1470 réponses à ce sujet

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Yes, a poor beginning doesn't automatically mean that a game (like ME3) is doomed from the start, but it's sure a good way to bet.  Frankly the entire prologue/earth mission and then Priority Mars was some of the worst storytelling in the game up until the ending.  Does it automatically doom ME3?  No, but IMHO it puts it into a deep thematic hole from which it never really recovers....and then we get the endings.

I'm sorry, is that supposed to be evidence or something? Are you trying to argue that the Crucible was bad because Shepard says 'We fight or we die?"

If ME 3 had problems in it's introduction, it's because it had problems in it's introduction. ME 2 didn't make any missteps forcing that to be the case.

And yeah. Introducing a good solution to defeat the Reapers is incredible, immensely difficult. The incredibly awful rewrites and suggestions all over the BSN should be proof of that. If it was easy, anybody could do it.

One of the reasons why ME3 had so many difficulties with the introduction is because ME2 which should have laid the basic groundwork for defeating the Reapers (even if Shepard may not have immediately recognized it) wasn't done.

This meant that the prologue to ME3 had to cover an entire game's worth of material in a single scene.   Not suprisingly it fell on it's face putting ME3 into a narrative hole from which it never fully recovered...even before the endings.  This was in large part due to a failure of ME2 to properly set the conditions for ME3.

-Polaris

[tevix]

@David

Shepard may not actively or knowingly be pursuing "it", but he's certainly looking. The end of ME1 sets the premise of ME2. The base plot outline was already written.

You can argue all you want, and I know you will, but I think it should have gone:

ME1 - "These reapers....there's more out there, and we have to find a way to stop them."
Me2 - "This is it...this just might work. The galaxy, though, it's unsettled..."
ME3 - War, on all fronts...losses...setbacks. A constant wonder of how you're going to be able to utilize X to achieve victory.

[David7204]

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem is that this foundation isn't even laid in prior games, and introducing it like it was in ME3 puts the game into a very deep Thematic hole.  You, yourself, have just admitted that it was sub-par story structure at best.

Ridiculous.

ME and ME 2 laid down plenty of foreshadowing. About the Relays, about the Reapers, about hidden technology on the Citadel and elsewhere, about indoctrination, about dark energy, about the Protheans, about previous races, about all kinds of things.

The problem is that you're too uncreative to look past the Crucible. In your mind, the Crucible must exist in ME 3 because you can't think of anything else, so ME 2 is at fault for not foreshadowing it.

[David7204]

tevix wrote...

@David

Shepard may not actively or knowingly be pursuing "it", but he's certainly looking. The end of ME1 sets the premise of ME2. The base plot outline was already written.

You can argue all you want, and I know you will, but I think it should have gone:

ME1 - "These reapers....there's more out there, and we have to find a way to stop them."
Me2 - "This is it...this just might work. The galaxy, though, it's unsettled..."
ME3 - War, on all fronts...losses...setbacks. A constant wonder of how you're going to be able to utilize X to achieve victory.

Let me ask you something. Do you think you could come up with a way to defeat the Reapers that's better than the Crucible? Perhaps you've already thought of one?

[RiouHotaru]

GroverA125 wrote...
3) Do not make multiple choice ending as a definite unless the choices are absolutes. If the community can say "yeah, but why didn't..." then you've not done it right. We should sit there and accept that it's the only way, and our choice should reflect our decision, not some that you thought would be cool and not reflect our character's opinions (don't bias the end towards one set of decisions)
.

Normally I wouldn't go back this far and quote something, but this is wrong.  The developers cannot account for every single scenario that could come up.  And it's not their job too.  They're going to cover what THEY feel are the most likely scenarios and possibilites.  Because it's THEIR story to write and THEIR game to develop.  Smudboy made the mistake of asking the "Why didn't X do Y?" over and over again over the smallest of details, and look where it got him.  At some point you just have to accept that:

A) They won't think of everything
and
Not every character CAN think of everything
Just because the community can think of something doesn't mean the character would.  Doesn't matter if it's 1 person in the community or 100k people.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

tevix wrote...

@David

Shepard may not actively or knowingly be pursuing "it", but he's certainly looking. The end of ME1 sets the premise of ME2. The base plot outline was already written.

