298 réponses à ce sujet

[silverexile17s]

Grubas wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Grubas wrote...

Keep in mind that Deception is canon.
Bioware expects you to headcanon the differences away, because they can't explain you every little thing, e.g.: take you by the hand.

Wouldn't it be funny, if bioware released Extended Cut of Deception, to validate all the errors, because of artistic integrity?

You know, because of the vocal minority of haters... 

And Seival and Brovvik would come up and defend the beauty of Deception...  

Actually, it's NOT cannon anymore. They pulled Deception, and have currently retconed the books events, and having the book re-written to to fix the lore.

Will they also fix the audiobook? 

No clue. I think in the future, probably. But right now, they likely just want to get the novel cannon-approved first.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 06 janvier 2013 - 10:08 .

[Reikilea]

Everyone has an editor. Yet there is still so much crap outside.

Really it is so hard to find a good screenplay these days. Even in the art cinema.

And yet I think Bioware still has one of the best stories and the most immersive worlds in the current gaming. Really when it comes to the creation of an fictionla worlds Bioware still rules. Maybe only Bethesa is better. And there is Final Fantasy, but still. Bioware writing is great. Its just somethimes one mistake happens and suddenly all wrath is directed on them. There is still Dragon Age the third act - something I loathe very much, but lets not go there). And somethimes you think somethign is a great idea, but when it comes out you realise it was not such a great idea. after all.

[Cobretti ftw]

Robhuzz wrote...

Yes, but they only had time to check the Tuchanka and Rannoch storylines:D

LMAO good good

[silverexile17s]

Maxster_ wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...
Nonsensical headcanon skipped

I have no desire to waste more time on you, it is useless. You'll just fill another theme with your self-contradicting nonsense, just like two previous.

Gibberish skipped.

As i said, there is no point to waste time on your gibberish. While i'm refuting one of your so-called "points"(mostly sefl-contradicting, or me lore-contradicting nonsense), you'll just make up 10 more.
Waste of time.

Ha,Ha,Ha.
Still afraid to post it?
Look above. I actually posted refrences that proved my point in those debates. What refrence did you ever post to prove any of your claims?
Nothing. Zip, zero, nada.

This is, of course, lie.
You were just posting your headcanon, which contradicts ME lore.
Or plain nonsense.

Since you obviously cannot contribute anything to this topic, it would be best if you leave.

I'd rather give that quote back. It is enough nonsense and gibberish on BSN, you don't need to add more.

With nothing to prove it's a lie. Again.
Post something that proves it contridicts lore. Otherwise, stop nagging at this.
Honestly, I'm tired of it. I'd rather not get any bans issued again. You will never stop trolling BioWare, nor give real reason for it.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:59 .

[silverexile17s]

Cobretti ftw wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...

Yes, but they only had time to check the Tuchanka and Rannoch storylines:D

LMAO good good

Okay, okay. That's probably more accurate then I'd even care to believe:D

[silverexile17s]

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

They touched up the endings and the majority of plot-holes in the EC, but it doesn't change the fact that the three options still feel like a cop-out ending to the series.

It's not to say the ENTIRE game is bad. As said by @Optimus J, Ranncoh and Tuchanka are the best segments of the game.

Personally, I also liked Thessia, and the emotonial responces it had. I also liked Cronos Station, as taking Cerberus apart felt pretty damn good. The argubly worst parts of those two would be the fight with Kai Leng. I was one of the people that didn't like the sudden conversion from his character in the books to the cyber-ninja he appeared as in ME3.

Gameplay was strong, and the emotion and story was there, but the story was agrubly watered down compaired to ME1. It returned to the key plot of "Vs the Reapers" that ME2 was so suddenly and completely departed from, but it felt a bit oversimplified, despite all the "twists" the devs tried to put in by making Cerberus villians again, Udina having a pro-hman agenda that makes him betray the Council, and the recreating of the quarian/geth war. But though not bad twists, they were ones that could be seen coming a mile away, and didn't really shock us that much.

Dilouge was good, but there was less of it that was interactive. Something many complained about.

Some even went as far as to say that they intentonally worked to take control of Shepard away from the player to desensitize them to when the character meets their final fate on the Crucible, because a character was totally player-controle and developed, as in ME1 and ME2, would never have done things the way they'd want it to in ME3's end. Too many variables for the ending.
I personally don't hold much faith in that accusation. I think if they'd put that much work in making the character's fate so totally absolute, they wouldn't have bothered to make an RPG.

Although, that will likely be debatible till the end of time.

Another thing regarding "too many variables" is the mixed feelings on the War Asset system.
Some think that it was the fault of poor writing quality control to use a numarical value-tracking system to record all the noteworthy events in the game.  (Example: Maxster_  wanted the game to have every little War Asset affect the ending's gameplay mechanics is some special way, such as having bombing runs for key map points on the convoy route be available for every crusier you rescue. Or more missle trucks if you get Javiln missles, and so on.)
However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

Not. Possible. It would have cost as much as coding an entire major section of the campaign.  It would have been impossible to develip that many lines of code effectively, design a system that could do it, then make sure they all fired effectively and meshed together properly. Not for the 1,500+ varring actions you'd made up to the end of ME3.

The numarical value system of the War Assets was the easist way to track those variables. No other system would have worked efficantly enough.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 04:59 .

[Meltemph]

I've got to be honest, after reading all this, I find it incredibly hard to see where you, silverexile, dont see how your reasoning's as to the defense of the issues he bright up regarding teh story are good responses at all, and honestly, come across as incredibly disjointes, and it seems you think that each story point is wholly unto itself.

He pointed out the problems with the story:

Crucible(the fact that it existed in the 1st place makes no sense and is incredibly forced)

The existence of the catalyst(how it contradicts reduced the reapers movements in the setting in scope and irredeemable simplifies the main villain of the trilogy, and introduces quite possible the most overused "easy out" story, Gods vs creation),

Cerberus switch to mustache twirling villains with a massive military army(whether you are willing to accept BW's explanation as to HOW they are a massive army aside) and how nonsensical it is, and is something you would expect out of an anime or a Justice League comic.

And honestly, most of your explanations to these issues are incredibly weak and suspect at best, and only work if they each were islands unto themselves. ME3 was a story of scenes, with little to no context in and of it self and completely relied upon the previous games to draw any real emotion out of the game.

ME3 quite literally put the responsibility of carrying the story on the back of the setting itself and then at the very end changed the setting itself in a way that was irrevocable.

Also:

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

I disagree completely on this. ME2's main story was incredibly weak and barely there, and completely relied as much on the setting and the characters in that setting as ME3 did to make it an overall good game. ME2 had great character writing(as did 3) and memorable scene's but just like 3, outside of the good side quests it had, the main story was just terrible.

