252 réponses à ce sujet

[GiarcYekrub]

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

[hiraeth]

LeandroBraz wrote...

So lets talk about the crucible.

They never explained how exactly the Mass Relays work, we know only what it do, but exactly how it works is unknow even for the characters in the game. What is the crucible? A device that exploited the technology of the Mass Relays. If Bioware never explained how the Mass Relays works, why they should explain how the Crucible work if it's the same technology? We know what it does, as it's described by the catalyst:

"The device that you refer as the crucible is litle more than a power source.  However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it's capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It's crude but effective and adaptive in its design"

 So, what we know about about the Crucible? It use mass relay technology to work as a power source that is higly adaptive (which allowed the catalyst to use it in the way he saw fit). What you want Bioware to show you? A schematic? It's like the Mass Relays, nobody know YET how it works.

 The origin is the part that is better if kept as mistery. We know it's concept emerged in an older cycle, and it evolved through the cycles. Someone, at some point found out about the catalyst, and saw a way to use it with the crucible. Someone, at some point probably figured out exactly what it would do once joined with the catalyst, but that information was lost, all our cycle had was a schematic inherited of the protheans, that didn't knew that much about it too. This is the point where, the further Bioware goes, the bigger is the chance that they will f*ck up the whole thing even more (personally I like the concept, even if it is not what I wanted for ME3). There's no need to show exactly who and how.

 Then we have a fact, if the crucible is merely a deus ex-machina, or a lazy device used for lazy writing, what good it will do if they explain detailed everything about it? The entire crucible concept is what you dislike, building over it will never give you the closure you are looking for, it will just give you more material to complain about. What you want is a ME3 without crucible, and that won't happen, it's done. The best thing now is to let it go and hope that ME4 will start a story as good as ME1 started, and will lead to an end better than ME3.

 About Shepard, what happen to him is up to you. It's like "El laberinto del fauno"(2006) film. They don't have to tell if Shepard survived, it's open for your interpretation.

The mass relays were introduced in the first 2 minutes of Mass Effect 1. Sure, I don't know the details of how exactly they work, but I was given that information from the very beginning and accepted that "rule" as part of the ME universe. The Crucible was introduced to me at the last game, and not only do I not know how exactly it's supposed to work, but it does wildly different things that are just unimaginable (um, it can make one person control the reapers, but it can also fundamentally change the [genetic] structure of all organic and synthetic life?) I felt like I was back in Aladdin and a genie was presenting me with three absurd choices--at a *crucial* moment in the trilogy--and I had absolutely no lore or background infomration to draw from that would have prepared me to make or understand that decision.

You are correct in that, ideally, I would have nixed the idea of the Crucible. I hated it the second I heard about it on Mars. That being said, I was wiling to accept the Crucible if it served the function that I was told at the beginning (a device that will destroy the reapers). It will be activated and shoot some laser that targets only reapers and destroys them. I would have been fine with that, but instead I get multiple options, each based on different assumptions and with different consequences, at the very last minute when I haven't been given adequate time as a player to be convinced that this decision I'm being asked to make is sensible.

As for Shepard's death--we can just agree to disagree on that. I firmly believe that if Shepard was going to survive (according to the writers), then we should have been given more information about what that looks like. There is no point to closing a trilogy and leaving the protagonist in a pile of rubble (e.g., I think Dark Knight Rises' ending was something that BW could have easily done with 1-2 additional cutscenes and a lot of us would have felt better about it).

Modifié par MassEffectFShep, 07 février 2013 - 03:02 .

[Knottedredloc]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

[Shallyah]

Knottedredloc wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

And then there are people who moan about people who moan about people who moan about the ending.

The cycle is inevitable. You progess along the paths which we desire.

Modifié par Shallyah, 07 février 2013 - 03:06 .

[FAButzke]

Knottedredloc wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about people moaning about ending.

[FAButzke]

Damn it. Ninja'd

[Darth_Trethon]

FAButzke wrote...

Knottedredloc wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about people moaning about ending.