You can argue all you want, and I know you will, but I think it should have gone:

ME1 - "These reapers....there's more out there, and we have to find a way to stop them."
Me2 - "This is it...this just might work. The galaxy, though, it's unsettled..."
ME3 - War, on all fronts...losses...setbacks. A constant wonder of how you're going to be able to utilize X to achieve victory.

Let me ask you something. Do you think you could come up with a way to defeat the Reapers that's better than the Crucible? Perhaps you've already thought of one?

I don't have to think of one.  ME2 provided one had the writers ran with it.  It's called a "BFG" specifically a railgun big enough to take out Reapers.  Sure it's hundreds of millions of years old, but it's a start.  There may be other such technology out there that might help.

-Polaris

[David7204]

You've been in the military. You should know a gun like that would never be useful.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:46 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

The problem is that this foundation isn't even laid in prior games, and introducing it like it was in ME3 puts the game into a very deep Thematic hole.  You, yourself, have just admitted that it was sub-par story structure at best.

Ridiculous.

ME and ME 2 laid down plenty of foreshadowing. About the Relays, about the Reapers, about hidden technology on the Citadel and elsewhere, about indoctrination, about dark energy, about the Protheans, about previous races, about all kinds of things.

ME1, you bet!  ME2 not so much and what little was laid out wasn't used (like a great big RAILGUN that we know can take out Reapers).  The Dark Energy didn't matter, and honestly neither did the protheans.  At the end of ME2, Shepard was just as clueless as to how to defeat the Reapers as he was at the start, and that's not a good thing.

The problem is that you're too uncreative to look past the Crucible. In your mind, the Crucible must exist in ME 3 because you can't think of anything else, so ME 2 is at fault for not foreshadowing it.

No.  It's just sloppy and bad writing.  Period.  If you HAD to have the crucible, then it should have been introduced in ME2 in some fashion.

-Polaris

[Archonsg]

Gaming reviews have gone from pieces giving both information about the gamefrom technical aspects such as bugginess, to how well graphically done, to sound immersion, to more of what as a gamer would experince, (actual game play) the high and low points of such to what we have today, which are generally pieces that could have been penned by the publishers themselves.

However, a good portion of the blame for that lies with us.
I remember the now defunct Computer Gaming World at one point tried to implement a method of reviews that focused on only these facts, each reviewer giving his or her impressions only *without* giving the game a score.
"We tell it as it is, let our readers make their own Judgements." I believe then editor Ed Greenwood said.

Instead, readers went bonkers.
They wanted a ranking system because they preferred someone else validating their purchase, they wanted to to be able to swing a 5 star, 10 point, "must buy", take your pick, bat at opponents of the game, in or outside forum discussions.

Its a pity.
CGW was the last publication in the gsming space that I had respect for since many of their reviews tried to give their readers the honest run down of what a game is like, with reviews done by peers who understood what Readers of their articles want. RPGers reviewing RPGs, FPSers reviewing FPS games.

Perhaps they were too honest.
Which may be why they are no longer around.

Today, reading some, no, most of the game reviews online, you do feel as if the writers are writing a padded review, never quite committing to saying "there is a problem....", "this will frustrate you as the player... " if any mention is made of problematic game issues at all, unless its so obvious, even a blind monkey can't miss it.

Instead, most review pieces today mostly skirt these issues and usually play up the a game's strong points." Eye popping graphics ", "amazingly smooth animation", "story written by so and so.. " and such.

And for the most part its swallowed whole by the gaming community who don't really want a review but validation and their ego stroked for buying and playing a 9+ product.

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

You've been in the military. You should know a gun like that would never be useful.

I hope that was a joke.  A  big gun that can take out reapers could be a godsend depending on the logistical details.  Of course those details may involve much of the game.

-Polaris

[tevix]

@David

I didn't realize you were also a weapons and military expert. A cannon able to one-shot a full size reaper and carve a new canyon in a planet is CERTAINLY something worth looking at.

[Megaton_Hope]

David7204 wrote...

Frankly, the Crucible should have been scrapped altogether. It's a lousy idea, period.

Just because the Reaper invasion is on the backburner doesn't mean it can't establish the means to defeat the Reapers. And in fact, it conventional victory was possible, that's pretty much exactly what it would have done. The missions in ME 2 provide the basis for the Tuchanka and Rannoch arcs to function and be satisfying.

Likewise, missions thoughtout ME 2 could have laid down the foundation for a nonconventional solution. But that doesn't has to be apparent to the player at the time. In fact, I would argue it shouldn't be.