The biggest saving grace with ME2, though, was that it was much more self contained, where as 3 forever effected how one looks at the previous games.

However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

You didnt need a shout-out for each decision made up to the me3 point, all you needed is the choices you made up[ to that point dictate the direction the game ended for you. This is a very crucial difference between needing each choice you made to be seen in the game, and each choice you made having an impact on your own personal story.

To be quite honest, most of the responses to the story plot lines, I have read ALL contain head-cannon to fix the game, and that I don't think could be considered a well put together story.

Modifié par Meltemph, 07 janvier 2013 - 05:57 .

[Meltemph]

 Stephen King is not a huge Stephen King fan eagerly squeeing over his next release. He is a professional writer who works hard to craft stories that are sellable, enjoyable, and interesting for the reader. He doesn't employ fans to help him write or come up with ideas, he doesn't obsess over the worlds he creates after they've been created. He does, however, have a great passion for writing, and is very disciplined in how he works. That's his job. It's how he makes a living.

Similarly, BioWare developers develop games for a living. They work very hard to craft stories and worlds that gamers will enjoy. They are gamers as well, and may also be huge fans of the franchises on which they're working but, unlike fans, they have to know when something isn't worth the trouble of obsessing over. If a fan spends 10 months discussing the game's ending, he has lost nothing. If a development team obsesses over an aesthetic issue for 10 months, progress slows, which means a lot of money is being spent for very little benefit.

While I agree with you in part, when you talk about the developers ahve to look at the realities of making a game, I do believe when you are creating a setting you very much need to be a fan of the setting itself.  

I think the Forgotten Realms and the 4E mess is a perfect example of this.  When 4E came out, very little input was ran through Ed Greenwood, and it was "marketed" at a wider audience, with not near enough reverence for the setting as was needed, by many who no longer work at Wizards of the Coast.  This has been admited by many whom were involved - This being confiremed by Erik Scott de Bie.  
[/b]
When you are dealing with a setting, specifically, like mass effect(essetnialyl a shared world), I think there is more t hen enough evidence to support that the people who have DIRECT control of the setting need to be some of the biggest fans of the setting, it needs to be "their world".  

I do think though that this should be someone in the company, but that person, imo, needs to exists and all lore changes/decisions must go through this person.  

This is the lesson Wizards of the Coast learned the hardware(very hard) and now Ed Greenwood has a fairly large control over the changes that are comming to 5E.  Honestly, I think the paralels between the changes the Mass Effect settings saw, and the introduction of 4E are quite applicable to the backlash that ME3 created.

[GimmeDaGun]

silverexile17s wrote...

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

They touched up the endings and the majority of plot-holes in the EC, but it doesn't change the fact that the three options still feel like a cop-out ending to the series.

It's not to say the ENTIRE game is bad. As said by @Optimus J, Ranncoh and Tuchanka are the best segments of the game.

Personally, I also liked Thessia, and the emotonial responces it had. I also liked Cronos Station, as taking Cerberus apart felt pretty damn good. The argubly worst parts of those two would be the fight with Kai Leng. I was one of the people that didn't like the sudden conversion from his character in the books to the cyber-ninja he appeared as in ME3.

Gameplay was strong, and the emotion and story was there, but the story was agrubly watered down compaired to ME1. It returned to the key plot of "Vs the Reapers" that ME2 was so suddenly and completely departed from, but it felt a bit oversimplified, despite all the "twists" the devs tried to put in by making Cerberus villians again, Udina having a pro-hman agenda that makes him betray the Council, and the recreating of the quarian/geth war. But though not bad twists, they were ones that could be seen coming a mile away, and didn't really shock us that much.

Dilouge was good, but there was less of it that was interactive. Something many complained about.

Some even went as far as to say that they intentonally worked to take control of Shepard away from the player to desensitize them to when the character meets their final fate on the Crucible, because a character was totally player-controle and developed, as in ME1 and ME2, would never have done things the way they'd want it to in ME3's end. Too many variables for the ending.
I personally don't hold much faith in that accusation. I think if they'd put that much work in making the character's fate so totally absolute, they wouldn't have bothered to make an RPG.

Although, that will likely be debatible till the end of time.

Another thing regarding "too many variables" is the mixed feelings on the War Asset system.
Some think that it was the fault of poor writing quality control to use a numarical value-tracking system to record all the noteworthy events in the game.  (Example: Maxster_  wanted the game to have every little War Asset affect the ending's gameplay mechanics is some special way, such as having bombing runs for key map points on the convoy route be available for every crusier you rescue. Or more missle trucks if you get Javiln missles, and so on.)
However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

Not. Possible. It would have cost as much as coding an entire major section of the campaign.  It would have been impossible to develip that many lines of code effectively, design a system that could do it, then make sure they all fired effectively and meshed together properly. Not for the 1,500+ varring actions you'd made up to the end of ME3.

The numarical value system of the War Assets was the easist way to track those variables. No other system would have worked efficantly enough.

Finally, someone understands the reason behind the EMS system... and doe not go automatically "Bioware can't write stories anymore" mode. 

It would have been nice though if some of the major events in the first two games (Council, Rachni, the Collector base to some extent and a few others) would have had a somewhat bigger effect on the 3rd game (not necessarily on the ending itself) and played out more spectacularly. That was a bit of a dissapointment for me. But demanding the same for every single minor decisions or side quests. That's just delusional and silly... and it is a bit of a consequence-fetish with the usual "centre of the universe" hero theme and the feel of a very small galaxy. That would look stupid. Sometimes I had this feeling in ME2... like when bumping into the rachni queen's asari friend, Parasini, Liara, Shiala and Conrad Verner on the very same level of Nos Astra's port... I was like: what is this some class reunion?

As for the "autodialogue" and the changes in Shepard's character. While I enjoyed the role playing aspect of the first two, Shepard was a bit of a devoid of personality as a character (he was less interesting than the npcs). I like more developed characters when I play a game, even a story driven role playing game. Just think of the The Witcher games. There we could choose the mood and manner of our dialogues and make "our" choices but with a real, living-breathing character and not just some pawn or avatar of ours without any characteristics. In the second ME game we started to get some of that, but in the third game we could actually see a character who had feelings and things did have and effect on him. And they kind of nailed what I thought wasn't possible: brought a nice balance between renegade and paragon. In the first two games it felt like I was playing two different characters when I tried to play a more balanced Shepard. There was a huge gap between his paragon and renegade sides, while evidently he was the same person. ME2 started to fix that, but in ME3 it developed to the level where he felt like being a fully developed personality. I liked that. I could finally relate to the character a bit more. I know, that many treated Shepard as their personality's avatar and get a bit more immersed by the firs two games' model... but it never worked for me (in ME2 it started to work a bit better). I only miss the neutral options. Those were a nice addition, even if sometimes they were just a trimmed down version of either paragon or renegade options (so it was more of an illusion, just like many many...and I mean many dialogue wheels which had 3 options with the very same dialogue). 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:29 .