When has the topic ever changed? From before ME3 ever released there's only been one major focus around which all ME3 discussions revolved.....the ending. The EC changed nothing.

[Knottedredloc]

FAButzke wrote...

Knottedredloc wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about people moaning about ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about people moaning about people moaning about the ending.



The cycle must continue....

Modifié par Knottedredloc, 07 février 2013 - 03:23 .

[10K]

My god, how many times do Chris Priestly have to say they aren't doing anymore ending related DLC before this madness ends. They're not doing anymore ending DLC sorry people.

[GiarcYekrub]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

FAButzke wrote...

Knottedredloc wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about the ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about ending.

I can't believe anyone is still moaning about people moaning about people moaning about ending.

When has the topic ever changed? From before ME3 ever released there's only been one major focus around which all ME3 discussions revolved.....the ending. The EC changed nothing.

Yeah I didn't think the EC was really needed either, it was cool that they did it though

[Mattyb70]

keep dreaming it won't happen

[impingu1984]

twitter.com/JessicaMerizan/status/299372519138406400

This tweet should end this discussion....

It sounds 99.9999999% it WON'T be ending related....

Old news is old...

Modifié par impingu1984, 07 février 2013 - 03:45 .

[Kel Riever]

Pfft, you KNOW that tweet won't do anything.

Best part is, people who still buy the DLC, thinking it will have ending related DLC, and then AFTER buying it, being sad that it didn't. I won't say it, but there's a word for that kind of person....

....all they have to do is wait, you know, and find out after it is released by coming to this forum. Just in case they absolutely wanted to believe. But no, they just have to go out and buy that DLC and find out for themselves....

[BirdsallSa]

Kel Riever wrote...

Pfft, you KNOW that tweet won't do anything.

Best part is, people who still buy the DLC, thinking it will have ending related DLC, and then AFTER buying it, being sad that it didn't. I won't say it, but there's a word for that kind of person....

....all they have to do is wait, you know, and find out after it is released by coming to this forum. Just in case they absolutely wanted to believe. But no, they just have to go out and buy that DLC and find out for themselves....

What word is it? ITer?

[Kel Riever]

BirdsallSa wrote...

Kel Riever wrote...

Pfft, you KNOW that tweet won't do anything.

Best part is, people who still buy the DLC, thinking it will have ending related DLC, and then AFTER buying it, being sad that it didn't. I won't say it, but there's a word for that kind of person....

....all they have to do is wait, you know, and find out after it is released by coming to this forum. Just in case they absolutely wanted to believe. But no, they just have to go out and buy that DLC and find out for themselves....

What word is it? ITer?

Sure.  Let's be nice and say it is exactly that

[Majin Paul]

If it was, then great but at this point all I'm hoping for is more information about the crucible, how certain things worked and why.
Anything else is a bonus.

[LeandroBraz]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

LeandroBraz wrote...

So lets talk about the crucible.

They never explained how exactly the Mass Relays work, we know only what it do, but exactly how it works is unknow even for the characters in the game. What is the crucible? A device that exploited the technology of the Mass Relays. If Bioware never explained how the Mass Relays works, why they should explain how the Crucible work if it's the same technology? We know what it does, as it's described by the catalyst:

"The device that you refer as the crucible is litle more than a power source.  However, in combination with the Citadel and the relays, it's capable of releasing tremendous amounts of energy throughout the galaxy. It's crude but effective and adaptive in its design"

 So, what we know about about the Crucible? It use mass relay technology to work as a power source that is higly adaptive (which allowed the catalyst to use it in the way he saw fit). What you want Bioware to show you? A schematic? It's like the Mass Relays, nobody know YET how it works.

 The origin is the part that is better if kept as mistery. We know it's concept emerged in an older cycle, and it evolved through the cycles. Someone, at some point found out about the catalyst, and saw a way to use it with the crucible. Someone, at some point probably figured out exactly what it would do once joined with the catalyst, but that information was lost, all our cycle had was a schematic inherited of the protheans, that didn't knew that much about it too. This is the point where, the further Bioware goes, the bigger is the chance that they will f*ck up the whole thing even more (personally I like the concept, even if it is not what I wanted for ME3). There's no need to show exactly who and how.

