287 réponses à ce sujet

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

"Saving everyone only happens in vids. There will be sacrifices, and being in command is making sure they serve the greater objective. That's a reality for all soldiers in command and on the ground."

Spoken by Shepard. Couldn't have said it better myself, Destroy all the way baby.

That's a great line! When was that though, I can't place it.


@3D
I understand the idea of not making a decision when you don't know the consequences, but by your logic Shepard wouldn't have done most of the things you have to do throughout the series, since you're not using any metagaming. The difference here is that this is almost the only time in the entire series you're given the option to opt out, and it was only added because fans demanded it.

Not true.  In my game Shepard left no question unasked.  At the end, Shepard challenges nothing and things that BW included that added to the dialogue really don't explain anything or fix what always was wrong.  Shepard doesn't ask anything relevant.  Shepard asks how synthesis happens, but not how it could happen.  The kid explains superficially what it does, but not how it does what it does.  You need to go over all that is said and then question if you get answers to any real questions.  Who made the crucible?  You would not know them and there's (little or no) time to explain.  Well, there would be time if you would just give the reapers a break.  But, then again why is the kid in a hurry?  Why was it necessary to move the citadel to Earth and make harvesting faster?  Why doesn't Shepard talk about the geth and EDI, especially if one choice means their destruction?  One reference to them.


And in my games, Shepard always had enough information to make a choice and also had a choice that she could make that kept her personality and character intact.  I didn't have to meta-game any of it.  And I never looked to see if one decision was the "best" to make until I got to the end (the original endings) and got the gasp ending and wondered what mistakes I had made to get such a horrible ending and to have no way to win the game.  Surprise was on me.

Fans did want a Refusal ending/choice, but by and large what they wanted was not what was given.  They wanted the kind of Refuse that many have still repeatedly asked for.  As I said they wanted one that would shut the brat up and that would give Shepard back a spine, and that would also have a way even if difficult, to victory, a real one.

The only example in any of the games that is any thing like what you have to do at the end of ME3 is in the Arrival.  After playing it once (I hated it), I've never played it again for fun or for the story.  And it was created by Mac Walters who said the galaxy would be a wasteland after ME3 (said this in Feb.).  Then, when the EC was released, he and Hudson said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed at the end of ME3.  And they're responsible for this stuff-but they can't even remember their own statements and story.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 18 janvier 2013 - 04:24 .

[Iamjdr]

So just because reapers have vunerabilities means we can win? Did you see how many reapers there were at earth alone? I read the codex entries which ones say we were winning cause I don't remember those ones ,what I do remember in the codex it tells you how quickly the reapers adapt to new strategies and employ them on there owners hence reapers FTL past the turians blockade straight to palavin and that even with the krogans helping out it's not enoug . We even watch thessia fall first hand and that was late in the game an one of the last homeworlds hit. And the Salarians arnt even helping if you don't screw over the krogan. We were not gonna ever win this by shooting every reaper to death just wasn't happening.

[3DandBeyond]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...


And Hacket uses 1781 tactics sending everything in a straight line wearing red, and Anderson uses 1914 tactics on the ground (where was my Brodie? where were the Jerries?). Tactics that are guaranteed to get you slaughtered attacking a force like that.

Refuse: Yes, we'll lose this time, but the reapers? They're so spread out that they're going to take so many losses they're going to get wiped by the next cycle, and the catalyst is never going to get his synthesis.

Yes, the greatest military minds of all.  "Everyone run out in the open shooting your pistols at that big reaper over there.  Run straight at him and jump up and down while doing it.  Shepard you take the lead."

But then again, "it's not about strategy and tactics.  It's about looking good as you force the enemy to see you and you die." 

I mean why try any stealth moves at all.  On Tuchanka where the cure was at stake, Shepard and company have the Turians distract the reaper.  But on Earth where it's only about supposedly saving the whole galaxy, Shepard and all of them run straight at Harbinger out in the open with no cover.  Good idea.

[BleedingUranium]

Arrival is my favourite DLC.

[Aaleel]

They nerfed the reapers technologically, and dumbed them down intellectually just so that we could have a game. If the reapers could overwhelm and take the Citadel before so much as a distress signal could be made, they could have done when they first got into the galaxy instead of going to Earth.

Then cut off the relays and reaped one system at a time at their leisure. Also, the codex talks about small victories organics had. Reapers lost a handful of ships, organics lost a handful of planets/homeworlds. Winning in a fight of my best vs your best was not going to happen, it just wasn't.

Somehow, some people saw an illusion of that type of victory, but I never did.

Modifié par Aaleel, 18 janvier 2013 - 04:39 .

[BleedingUranium]

The Reapers couldn't take the Citadel without the Citadel relay or agents inside because we could just close the arms and they'd be stuck outside, not being able to do anything. That's what the Cerberus coup was for.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 janvier 2013 - 04:39 .