[GimmeDaGun]

Meltemph wrote...

I've got to be honest, after reading all this, I find it incredibly hard to see where you, silverexile, dont see how your reasoning's as to the defense of the issues he bright up regarding teh story are good responses at all, and honestly, come across as incredibly disjoint, and it seems you think that each story point is wholly unto itself.

He pointed out the problems with the story:

Crucible(the fact that it existed in the 1st place makes no sense and is incredibly forced)

The existence of the catalyst(how it contradicts reduced the reapers movements in the setting in scope and irredeemable simplifies the main villain of the trilogy, and introduces quite possible the most overused "easy out" story, Gods vs creation),

Cerberus switch to mustache twirling villains with a massive military army(whether you are willing to accept BW's explanation as to HOW they are a massive army aside) and how nonsensical it is, and is something you would expect out of an anime or a Justice League comic.

And honestly, most of your explanations to these issues are incredibly weak and suspect at best, and only work if they each were islands unto themselves. ME3 was a story of scenes, with little to no context in and of it self and completely relied upon the previous games to draw any real emotion out of the game.

ME3 quite literally put the responsibility of carrying the story on the back of the setting itself and then at the very end changed the setting itself in a way that was irrevocable.

Also:

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

I disagree completely on this. ME2's main story was incredibly weak and barely there, and completely relied almost as much on the setting itself and the characters in that setting to make it an overall good game. ME2 had great character writing(as did 3) and memorable scene's but just like 3, outside of the good side quests it had, the main story was just terrible.

The biggest saving grace with ME2 though, was that it was much more self contained, where as 3 forever effected how one looks at the previous games.

However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

You didnt need a shout-out for each decision made up to the me3 point, all you needed is the choices you made up[ to that point dictate the direction the game ended for you. This is a very crucial difference between needing each choice you made seen in the game, and each choice you made impact your own personal story.

To be quite honest, most of the responses to the story plot lines, I have read ALL contain head-cannon to fix the game, and that I don't think could be considered a well put together story.

I don't see any logical contradictions here, only the difference in personal tastes. I mean for example, you might dislike the idea of the Crucible as a devise, but it's not any less ridiculous and unbeliveable than say the very reapers we are fighting or the usual "centre of the galaxy", Citadel with the peaceful galactic government (in a real world scenario we would fight each other to the death for territory, power and resources... so its just a childish utopia, not any more believable than anything else in the 3 games).

Just like the reapers. I don't see many contradictions between the reapers we see in ME1 and ME3. In ME1 we don't even get to know anything about them really (only a few intimidating and ridiculously arrogant words from Souverign and a few more details from Vigil, which was solely based on the protheans' experieces, and interpretation who themselves did not know that much of the reapers... so it was all based on assumptions). So it was very open to interpretation, while ME3 tightens that by revealing a lot more detail about them. And just because they have a creator and overlord (which evidently does not controll them directly, so by this makes them mindless pawns without character and their own little agendas, but gives them the general idea of their existence and the purpose for which they exist and do what they do). I don't see where it destroys the set lore about the reapers of them being "each a nation, independent, free of weakness" with a purpose that organics would never really understand (so a lore which ironically was never set at all in detail, only in vague intimidating words - because we knew simply nothing of them...it was solely up to interpretation). The 3rd game only revealed it in more detail. Liking or disliking that is another story: that's up to personal taste.

Also head canon does not equal interpretation or using your brain to understand the plot or lore. Head canon is when you come up with something completely new that has nothing to do with the initial story and adds element to it that are not there at all (even not by the means of interpreation). I mean that, if something is not fully shown to you (like Cerberus, or the motivations behind some characters' deeds), you still have the ability and chance to interpret it the way you want it to. That's not head canon and it does not mean that the initial thing makes no sense or was retconed or whatever. Story telling works this way... even when you read a book. I just hate when a book or a film or a game treats me like a child and wants to show and explain me everything in boring and tyring detail, like I was some 5-year-old. But that's just me.

And no mistake, it does not mean that I don't understand why you dislike the 3rd game or the creative decisions behind it. I for one like it, even if it does have flaws (of course it has... and I just can't see how some treat ME1, which is my favorite of the 3 also, as the Holy Grail, while it is just as flawed and "ridiculous" as the others... probably, nostalgia and emotions...).

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:42 .

[silverexile17s]

GimmeDaGun wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

They touched up the endings and the majority of plot-holes in the EC, but it doesn't change the fact that the three options still feel like a cop-out ending to the series.

It's not to say the ENTIRE game is bad. As said by @Optimus J, Ranncoh and Tuchanka are the best segments of the game.

Personally, I also liked Thessia, and the emotonial responces it had. I also liked Cronos Station, as taking Cerberus apart felt pretty damn good. The argubly worst parts of those two would be the fight with Kai Leng. I was one of the people that didn't like the sudden conversion from his character in the books to the cyber-ninja he appeared as in ME3.

Gameplay was strong, and the emotion and story was there, but the story was agrubly watered down compaired to ME1. It returned to the key plot of "Vs the Reapers" that ME2 was so suddenly and completely departed from, but it felt a bit oversimplified, despite all the "twists" the devs tried to put in by making Cerberus villians again, Udina having a pro-hman agenda that makes him betray the Council, and the recreating of the quarian/geth war. But though not bad twists, they were ones that could be seen coming a mile away, and didn't really shock us that much.

Dilouge was good, but there was less of it that was interactive. Something many complained about.

Some even went as far as to say that they intentonally worked to take control of Shepard away from the player to desensitize them to when the character meets their final fate on the Crucible, because a character was totally player-controle and developed, as in ME1 and ME2, would never have done things the way they'd want it to in ME3's end. Too many variables for the ending.
I personally don't hold much faith in that accusation. I think if they'd put that much work in making the character's fate so totally absolute, they wouldn't have bothered to make an RPG.

Although, that will likely be debatible till the end of time.

Another thing regarding "too many variables" is the mixed feelings on the War Asset system.
Some think that it was the fault of poor writing quality control to use a numarical value-tracking system to record all the noteworthy events in the game.  (Example: Maxster_  wanted the game to have every little War Asset affect the ending's gameplay mechanics is some special way, such as having bombing runs for key map points on the convoy route be available for every crusier you rescue. Or more missle trucks if you get Javiln missles, and so on.)
However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

Not. Possible. It would have cost as much as coding an entire major section of the campaign.  It would have been impossible to develip that many lines of code effectively, design a system that could do it, then make sure they all fired effectively and meshed together properly. Not for the 1,500+ varring actions you'd made up to the end of ME3.