 Then we have a fact, if the crucible is merely a deus ex-machina, or a lazy device used for lazy writing, what good it will do if they explain detailed everything about it? The entire crucible concept is what you dislike, building over it will never give you the closure you are looking for, it will just give you more material to complain about. What you want is a ME3 without crucible, and that won't happen, it's done. The best thing now is to let it go and hope that ME4 will start a story as good as ME1 started, and will lead to an end better than ME3.

 About Shepard, what happen to him is up to you. It's like "El laberinto del fauno"(2006) film. They don't have to tell if Shepard survived, it's open for your interpretation.

The mass relays were introduced in the first 2 minutes of Mass Effect 1. Sure, I don't know the details of how exactly they work, but I was given that information from the very beginning and accepted that "rule" as part of the ME universe. The Crucible was introduced to me at the last game, and not only do I not know how exactly it's supposed to work, but it does wildly different things that are just unimaginable (um, it can make one person control the reapers, but it can also fundamentally change the [genetic] structure of all organic and synthetic life?) I felt like I was back in Aladdin and a genie was presenting me with three absurd choices--at a *crucial* moment in the trilogy--and I had absolutely no lore or background infomration to draw from that would have prepared me to make or understand that decision.

You are correct in that, ideally, I would have nixed the idea of the Crucible. I hated it the second I heard about it on Mars. That being said, I was wiling to accept the Crucible if it served the function that I was told at the beginning (a device that will destroy the reapers). It will be activated and shoot some laser that targets only reapers and destroys them. I would have been fine with that, but instead I get multiple options, each based on different assumptions and with different consequences, at the very last minute when I haven't been given adequate time as a player to be convinced that this decision I'm being asked to make is sensible.

As for Shepard's death--we can just agree to disagree on that. I firmly believe that if Shepard was going to survive (according to the writers), then we should have been given more information about what that looks like. There is no point to closing a trilogy and leaving the protagonist in a pile of rubble (e.g., I think Dark Knight Rises' ending was something that BW could have easily done with 1-2 additional cutscenes and a lot of us would have felt better about it).

So if something was added on ME1, it's okay that it don't have explanation, but if it's added on the ME3 bioware must explain detailed how it work? It make no sense. Plus, the crucible was added on the start of ME3, which is the same as being added on the start of the trilogy, since ME3 is a story closed on itself, even being part of a trilogy.

 The crucible is a very adaptive power source. It doesn't do wildly different things, it generate energy, and use the relays network to spread it, only that, one function, nothing complicate, but having this higly adaptive design, the Catalyst was able to use this power source to do other things. The catalyst used the crucible to do this wildly different things, the crucible itself only offered a way to do it, reaching the whole galaxy. 

 Anyway, my point is that explaining further the origin of the crucible our it works is a useless exercise, and won't make the game better for people that don't like it, actually there's a big chance that it will be worse.

 Bioware said that they wanted the scene with Shepard breathing open. The point is that doesn't matter if you can't just believe in whatever you want (that he survived) and be satisfied with it, they wanted to do like that, they don't own you a scene showing shepard alive. It's up to us to believe in what we want. Particulary I prefer him dead, I prefer to believer that Shepard's story ended there. I'm a fan, just like you, I paid for the game, just like you, should Bioware do a final scene to make sure that he is dead just to please me? Absolutely not.

[Seival]

dorktainian wrote...

Seival wrote...

Greylycantrope wrote...

Seival wrote...
By creating and attaching the Crucible, talking to the Catalyst and choosing Control, Synthesis, or Destroy. There are no other ways to stop the Cycles. Conventional victory is impossible. Galactic civilizations don't have time/abilities to become as advanced and numerous as Reapers...

Sorry, I'm having trouble hearing you over all the living going on in the next cycle regardless.

...Yes, tell me they have enough time and abilities... Do you know what would happen in this case? The Reapers will arrive into the Dead Galaxy swarmed by overpowered synthetics built by the galactic civilization. Organic life will gone forever.