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

So just because reapers have vunerabilities means we can win? Did you see how many reapers there were at earth alone? I read the codex entries which ones say we were winning cause I don't remember those ones ,what I do remember in the codex it tells you how quickly the reapers adapt to new strategies and employ them on there owners hence reapers FTL past the turians blockade straight to palavin and that even with the krogans helping out it's not enoug . We even watch thessia fall first hand and that was late in the game an one of the last homeworlds hit. And the Salarians arnt even helping if you don't screw over the krogan. We were not gonna ever win this by shooting every reaper to death just wasn't happening.

So glad that's all you read of what I said. 

Did you know that on Earth they would be really weak?  The codex didn't say we were winning, but I guess you never looked at your war asset screen or even the galactic readiness screen that is right there where you load the game.

You certainly can't win anything if your main idea is that it's impossible.  Or if you think right away that it isn't about strategy or tactics but you have to fight.  Well, how do you do that?  By running headlong at them in the open shooting a pistol?

Oh and by Shepard being kept in detention by those that know darn well that the reapers are coming (and that did nothing to even attempt to really prepare).  And, those great minds couldn't figure out one way to provide cover for whatever Shepard did to keep him/her out of detention.  If you played Arrival it was because of the Batarian deaths.  If not, it was for something else, but there really is nothing else.  I can think of a bunch of ways to keep Shepard out of detention and others have done so too, but these great minds just do nothing.

The writers could have used the vulnerabilities to provide options for fighting.  And they created codex entries about others who were working on special weapons (some mercs were) to fight the reapers.  I foolishly thought they might use their imaginations and do just that, but they didn't.  So, the end boils down to making a choice that glow boy gives you.  Yay!

[Iamjdr]

There is defiantly some air support at the harbinger run ,those helicopter looking things plus makos and whatnot. To bad harby isnt a destroyer class reaper like the one on tachuncka was.....

[BleedingUranium]

I understand where the confusion of Reaper strengths and us being able to win or not comes from. The narrative paints a much bleaker picture than is seen if you read all the codex entries, planets descriptions, war assets, and similar.

I'm not saying if I think we can win or not here, I'm just saying that this is the reason for the confusion.

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Arrival is my favourite DLC.

Sorry, but 'nuff said.  It's futility and not much fun.  Since it's creator also worked on the endings to ME3 and showed in the Arrival that exploding relays destroy star systems, and then he said the galaxy would be a wasteland (devoid of life), and BW also created a codex that says a ruptured relay would basically also mean everyone dies, I understand why ME3's endings suck.  It's merely icing on the cake that BW then decided it was dumb fans not understanding things that was wrong and not them retconning everything. 

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Oh and by Shepard being kept in detention by those that know darn well that the reapers are coming (and that did nothing to even attempt to really prepare).  And, those great minds couldn't figure out one way to provide cover for whatever Shepard did to keep him/her out of detention.  If you played Arrival it was because of the Batarian deaths.  If not, it was for something else, but there really is nothing else.

That's because not only isdoing Arrival extremely important for the story, it is also canon. You're free to not do it, but that's a non-canon Shepard. You're right, the intro makes no sense without out it, but that Bioware's way of telling you off for not having the DLC.

Just like Refuse being a total failure is Bioware's way of telling you if you don't want to pick one of the choices, it sucks to be you. And I support them on both of these.

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

There is defiantly some air support at the harbinger run ,those helicopter looking things plus makos and whatnot. To bad harby isnt a destroyer class reaper like the one on tachuncka was.....

Except he seems far stupider.  The makos really helped too didn't they?  And the Normandy was brought in to retrieve teammates but not to even try to distract Harbinger?  Yeah, that's a good idea. 

[Iamjdr]

I read everything you wrote about shep beating the odds before i justdont personally think it matters much when your up against the entire reaper armada. And no I don't look at my galaxy at war map cause Im not connected to the Internet so my galaxy of war never change past 50% but I defiantly looked at all my assets which ones talk about having any advantages on the reapers?

[Aaleel]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I understand where the confusion of Reaper strengths and us being able to win or not comes from. The narrative paints a much bleaker picture than is seen if you read all the codex entries, planets descriptions, war assets, and similar.

I'm not saying if I think we can win or not here, I'm just saying that this is the reason for the confusion.

So you're saying you read everything and can envision a scenario where organics kill every reaper before they wipe us out.  Because the reapers aren't going to surrender or call a truce, you're going to have to kill every single one.  The the Citadel and leadership gone, and several homeworlds lost.

I didn't get that from reading everything and I had high war assets.

[BleedingUranium]

3DandBeyond wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Arrival is my favourite DLC.