The numarical value system of the War Assets was the easist way to track those variables. No other system would have worked efficantly enough.

Finally, someone understands the reason behind the EMS system... and doe not go automatically "Bioware can't write stories anymore" mode. 

It would have been nice though if some of the major events in the first two games (Council, Rachni, the Collector base to some extent and a few others) would have had a somewhat bigger effect on the 3rd game (not necessarily on the ending itself) and played out more spectacularly. That was a bit of a dissapointment for me. But demanding the same for every single minor decisions or side quests. That's just delusional and silly... and it is a bit of a consequence-fetish with the usual "centre of the universe" hero theme and the feel of a very small galaxy. That would look stupid. Sometimes I had this feeling in ME2... like when bumping into the rachni queen's asari friend, Parasini, Liara, Shiala and Conrad Verner on the very same level of Nos Astra's port... I was like: what is this some class reunion?

As for the "autodialogue" and the changes in Shepard's character. While I enjoyed the role playing aspect of the first two, Shepard was a bit of a devoid of personality as a character (he was less interesting than the npcs). I like more developed characters when I play a game, even a story driven role playing game. Just think of the The Witcher games. There we could choose the mood and manner of our dialogues and make "our" choices but with a real, living-breathing character and not just some pawn or avatar of ours without any characteristics. In the second ME game we started to get some of that, but in the third game we could actually see a character who had feelings and things did have and effect on him. And they kind of nailed what I thought wasn't possible: brought a nice balance between renegade and paragon. In the first two games it felt like I was playing two different characters when I tried to play a more balanced Shepard. There was a huge gap between his paragon and renegade sides, while evidently he was the same person. ME2 started to fix that, but in ME3 it developed to the level where he felt like being a fully developed personality. I liked that. I could finally relate to the character a bit more. I no, that many treated Shepard as their personality's avatar and get a bit more immersed by the firs two games' model... but it never worked for me (in ME2 it started to work a bit better). I only miss the neutral options. Those were a nice addition, even if sometimes they were just a trimmed down version of either paragon or renegade (so it was more of an illusion, just like many many...and I mean many dialogue wheels which had 3 options with the very same dialogue). 

I get that. I do understand how the Shepard of ME1 let you have more immersion, but the consiquence was that you felt that the main character - the center of the story - was just a crash test dummy for you to pilot. It felt like it was you in the story, which was good, but, since the PC was a blank slate, gave you little to no emotonial attachment to the main character, which was bad.
ME3 strcuk a spot that tied in with the Witcher. Basically the relization of the concept they'd introduced with Hawke in DA2 (widly considered by many fans to have failed) - to create a character that you guided through this adventure, not hand-hold through it. I think that "make the crash test dummy piloted PC into a relatable character" concept was actually something EA introduced, since I saw the exact same meathod used on Dead Space's Issac Clarke.
Either way, I actually liked it. I just wish there had been more diolouge, and that a bit less of it had been automatic.

And I really had no major problems with the story, aside from those last ten minutes. Rannoch and Tuchanka ( and to me, Thessia) stood out to me as the best. Cronos Station - felt satisfying to take Cerberus apart. Horizon, Palaven, and  Prolouge:Earth highlighted the Reaper's power, and the infulence their darkness has had on the galaxy. The Cerberus Coup was entertaining, but truthfully felt like a re-hash of the end-run of ME1's Citadel attack. Not to say it wasn't a fun re-hash, but still.
Although, as a personal opinion, Mars felt like it needed work to me, regarding the Crucible. The Crucible plot's introduction felt rushed. I think it would have been better paced if the concept of the Crucible was introduced in ME2, or at the end of ME2, instead of ME3. It would have been more believable to go to Mars looking for components, or refences to them, to continue on the plans you found last game, instead of discovering the beginning designs right on your doorstep. But that's just what I'd have done.

Also, I think that had there been at least one cutsceen for each group of War Asset (Turian, Asari, Krogan, Quarian, Geth, Salarian, Alien, Ex-Cerberus, Crucible (development teams), Alien (Terminus fleet)), the War Asstes would have had that closure that people felt was lacking. Like say, you build up the general number of turian War Assets to 600+. You get a short cutsceen that shows turians holding the line, on Earth, or Palaven, or something to make you feel like you did right by collecting War Assets. Nothing fancy, like re-coding the game to have major combat changes for every little thing you collected. just a short ten-fifteen seconds of animation that give narrative closure. (Although, I know coding that stuff isn't really as easy as that, but I can dream, can't I?).

Still, this is just my personal two cents.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:26 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

I've got to be honest, after reading all this, I find it incredibly hard to see where you, silverexile, dont see how your reasoning's as to the defense of the issues he bright up regarding teh story are good responses at all, and honestly, come across as incredibly disjointes, and it seems you think that each story point is wholly unto itself.

He pointed out the problems with the story:

Crucible(the fact that it existed in the 1st place makes no sense and is incredibly forced)

The existence of the catalyst(how it contradicts reduced the reapers movements in the setting in scope and irredeemable simplifies the main villain of the trilogy, and introduces quite possible the most overused "easy out" story, Gods vs creation),

Cerberus switch to mustache twirling villains with a massive military army(whether you are willing to accept BW's explanation as to HOW they are a massive army aside) and how nonsensical it is, and is something you would expect out of an anime or a Justice League comic.

And honestly, most of your explanations to these issues are incredibly weak and suspect at best, and only work if they each were islands unto themselves. ME3 was a story of scenes, with little to no context in and of it self and completely relied upon the previous games to draw any real emotion out of the game.

ME3 quite literally put the responsibility of carrying the story on the back of the setting itself and then at the very end changed the setting itself in a way that was irrevocable.

Also:

I'll say that so far, BioWare had great writing control up until ME3. The ending, in original form especally, seemed to have lacked any form or writing control compared to Rannoch and Tuchanka.

I disagree completely on this. ME2's main story was incredibly weak and barely there, and completely relied as much on the setting and the characters in that setting as ME3 did to make it an overall good game. ME2 had great character writing(as did 3) and memorable scene's but just like 3, outside of the good side quests it had, the main story was just terrible.

The biggest saving grace with ME2, though, was that it was much more self contained, where as 3 forever effected how one looks at the previous games.

However, I doubt a system like that was possible. To record every simgle variation, and have something that checks all of them, and has a different outcome for each one, and for each overall combination?

You didnt need a shout-out for each decision made up to the me3 point, all you needed is the choices you made up[ to that point dictate the direction the game ended for you. This is a very crucial difference between needing each choice you made to be seen in the game, and each choice you made having an impact on your own personal story.