We see quite clearly that's certainly not what happens.

Refusal is a waste of lives, triggered by a madman.

I'll assume your refering to the catalyst seeing as he's the one who turns off the Crucible and triggers the event.

What we see in Stargazer modified for Refusal:

Option №1: New galactic civilization deluded that it have prepared to the Reapers invasion, but in fact have no idea about real scale of the threat.

Option №2: New galactic civilization after the Reaper threat was stopped by someone who didn't fear the choices offered by the Catalyst.

Conventional victory was never possible, and will never be possible, no matter how good you prepared. Each previous Cycle warned the subsequent one... Protheans were much more advanced than current civilization. Reapers had to spend hundreds of years to consume them, but the Prothean defeat was inevitable. Each civilization is doomed, unless the Catalyst finds what it's looking for, and this finding will not become a pathetic Refuser.

     


rubbish.  everything has a weakness.  we just need to find it.

also...the protheans didn't have Sheploo.  

Finding a weakness is not enough. You have to have tools to exploit that weakness.

In our case you have to be as advanced and numerous as Reapers themselves to even have a chance to win conventionally. Even their creators (who knew everything about their creation's weaknesses) were forced to hide.

...Besides, all the tools that would somehow allow conventional victory against the Reapers would be galactic civilization's doom. Lesser creature are too primitive to use such tools without fatally harming themselves. Humans with Reaper-level tech are like monkeys with explosives. They will be able only to destroy their own kind. Cerberus is the nice example.

...One more reason to think more about Destroy by the way, with all that Reaper tech around that just waits to be researched and used. One Cerberus was destroyed, but 1000 of new ones were created on the remains of dead Reapers... A perfect picture of apocalypse. A perfect reason to dislike Destroy.

Modifié par Seival, 07 février 2013 - 08:48 .

[Ithurael]

Seival...your sig lost teh link to the synthesis support.

[FlamingBoy]

highly unlikely, not to mention the serious ethical questions of releasing such a dlc at cost for a consumer.

that said bioware has come out on the renegade side of such decisions before

[FlamingBoy]

impingu1984 wrote...

twitter.com/JessicaMerizan/status/299372519138406400

This tweet should end this discussion....

It sounds 99.9999999% it WON'T be ending related....

Old news is old...

to be fair bioware says things....

and alot of it turns out not to be true

[GDK]

Let it die, man.

[Seival]

Ithurael wrote...

Seival...your sig lost teh link to the synthesis support.

I'll fix that. Thanks for the reminder

[Steelcan]

That's a good thing about Destroy Seival. The galaxy isn't everybody holding hands singing and feasting.

[GreyLycanTrope]

Seival wrote...
Finding a weakness is not enough. You have to have tools to exploit that weakness.

In our case you have to be as advanced and numerous as Reapers themselves to even have a chance to win conventionally. Even their creators (who knew everything about their creation's weaknesses) were forced to hide.

...Besides, all the tools that would somehow allow conventional victory against the Reapers would be galactic civilization's doom. Lesser creature are too primitive to use such tools without fatally harming themselves. Humans with Reaper-level tech are like monkeys with explosives. They will be able only to destroy their own kind. Cerberus is the nice example.

...One more reason to think more about Destroy by the way, with all that Reaper tech around that just waits to be researched and used. One Cerberus was destroyed, but 1000 of new ones were created on the remains of dead Reapers... A perfect picture of apocalypse. A perfect reason to dislike Destroy.

You realize with advanced warning, time to prepare, all the data we've gathered on the Reapers and the knowledge that the Crucible doesn't work they can easily build their own super weapons, right?. Mass accelorator weapon which was responsible for taking out the Derelict Reaper anyone? We also know Reaper Destroyers have a weakspot at their occulous and we can take those out conventionally already without the use of superweapons.

These creature wouldn't be lesser either they'd be on our level and we actually can handle tech like that otherwise we would have destroyed eachother with nuclear weapons a while ago.