Sorry, but 'nuff said.  It's futility and not much fun.  Since it's creator also worked on the endings to ME3 and showed in the Arrival that exploding relays destroy star systems, and then he said the galaxy would be a wasteland (devoid of life), and BW also created a codex that says a ruptured relay would basically also mean everyone dies, I understand why ME3's endings suck.  It's merely icing on the cake that BW then decided it was dumb fans not understanding things that was wrong and not them retconning everything.

No, you think the endings suck, because you only did half of the thinking. The relays all exploding at the end, your crew magically being on the Normandy, the comments one week before launch that the Rachni would be very important in the final battle and that there would be no ABC ending, comments that were freely offered, not in response to anything, thos are clues. They're enormous hints that this isn't the end and that it's not really happening.

You only did half the thinking, you though "These things seem wrong or make no sense" which is good, you were supposed to think that, but instead of coming up with a real reason you decided to not try to figure it out, and decided that it must be "bad riting lulz".

[BleedingUranium]

Aaleel wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I understand where the confusion of Reaper strengths and us being able to win or not comes from. The narrative paints a much bleaker picture than is seen if you read all the codex entries, planets descriptions, war assets, and similar.

I'm not saying if I think we can win or not here, I'm just saying that this is the reason for the confusion.

So you're saying you read everything and can envision a scenario where organics kill every reaper before they wipe us out.  Because the reapers aren't going to surrender or call a truce, you're going to have to kill every single one.  The the Citadel and leadership gone, and several homeworlds lost.

I didn't get that from reading everything and I had high war assets.

It's probably not enough difference to say we'd win, but the point is that the game is less optimistic that the info we have.

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Oh and by Shepard being kept in detention by those that know darn well that the reapers are coming (and that did nothing to even attempt to really prepare).  And, those great minds couldn't figure out one way to provide cover for whatever Shepard did to keep him/her out of detention.  If you played Arrival it was because of the Batarian deaths.  If not, it was for something else, but there really is nothing else.

That's because not only isdoing Arrival extremely important for the story, it is also canon. You're free to not do it, but that's a non-canon Shepard. You're right, the intro makes no sense without out it, but that Bioware's way of telling you off for not having the DLC.

Just like Refuse being a total failure is Bioware's way of telling you if you don't want to pick one of the choices, it sucks to be you. And I support them on both of these.

Well you better tell BW that, because they believe there is no canon in ME games and DLC that is supposed to be optional is never canon.  Even the story does not make the Arrival canon at all, because anything that happens in the game that someone may not do or that everyone will do, is mitigated or features a workaround so that no choice makes a difference ultimately.  The Arrival is not important at all to the story.  The intro makes no sense with or without it and I don't believe it's BW's way of telling anyone off at all.  I think the whole intro is a lot of junk-the dialogue stinks, the setup stinks, the reason for Shepard being detained makes no sense whether you do the Arrival or not.  Any Admiral worth his salt is going to find a way to provide cover for what Shepard had to do.  Especially given how idiotic the rest of the galaxy is without Shepard to guide them all.  And because Hackett knew and Anderson knew the reapers were coming.  It was wasted time that they could have handled differently.

So, you think it's a good idea for a company that wants people's money to "tell them off" for not buying DLC?  Wow, great business model.  Not a winning strategy.  Nor is saying that nothing is canon and making a game where none of the choices that were supposed to matter, actually do matter (because then they'd be canon), and then deciding that optional DLC is canon.

[Iamjdr]

@Aaleel
Thank you that's exactly what I'm trying to say ,even if we won on earth conventionally we wouldnt be able to stop the reapers on every world and do you know how many more would die trying that? Even just on the planets we can't defend while we are fighting "system by system" the reapers arnt stopping the harvest to fight us we will battle till we or the reapers bleeds us dry slowly but surely

[Iamjdr]

I'm pretty sure the dlc events are cannon for mass effect but not shep. Liara still becomes shadowbroker with out lotsb installed and arrival still happens it was just an alliance military team
That blew up the relay.

[BleedingUranium]

First, I like the intro and think it's great.

Arrival is canon because it is the basis for the comic in which James is introduced. If Shepard hadn't been the one to do it, then James would never have gotten into a fight with a group of Batarians over that fact, one that he mentions in-game in ME3.

"The sh*t you've done" is just a handwave for the people who couldn't be bothered to play the whole story.

So Arrival is canon because it's reference in a comic. And it's also canon because the events in that comic, ones that are mentioned in-game, would never have happened if Shepard hadn't done it.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 janvier 2013 - 05:01 .

[Aaleel]

Iamjdr wrote...