To be quite honest, most of the responses to the story plot lines, I have read ALL contain head-cannon to fix the game, and that I don't think could be considered a well put together story.

But to be honest, the Crucible isn't any less unbelieveable then the Reaper's cycles of extermination. Or that the Collectors are a race of 50,000 year old prothean husks that grow Reapers. Or that Reapers are "built" from liquidated DNA. Or that a prothean survived 50,000 years in stasis. Or that their beacon technology survived in working condidtion that long. Or how the beacons worked. Or that there was a telepathic plant (the Thorian) that survived the last purge. Or that the race that unintentonally created the Reapers, the Leviathans, were still alive. Or how they communicated. Or the 1,000 year old rachni egg hacthing on Noveria. Or the Metroid Prime-styled boss battle with the Human-Reaper, on a floating platform, on a space station surrounded by black holes, in the center of the galaxy. Or, of course, how it was possible to revive Shepard from clinical brain-death.

Face it. The Crucible isn't any harder to defend from scrutiny then any of those.

And the Catalyst is compairble to how the borg in Star Trek were suddenly given a singular leader. The Reapers seem to be just like the borg. A hive mind. Although there may be a bit more to it then that, it seems that's the general idea.

And Cerberus suddenly having an army was easier to see, considering they had Omega in their pocket to recrut from, and how their popularity went up after they helped fight the Collectors. That the Council was intending to scapegoat Earth so that they could perpare their own worlds didn't help either. And Sancturary as a covert recrutment camp for some human refugees, aside from the experementations. EDI says in Cronos Station that Cerberus used indoctrination for mass converting civilians into soldiers. And there were thousands, tens of thousands, in their grasp.
So no, Cerberus suddenly becoming the Empire is not that far beyond the relm of possibilaty. It's open to speculation on the exact when and where, but nowhere near impossible.

I will give you that ME2's main plot was completely detached from the original's and made you wonder what the hell this all had to do with stopping the Reapers. However, the execution of it made you forget the relevence and just enjoy the game's storyline. No easy task.

And most of the major plot-holes were plugged by the EC. Any that remain are no longer glaring open-wound plotholes, (like teleporting squadmates) but are now decrepencies (why the Normandy arrived that exact moment) that are open to interpertation/speculation, and can be reasoned away with several in-game solutions.
Although, in my opinion, how Synthesis is spread across the entire galaxy is still not solved, and I will never comprehend it until I do have an explnation.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 06:51 .

[Meltemph]

I don't see any logical contradictions here, only the difference in personal tastes. I mean for example, you might dislike the idea of the Crucible as a devise, but it's not any less ridiculous and unbeliveable than say the very reapers we are fighting or the usual "centre of the galaxy"

My problem with the crucible isnt something as simple as I dont like it, it is that it doesn't makes sense with how the story was presented between all 3 games. The crucible shouldn't even be possible, seeing as nobody knew, up until the Protheans, that the citadel was a trap.

I have no problem with things that cant or couldn't exists in the real world, but it must make sense with-in the rules of that setting and not contradict what was previously told in the story.

I don't see many contradictions between the reapers we see in ME1 and ME3.

The contradiction isnt with the reapers themselves, it is with the actions with ME1, ME2, and finally ME3; when the reapers go from trying to capture the citadel because the keepers are broke, to trying to collect humans, specifically to make a reaper; to only existing because a super-duper ai wanted them to keep the gods from being destroyed by their creations.  It(ME3) brings up a lot of questions regarding the sensibility of the written plot as a whole.

I for one like it, even if it does have flaws (of course it has... and I just can't see how some treat ME1, which is my favorite of the 3 also, as the Holy Grail, while it is just as flawed and "ridiculous" as the others... probably, nostalgia and emotions...).

ME1 isn't held up as the holy grail, it is held up as the most well put together of the 3, and the progressive, deterioration of the plot line development after 1. It isn't nostalgia that holds 1 up as the best, it is over-all quality loss that came after(excluding gameplay).

Modifié par Meltemph, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:11 .

[o Ventus]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Teddie Sage wrote...

Yes it is arrogant when you assume that only the OP hated the endings. You love your game so much that you spit on the people who were hurt because of the endings. That is arrogance. Plus, you know nothing about the Retake movement so I'd retire that statement of yours if I were you.

Retake movement, they gave us the EC and donated 80k to charity. The charity had to stop taking donations when a high number of people asked for their donations back when they realised they weren't paying for a new ending.

So I guess they did achieve two really good things, it was just unfortunately surrounded by so much bad.

That... Isn't at all why the donations had stopped.

[GimmeDaGun]

Meltemph wrote...

I don't see any logical contradictions here, only the difference in personal tastes. I mean for example, you might dislike the idea of the Crucible as a devise, but it's not any less ridiculous and unbeliveable than say the very reapers we are fighting or the usual "centre of the galaxy"

My problem with the crucible isnt something as simple as I dont like it, it is that it doesn't makes sense, with how the story was presented between all 3 games. The crucible shouldn't even be possible, seeing as nobody knew, up until the Protheans, that the citadel was a trap.

I have no problem with things that cant or couldn't exists in the real world, but it must make sense and not contradict what was previously told in the story.

I don't see many contradictions between the reapers we see in ME1 and ME3.

The contradiction isnt with the reapers themselves, it is with the actions with ME1, ME2, and finally ME3; when the reapers go from trying to capture the citadel because the keepers are broke, to trying to collect humans, specifically, to make a reaper to only existing because a super-duper ai wanted them to keep the gods from being destroyed by their creators ti brings up a lot of questions regarding the sensibility of the written plot.

I for one like it, even if it does have flaws (of course it has... and I just can't see how some treat ME1, which is my favorite of the 3 also, as the Holy Grail, while it is just as flawed and "ridiculous" as the others... probably, nostalgia and emotions...).

ME1 isn't held up as the holy grail, it is held up as the most well put together of the 3, and the progressive plot line development that happened after 1. It isn't nostalgia that holds 1 up as the best, it is over-all quality loss that came after(excluding gameplay).

Well for your first point: We don't really know anything about the civilizations before the protheans, we barely know anything about the protheans themselves (even from Javik, who was born as the member of their last generation), let alone the origins of the Crucible. So I don't see why it couldn't have been developed as a concept and devise throughout the cycles. The only thing we could assume is that it was the protheans who might have found out that the catalyst was the Citadel (if it wasn't figured out by the ones who came before)... but it was too late for them, since the relay network was shut down, so there was no way they could deliver it and partly due to an indoctrinated rogue group (we don't know in what they), hence they failed. The Ilos porject in itself which disabled the Catalyst (The Intelligence - which they didn't really know of, but assumed in theory its existence according to Vendetta) was a huge achievement and the only reason the current cycle had a fighting chance or to deliver the Crucilbe in the first place.


