaten using military tactics because reapers using tactics of their own. And they can't assault straight-on, as you stated, because they lose then.
This means, that they can be beaten conventionally, you just need some brilliant officers like Hackett or Coronatti.

Also, i like how you using plain lies to "prove" your points. You have so much credibility.

The reason you can't beat reapers conventionally is because they don't
do stupid things like charge into fortified areas when the enemy is
expecting them.

This statement is obviously false.
Reapers attacked Earth, attacked Palaven, attacked Thessia, and took Citadel.
So, you caught lying again. Predictable.

[AlanC9]

Maxster_ wrote...


This could be made in any way, like reapers able to get some of them through their end of relay, or they just killed some of their numbers because they need energy to travel to a galaxy, or something else.

 

Your English has been a little shaky tonight. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.  That somehow some Reapers might get blown up for some unknown reason when crossing dark space? Well, I suppose Bio could have contrived something along those lines.  For all we know that's exactly what did happen. From Shepard's POV we have no way of knowing what it took for the Reapers to reach the galaxy, or how many of them started the trip and what percentage actually arrived.

[Legion of 1337]

This is like saying that because the Matrix Revolutions was ****, the Matrix is completely ****. ME1 and ME2 can be standalones, pretty much, so if you hate ME3, play the first two.

[Yate]

his English has been shaky?

the man is making no sense at all

"there is no fortified position in space"

what the hell do you call Priority: Earth?

or the Citadel in ME1?

[Yate]

ANYWAY, the tl; dr of all this is:

The keeper block explains why the Catalyst had little impact on the events of the games.

The Catalyst could've prevented this, sure, but hindsight is 20/20. Villains make mistakes.

Think I might make a new thread on this, this one's pretty sad looking.

[Maxster_]

AlanC9 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...


This could be made in any way, like reapers able to get some of them through their end of relay, or they just killed some of their numbers because they need energy to travel to a galaxy, or something else.

 

Your English has been a little shaky tonight. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.  That somehow some Reapers might get blown up for some unknown reason when crossing dark space? Well, I suppose Bio could have contrived something along those lines.  For all we know that's exactly what did happen. From Shepard's POV we have no way of knowing what it took for the Reapers to reach the galaxy, or how many of them started the trip and what percentage actually arrived.

All we know, that reapers just sit in dark space for no reason.

They are made so powerful in ME3, that they don't need Citadel trap at all, and never needed it.

Their sitting in dark space for thousands of years for no reason(when they could just fly in a galaxy in 0.5-3 years), makes them dumb. They couldn't made such a sophisticated plan, like Citadel trap.

And this nullifies ME1 and ME2. Makes them meaningless.

Why reapers sat in dark space, waiting for Sovereign and Harbringer to fail? All events in ME1 happened because reapers decided to sit in dark space doing nothing.

Why Sovereign so carefully planned and manipulated entire species for thousands of years? Absolutely no reason. This makes entire story of Shepard chasing Sovereing completely meaningless. Shepard didn't do anything of value, reapers just sat in dark space for no reason. Sovereign desperation and desperate assault of the Citadel - is meaningless. Saren story - meaningless.

So it is irrelevant what EAWare contrived, or not. They haven't shown anything about reapers arrival, they only showed that reapers sat in dark space for no reason, and they never needed Citadel trap.
.
.
.
And with Catalyst, everything became even more nonsensical. He just sat on Citadel and watched Sovereign and Harbringer fails for lulz.

Modifié par Maxster_, 22 novembre 2012 - 05:14 .

[Maxster_]

Yate wrote...

his English has been shaky?

the man is making no sense at all

"there is no fortified position in space"

what the hell do you call Priority: Earth?

or the Citadel in ME1?

Thanks for another demonstration of why logic should be taught in schools.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Yate wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

ImperatorMortis wrote...

dasGleamer wrote...

8 months later

Lol. 

Ya know.. I still don't fully understand it. Yeah the original endings were bad, but I really, really don't get how that could somehow "ruin" the rest of the game/the previous games. 

Whats even more hilarious is that that last 5 minutes apparently means that they can't make any more good games or whatever. Like Bioware was supposed to be this all perfect being, but the moment they made one mistake its this huge unforgivable thing. 

I just can't comprehend. 

Starbrat's mere existence on the citadel completely destroys the story of ME1. ME2's story was pretty much all leadup and foreshadowing on points that were wholesale abandoned in ME3. 

ME3 destroyed the trilogy. 

In addition:
ME1(and ME2) story is completely destroyed when was revealed, that reapers sat in dark space, waiting for thousands of years of Sovereign machinations, when they could just flew into a galaxy in 0.5-3 years losing completely nothing.
Catalyst was just a fatality

They lost the element of surprise. (Or at least they would have if the council wasn't THE COUNCIL.)

They lost the ability to spread throughout the galaxy.

They lost the ability to take out the Citadel in one go.

WTF are you babbling about? They didn't lose the ability to spread. . . they still control the relay network. They didn't lose the ability to take out the citadel. . . it has it's own brain. It doesn't need taking out. They made it all the way to Earth through at least 3 different relays and managed to surprise everyone, didn't they? 

Seriously, if you just feel like being the white-knight. . . at least come armed with something other than illogical BS.

[OhDihBot]

I agree with OP. The ending ruined the whole trilogy for me and I still can't get over it. The thing that really pisses me off is that all BW had to do was adopt the IT and it would have converted one of the worst, most illogical endings ever into the the greatest plot twist in video game history. And it was served up to them on a silver plater! Instead they let pride get in their way to ruin the series. Eight months later and it's still really disappointing. No more Mass Effect for me, I'm afraid.

[hanoua]

Its funny how even today, after 8 month, I still feel so bad when I think about that damn ending. but now im ready more than ever to give bioware a chance to make a Mass Effect 4 with the red ending as canon and if you use your save file from ME3, Shepard need to make a cameo (if he survived with enougth war assets) and many thing can still change depending on your choice from ME3, did you save the quarian ? did you end the genophage ?

you could be the new commander of the Normandie SR2 maybe with joker as the pilot (joker could talk to you about how Shepard was in the past depending on your save file), and the new crew could be something like... 2 human man/women, female turian, one of the last batarian, a male quarian (if you save the Quarians), a Krogan maybe a female? (if you cure the genophage) and...of course... an Asari. (I can see the male quarian becoming the new garrus and the Krogan could be one of the first, civilise and polite krogan ever, the batarian could be the new big angry alien that try to save his people from instinction, a bit like wrex was in ME1.

I could still go on and on, I love the mass effect univers so much but that ending just destroy me. I want to love mass effect as much as I used to, they need to make this game good or else its going to be the end of Bioware and I dont want that