@Aaleel
Thank you that's exactly what I'm trying to say ,even if we won on earth conventionally we wouldnt be able to stop the reapers on every world and do you know how many more would die trying that? Even just on the planets we can't defend while we are fighting "system by system" the reapers arnt stopping the harvest to fight us we will battle till we or the reapers bleeds us dry slowly but surely

And every planet they take they replenish their resources and have the people to replenish their ground forces at a rate faster than we can because they're using our own people, turning our loses into their gains.  There is no way to win a war of attrition at all.  The longer it goes on the worse it gets for Organics.

[Iamjdr]

And Hackett does cover for shep hence he is relived of duty for a time rather then court-martialed, and they only did that to not cause a war with the barbarians before the reapers showed up. At least thats how I understood it.

[Aaleel]

BleedingUranium wrote...

First, I like the intro and think it's great.

Arrival is canon because it is the basis for the comic in which James is introduced. If Shepard hadn't been the one to do it, then James would never have gotten into a fight with a group of Batarians over that fact, one that he mentions in-game in ME3.

"The sh*t you've done" is just a handwave for the people who couldn't be bothered to play the whole story.

So Arrival is canon because it's reference in a comic. And it's also canon because the events in that comic, ones that are mentioned in-game, would never have happened if Shepard hadn't done it.

Shepard doing Arrival is not canon.  It says in game that a squad of space marines did it if Shepard didn't.  I know there's a comic but nothing outside the game should supercede what is said in the actual game for the purpose of the game's storyline.

If they wanted Shepard doing it to be canon they would have made it canon, just like Liara found a way to be Shadowbroker.  They went out of their way to write another version of the event for the game itself, and change what Anderson says to you.  So they obviously didn't mean to make Shepard being there canon.

[3DandBeyond]

BleedingUranium wrote...



No, you think the endings suck, because you only did half of the thinking. The relays all exploding at the end, your crew magically being on the Normandy, the comments one week before launch that the Rachni would be very important in the final battle and that there would be no ABC ending, comments that were freely offered, not in response to anything, thos are clues. They're enormous hints that this isn't the end and that it's not really happening.

You only did half the thinking, you though "These things seem wrong or make no sense" which is good, you were supposed to think that, but instead of coming up with a real reason you decided to not try to figure it out, and decided that it must be "bad riting lulz".

Huh?  Given that I have been one of the most outspoken proponents for more of an ending from BW, including alternatives to what we've been given, as well as more war assets in use and all of that and each and every time I've been told by "real fans" to shut my pie hole and that BW reps have basically said the same thing to anyone who expresses a similar wish, reps that have said in no uncertain terms that there will be no more ending-related content, then please do not presume to know what I think should or could or will be done.

You are now implying that it will be an IT ending that will be the next DLC.  And yet, this too has been something that has been often refuted by BW staff.  But I have all but begged them to create more of an ending and have stated that such a thing would leave open the fun possibility of other alternate endings, including IT.  Because unlike many here on this forum, I am not opposed to the exploration of a huge variety of endings, as long as one features a very real and possible victory based upon what people do for themselves and not something given to them by their enemy.

So far, what BW has said is their writing is their art and that we as fans just didn't understand the original endings and needed clarity and closure, and then we got none and we've repeatedly been told that's all there will ever be for the endings.  And a great many of us have held out hope that they will still do something to the endings as well as to the rest of it.  The Rachni will matter, there'll be Krogan on dino back, and the cake is a lie.

Again, this is the same BW that clearly had meant for the exploding relays to destroy the galaxy and then they showed the Normandy crash scene and the torso gasp.  And people said, "WTF?"  So, they started to retcon it all on twitter-the relay explosions weren't that big.  And then in releasing the EC they said they didn't know why fans thought the galaxy would be destroyed-it was in their opinion a fan problem. 

And wanna know what one employee said about the ABC ending and all that-they changed their minds.  He also said they could change their minds and do something else for the endings, but they aren't going to.

I have always hoped they'd do more and everytime I've hoped that, they've come up with more badly written stuff and then they've come out and said that we can think what we want, but the endings are it, no more will be done.  No IT, no high EMS Destroy or Refuse or glowboys jumping off of cliffs.  That's it.  That's what they've said.

[3DandBeyond]

Iamjdr wrote...

And Hackett does cover for shep hence he is relived of duty for a time rather then court-martialed, and they only did that to not cause a war with the barbarians before the reapers showed up. At least thats how I understood it.

Yeah, that's not how you provide cover for people.  You don't indicate they are guilty if you don't want them to appear to be guilty.  Anyone in that position could have set it up to be that Shepard was trying to stop the asteroid but it was too late.  Shepard tried to warn the Batarians but that too was too little too late.  A lie, but a plausible one.  Shepard was sent to see what those renegade scientists were doing and the crazies were sending an asteroid into a relay.  There was an internal struggle between indoctrinated scientists (the Batarians would be able to believe this, having already dealt with the Leviathan of Dis), and someone set the asteroid on its course and Shepard couldn't stop it.