Second point: Well, yeah... it's totally up to interpretation by using the information we know as to why they didn't go for the Citadel at once, in the beginning of the invasion. Actually the cycles started and did work way before the Citadel and the relays existed (I assume the Citadel is not the very hardware of the Citadel, but is built by it and probably contains it's main processing plant - it says that The Citadel is "part of" it -...otherwise it seems that it works more like a network, like Skynet, or collective with each reaper having a little bit of it and adding to it). As far as we know the Intelligence uses the galaxy as a huge experiment for its goal to find the "perfect solution" for the problem it was created to solve and it built the relays and the Citadel to somewhat manipulate and accelerate the development and technological evolution of organic civilizations to make its experiment faster and more effective and to make the harvest a bit quicker, but it did not really need it for the harvest itself (only as the main reaper factory and the relay which connected their dark space hideout to the galaxy and the relay network). Because of the events of the previous cycle (Ilos project) and of the last two games (Souverign's failure to give full control to The Intelligence over The Citadel and the Collector's destruction, and more so the destruction of the alpha relays... add to this that the galaxy even if sceptical already knew of their arrival, so it wasn't a surprise attack anymore), probably their plans changed. They arleady knew which species they wanted to harvest: humanity (thanks to Souverign and the collectors). So they invaded Earth first, with the greatest portion of their armada, while they attacked the rest of the galaxy too. They did not need the Citadel at that point and it wouldn't have helped them too much if they shut down the relays. They kind of adopted to the new situation. And lets not forget that they didn't know about the Crucible at that moment (they thought that the concept was irradicated - yeah very convinient, but we are still talking about the same science-fantasy-fiction). When they learnt about it and about the organic's knowledge of the Catalyst, they invaded and took The Citadel at once to their territory, in order to protect it and in the mean time they started the harvest of humanity by it. 

As for the reapers' purpose. It revolves around a soft-existentialist philosophical question and is the story of a race with some truly alien and highly advanced technology, knowledge and abilities, which considered itself omnipotent (despite it could not maintain full controll over the other races) and had the means to manipulate those other races to a certain extent (they reigned over them as gods) and to travel the stars before the relays. They played god and they fell victim of their own arrogance and greed... by the "hands" of the manifestation and product of these: the Intelligence. A devise which was created to watch over their subjects (lesser races and their technological advancement), to preserve them and make them pay tribute. It was an unshackled devise of control with the purpose to preserve every life by all means (that's where its twisted, methodical, calculated, machine logic comes from)... we know the rest of the story.

I find it an interesting and good backstory (even if familiar in a way), but I understand if others find it uninteresting or bad. It's a question of tastes.

About you last point: the first game had a very simple plot with only one major twist or reveal (the reapers) and followed a very familiar story-telling pattern: ancient evil coming back finds a pawn in the form of a villain and enemy of humanity who sold itself to the cause out of fear, hatred and pride (later falls victiom to it). This villian kills humans: by trying to interfere, the protagonist (simple soldier out of nowhere) finds out about a greater scheme and starts pursuing the bad guy with his fellow companions and in the end brings it to justice. In the mean time becomes certain of a secret and the terrible truth. That's the backbone of it. Of course it works, we've seen this at least a million times. I like it too, because it works and is spiced up by interesting lore and setting and characters (+the role playing aspect). But don't forget: it's always easier to start a story than finishing it. Bioware chose the hard way: they didn't use the familiar pattern of " a big goddamn hero guy who has an effect on everything saving the day just by his left hand". It took a different direction in that regard, but it is still just as ME as the first one and it makes sense, if you don't resent it viscerally out of hatred just because it did not deliver what you expected. 

I was one who felt your way the first time. But now as I took a step backwards and dare to look at it as a story and big picture with a frame, not losing myself in the details and the immersion or love for the characters, I love it and it makes perfect sense to me. I think that some people invested too much emotion and precious time of their lives into this series (multiple playthroughs for years etc.) and "Sheploo" and they expected something very different: they had their own preconceptions which did not meet reality (the 3rd game's story I mean)... that's why they hate the 3rd game so much. I understand them, but I'm not one of them, so I can't relate to that fully. 

I'll read your answer later, for now I have to go. Bye and have a nice day. 

Modifié par GimmeDaGun, 07 janvier 2013 - 07:54 .

[Mr. Gogeta34]

@OP, this thread's title is hilarious (not sure if your grammar was intentional or not, but it gave me a good chuckle).

Modifié par Mr. Gogeta34, 07 janvier 2013 - 08:27 .

[Meltemph]

So I don't see why it couldn't have been developed as a concept and devise throughout the cycles.

Because up until this cycle the reapers always went to the citadel and shut everything down. Only the protheans were the 1st to figure out it was a trap before it was to late to do anything about it(and even then it wasnt until AFTER the reapers came that they realized the citadel was a trap). So to create something, when nobody knew the reapers existed until after the reapers took out the citadel, it makes no sense that after the fact that other races were able to make something for a problem they didnt know existed until it was to late and then send that solution to unknown parts of the galaxy that would survive the organic and technological purge.

Well, yeah... it's totally up to interpretation by using the information we know as to why they didn't go for the Citadel at once, in the beginning of the invasion. Actually the cycles started and did work way before the Citadel and the relays existed (I assume the Citadel is not the very hardware of the Citadel, but is built by it and probably contains it's main processing plant - it says that The Citadel is "part of" it -...otherwise it seems that it works more like a network, like Skynet, or collective with each reaper having a little bit of it and adding to it).

This is what I am talking about. You are trying to fill holes, and while you are doing that, you are making the story make less sense, considering the main control unit for all the ME relays is the citadel, so it has to be the 1st. The hoops must try to jump through from that point on to explain why the writers had the reapers do what they did is nothing short of entertaining to read, because of how silly it sounds. Remember, the ME setting isnt a living world, the team has to write for it to achive the desired results, so either that had more information that would have made the story make sense in context or they didnt know where to land the story or how it was going to, and made it up as they went along.

As for the reapers' purpose. It revolves around a soft-existentialist philosophical question and is the story of a race with some truly alien and highly advanced technology, knowledge and abilities, which considered itself omnipotent (despite it could not maintain full controll over the other races) and had the means to manipulate those other races to a certain extent (they reigned over them as gods) and to travel the stars before the relays. They played god and they fell victim of their own arrogance and greed... by the "hands" of the manifestation and product of these: the Intelligence. A devise which was created to watch over their subjects (lesser races and their technological advancement), to preserve them and make them pay tribute. It was an unshackled devise of control with the purpose to preserve every life by all means (that's where its twisted, methodical, calculated, machine logic comes from)... we know the rest of the story.

That is all well and nice, but really has nothing to do with the points I brought up. We all know, if we played the DLC and beat the game why they were created, the problem comes when you apply said knowledge across all three games, that is when their application of supposed purpose has 0 cohesiveness between all 3 games. The catalyst makes the actions of the 2 main reapers nonsensical at best and confusing the plot at worst.


I was one who felt your way the first time. But now as I took a step backwards and dare to look at it as a story and big picture with a frame, not losing myself in the details and the immersion or love for the characters, I love it and it makes perfect sense to me. I think that some people invested too much emotion and precious time of their lives into this series (multiple playthroughs for years etc.) and "Sheploo" and they expected something very different: they had their own preconceptions which did not meet reality (the 3rd game's story I mean)... that's why they hate the 3rd game so much. I understand them, but I'm not one of them, so I can't relate to that fully.

Huh? Are you trying to insinuate the people who have problems with the story have to be heavily invested? I'm sorry but that whole paragraph reeks of trying to imply that only those who are ok with the ending, are detaching some deep emotional attachment that you think those who think the main plot line of ME3(ME2 as well) was.

As for your ME1 comments... Nobody praised ME1 for its unique plot, but its creation of a amazing setting and great characters. The main plot line was barely there since it was the beginning of the series. The fact that ME1 didnt really take the series anywhere is more of the fault of ME2 and 3 and is odd you would try and use the lack fo originality as a knock against 1, when all 3 of them would be up for the exact same issues.

Modifié par Meltemph, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:28 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

So I don't see why it couldn't have been developed as a concept and devise throughout the cycles.

Because up until this cycle the reapers always went to the citadel and shut everything down. Only the protheans were the 1st to figure out it was a trap before it was to late to do anything about it(and even then it wasnt until AFTER the reapers came that they realized the citadel was a trap). So to create something, when nobody knew the reapers existed until after the reapers took out the citadel, it makes no sense that after the fact that other races were able to make something for a problem they didnt know existed until it was to late and then send that solution to unknown parts of the galaxy that would survive the organic and technological purge.

Well, yeah... it's totally up to interpretation by using the information we know as to why they didn't go for the Citadel at once, in the beginning of the invasion. Actually the cycles started and did work way before the Citadel and the relays existed (I assume the Citadel is not the very hardware of the Citadel, but is built by it and probably contains it's main processing plant - it says that The Citadel is "part of" it -...otherwise it seems that it works more like a network, like Skynet, or collective with each reaper having a little bit of it and adding to it).

This is what I am talking about. You are trying to fill holes, and while you are doing that, you are making the story make less sense, considering the main control unit for all the ME relays is the citadel, so it has to be the 1st. The hoops must try to jump through from that point on to explain why the writers had the reapers do what they did is nothing short of entertaining to read, because of how silly it sounds. Remember, the ME setting isnt a living world, the team has to write for it to achive the desired results, so either that had more information that would have made the story make sense in context or they didnt know where to land the story or how it was going to, and made it up as they went along.

As for the reapers' purpose. It revolves around a soft-existentialist philosophical question and is the story of a race with some truly alien and highly advanced technology, knowledge and abilities, which considered itself omnipotent (despite it could not maintain full controll over the other races) and had the means to manipulate those other races to a certain extent (they reigned over them as gods) and to travel the stars before the relays. They played god and they fell victim of their own arrogance and greed... by the "hands" of the manifestation and product of these: the Intelligence. A devise which was created to watch over their subjects (lesser races and their technological advancement), to preserve them and make them pay tribute. It was an unshackled devise of control with the purpose to preserve every life by all means (that's where its twisted, methodical, calculated, machine logic comes from)... we know the rest of the story.

That is all well and nice, but really has nothing to do with the points I brought up. We all know, if we played the DLC and beat the game why they were created, the problem comes when you apply said knowledge across all three games, that is when their application of supposed purpose has 0 cohesiveness between all 3 games. The catalyst makes the actions of the 2 main reapers nonsensical at best and confusing the plot at worst.


I was one who felt your way the first time. But now as I took a step backwards and dare to look at it as a story and big picture with a frame, not losing myself in the details and the immersion or love for the characters, I love it and it makes perfect sense to me. I think that some people invested too much emotion and precious time of their lives into this series (multiple playthroughs for years etc.) and "Sheploo" and they expected something very different: they had their own preconceptions which did not meet reality (the 3rd game's story I mean)... that's why they hate the 3rd game so much. I understand them, but I'm not one of them, so I can't relate to that fully.

Huh? Are you trying to insinuate the people who have problems with the story have to be heavily invested? I'm sorry but that whole paragraph reeks of trying to imply that only those who are ok with the ending, are detaching some deep emotional attachment that you think those who think the main plot line of ME3(ME2 as well) was.

As for your ME1 comments... Nobody praised ME1 for its unique plot, but its creation of a amazing setting and great characters. The main plot line was barely their since it was the beginning of the series. The fact that ME1 didnt really take the series anywhere is more of the fault of ME2 and 3 and is odd you would try and use the lack fo originality as a knock against 1, when all 3 of them would be up for the exact same issues.

But look at Ilos. The Conduit that was built reverse-engineering their Mass Relays. Don't tell me they would have just allowed that had they known. The protheans managed to hide Ilos from the Reapers. If they could hide that world and the Conduit for 50,000 years, other races could too with the Crucible and it's plans. You can't say that it's impossible to hide something, or the plans for something, or hide away somewhere from the Reapers, when Ilos is proof of otherwise.

Also, did you ever assume that the Citadel and Relays were all built simoultaniously? That they were all constructed at the same time, and then moved into place one by one? Also, the Citadel houses the controls for the Relay Network. It isn't the actual core. It's just built around it - and the Catalyst.
You don't have any evidence to say otherwise.
As to why they waited, it was most likely because the Citadel was not as central to the government as the Protheans. The species still maintain their individual governments, so unlike the protheans, where they could just take the head off instantly, they had many more "heads" to chop. The Citadel was a power base only. It wasn't the governing point for the entire galaxy anymore. Just the "get together" site now. Losing it would not be as devestating to the galaxy as it had been to the protheans.

Also, the plot ideas of ME3 are on the same level of believabilaty as the others, compared to the original polt of what the Reapers are, what they do, and how they're made, and that people can suddenly be ressessatated from brain-death. Matched up to that, the plot of having plans for a doomsday weapon fall from the sky into your lap isn't that unbelievable compaired to what we've already seen.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:35 .

[Meltemph]

The protheans managed to hide Ilos from the Reapers. If they could hide that world and the Conduit for 50,000 years, other races could too with the Crucible and it's plans. You can't say that it's impossible to hide something, or the plans for something, or hide away somewhere from the Reapers, when Ilos is proof of otherwise.

That doestn make sense. This cycle was the only cycle that didnt get the relays locked down, because the protheans were able to rework the keepers after the fact; they didnt know the citadel was a trap. Them having the conduit was the only reason they could could mess with it. Vigil said on Illos that their(reapers) planns worked perfectly until their cycle, they were the 1st to throw the reapers off.  So with that knowledge it doesnt make any sense that something like the crucbile could be passed down, since before this cycle the taking over of the citadel and turning off the relays worked everyother time, which means they didnt know the citadel was a trap and didntk now there was a problem that needed fixing, up until the protheans.

They couldn't have created blueprints for a problem they didnt know was a problem until after the fact. It was only because of the protheans we didnt get punk'd as well. As for your ideas about the citadel and the relays, it doesnt matter in what order was way, the citadel is the master controller for the whole relay system.

Modifié par Meltemph, 07 janvier 2013 - 09:45 .

[silverexile17s]

Meltemph wrote...

The protheans managed to hide Ilos from the Reapers. If they could hide that world and the Conduit for 50,000 years, other races could too with the Crucible and it's plans. You can't say that it's impossible to hide something, or the plans for something, or hide away somewhere from the Reapers, when Ilos is proof of otherwise.

That doestn make sense. This cycle was the only cycle that didnt get the relays locked down, because the protheans were able to rework the keepers after the fact; they didnt know the citadel was a trap. Them having the conduit was the only reason they could could mess with it. Vigil said on Illos that their(reapers) planns worked perfectly until their cycle, they were the 1st to throw the reapers off.  So with that knowledge it doesnt make any sense that something like the crucbile could be passed down, since before this cycle the taking over of the citadel and turning off the relays worked everyother time, which means they didnt know the citadel was a trap and didntk now there was a problem that needed fixing, up until the protheans.

They couldn't have created blueprints for a problem they didnt know was a problem until after the fact. It was only because of the protheans we didnt get punk'd as well. As for your ideas about the citadel and the relays, it doesnt matter in what order was way, the citadel is the master controller for the whole relay system.

Turning off the relays has absolutly nothing to do with that.
The fact that Ilos was hidden from them had absoultly nothing to do what-so-ever with the locking of the Relay Network. It's because the protheans deleted the information regarding any mention of Ilos from their records during the attack on the Citidel (confirmed by Vigil). That's the point: That a race was able to hide information and loactions from the Reapers. The Leviathans hid themselves and their tech from the Reapers pretty well. The protheans hid Ilos from their purge.
None of that required anything to do with the locking of the Relays, and nither does hiding the Crucible plans.
As for it's constrcution, the Leviathans made a point of saying that not every race attempted to build it.

And you assume it was never at the stage that it got to in this cycle. For all we know, it was completed several times, but just never used, thanks to the network being cut.
It may have been fully built multiple times, and improved by each builder, assumed as incomplete because they "lacked the Catalyst,"  and only ever not used becasue they couldn't get to the Citidel. The cutting of the Relay network could be the only reason the Reapers persisted this long. But it doesn't prevent them from hiding data in the slightest, as proven by Ilos.

Modifié par silverexile17s, 07 janvier 2013 - 10:16 .

[Meltemph]

silverexile17s wrote...

Meltemph wrote...

The protheans managed to hide Ilos from the Reapers. If they could hide that world and the Conduit for 50,000 years, other races could too with the Crucible and it's plans. You can't say that it's impossible to hide something, or the plans for something, or hide away somewhere from the Reapers, when Ilos is proof of otherwise.

That doestn make sense. This cycle was the only cycle that didnt get the relays locked down, because the protheans were able to rework the keepers after the fact; they didnt know the citadel was a trap. Them having the conduit was the only reason they could could mess with it. Vigil said on Illos that their(reapers) plans worked perfectly until their cycle, they were the 1st to throw the reapers off.  So with that knowledge it doesnt make any sense that something like the crucbile could be passed down, since before this cycle the taking over of the citadel and turning off the relays worked everyother time, which means they didnt know the citadel was a trap and didnt know there was a problem that needed fixing, up until the protheans.

They couldn't have created blueprints for a problem they didnt know was a problem until after the fact. It was only because of the protheans we didnt get punk'd as well. As for your ideas about the citadel and the relays, it doesnt matter in what order was way, the citadel is the master controller for the whole relay system.

Turning off the relays has absolutly nothing to do with that.
The fact that Ilos was hidden from them had absoultly nothing to do what-so-ever with the locking of the Relay Network. It's because the protheans deleted the information regarding any mention of Ilos from their records during the attack on the Citidel (confirmed by Vigil). That's the point: That a race was able to hide information and loactions from the Reapers. The Leviathans hid themselves and their tech from the Reapers pretty well. The protheans hid Ilos from their purge.
None of that required anything to do with the locking of the Relays, and nither does hiding the Crucible plans.
As for it's constrcution, the Leviathans made a point of saying that not every race attempted to build it.

And you assume it was never at the stage that it got to in this cycle. For all we know, it was completed several times, but just never used, thanks to the network being cut.
It may have been fully built multiple times, and improved by each builder, assumed as incomplete because they "lacked the Catalyst,"  and only ever not used becasue they couldn't get to the Citidel. The cutting of the Relay network could be the only reason the Reapers persisted this long. But it doesn't prevent them from hiding data in the slightest, as proven by Ilos.

Your response makes no sense with what I posted.  Your response has nothing to do with what I said.  Nobody from each cycle knew the citadel was a trap until it was to late. This was the 1st cycle where the plan didnt work, so how would the create something when they didnt know there was a problem?  You really are not making sense.  My only point about the citadel being the contro lunit is, everyone was cut off from each other and the relays didnt work.  

The ONLY reason the protheans were able to mess with the keepers is because they were researching relay tech and created a poor mans version that let them go to the citadel.  Again how could anyone create a machine for a problem nobody understood or knew about, until it was to late?

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

They should have quality control regardless if you thought the ending was good or not.

[IntoTheDarkness]

OP how did you like the Normandy landing scene? It answers your question because the scene was so perfect that our little brain capacity could not dare hoping to understand.

[ElectronicPostingInterface]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

OP how did you like the Normandy landing scene? It answers your question because the scene was so perfect that our little brain capacity could not dare hoping to understand.

I absolutely love the content of that scene if you take a LI there. It's incredibly stupid if it's not a LI, particularly so if it's about EDI. And no matter who you take, the fact it happens in the way it did is bad.

Meh. 

[Epique Phael767]

Either they have no quality control or they have too many yes-men.