Well that's what I'm saying, it didn't, and it should have. Something, somewhere, should have been introduced as the journey of a thousand miles which Shepard is beginning, now, with a single step. But Shepard ain't steppin', and the journey is barely mentioned at all. Shepard takes a long detour first through what is at first not even a Reaper-related plotline. The ultimate Reaper connection to all this is a disembodied voice who periodically takes 'direct control' over a mook and makes him a tank.

The idea that the Reapers are out there, they are coming, and if they are not defeated humanity will die along with every other advanced species is...

Well, it's practically absent. Shepard looks pensively at a clipboard/tablet. Shepard has a conversation with Harbinger in Arrival. Shepard can tell the Council there's a Reaper/Collector connection, although who knows how he knows that.

Is there...what, a fleet, a weapons system, a laboratory? What is it Shepard's got in ME2 that he can use, or believes he will use, or believes he might one day use to find a way to use something, to defeat the Reapers?

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't have to think of one.  ME2 provided one had the writers ran with it.  It's called a "BFG" specifically a railgun big enough to take out Reapers.  Sure it's hundreds of millions of years old, but it's a start.  There may be other such technology out there that might help.

-Polaris

Where is this gun?

Even if they had working plans how many guns like what you're suggesting could be made in six months? Enough to take out a thousand Reapers?

If the Alliance can't rebuild their fleets two years after the Citadel battle, how is a BFG that no one has ever seen or known about in six months going to be mass produced in enough time to stop the war? At least with the Cruicble it's one singular piece of equipment.

[David7204]

No, it certainly isn't. I'm not a weapons expert, but I do understand a bit of physics.

The energy such a gun would require would be beyond your comprehension. We're talking dozens and dozens of entire cities of power plants. Entire fleets of ships to gather fuel. The heat from a single shot would melt millions of tons of metal into slag. The recoil from firing such a weapon would be titantic. It would literally knock the entire planet out of it's orbit.

All for a single, stationary gun that would be a big fat target for the Reapers and be useless outside a fairly short range.

No. It's off the table.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 08:56 .

[Morlath]

Archonsg wrote...

Today, reading some, no, most of the game reviews online, you do feel as if the writers are writing a padded review, never quite committing to saying "there is a problem....", "this will frustrate you as the player... " if any mention is made of problematic game issues at all, unless its so obvious, even a blind monkey can't miss it.

Instead, most review pieces today mostly skirt these issues and usually play up the a game's strong points." Eye popping graphics ", "amazingly smooth animation", "story written by so and so.. " and such.

And for the most part its swallowed whole by the gaming community who don't really want a review but validation and their ego stroked for buying and playing a 9+ product.

I can't disagree more. Whilst this may be a factor in some reviews, there are still overs I've seen, read and heard where a score of 7 or 8 has still mentioned issues with framerates, story telling or just issues that the gamer will experience.

So they aren't caught by every review and it's not a specialist review system like you brought up but it's not as bad as people are trying to make out.

[IanPolaris]

Morlath wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

I don't have to think of one.  ME2 provided one had the writers ran with it.  It's called a "BFG" specifically a railgun big enough to take out Reapers.  Sure it's hundreds of millions of years old, but it's a start.  There may be other such technology out there that might help.

-Polaris

Where is this gun?

Even if they had working plans how many guns like what you're suggesting could be made in six months? Enough to take out a thousand Reapers?

If the Alliance can't rebuild their fleets two years after the Citadel battle, how is a BFG that no one has ever seen or known about in six months going to be mass produced in enough time to stop the war? At least with the Cruicble it's one singular piece of equipment.

If TIM could find it by reverse targeting from Klendagon (sp?), then the Alliance should be able to find it as well.  We know it still exists (or at least did in ME2).  As for the others, maybe it's practical or maybe not.  That could be what much of the plot depends on (i.e. finding ways to improve on the design so it could be produced cheaply enough, fast enough, and in enough quantity so it could at least allow the Alliance to fight the reapers on better terms).

This is just one possible example.

-Polaris

[tevix]

@David

You would be a terrible military leader.

Nothing is off the table when facing something like the reapers. Whoever built it lost, but was still able to procure the resources and secure the region from reaper assault long enough to create and fire it. They obviously had advanced tech. The cannon should be studied.

[David7204]

Apparently, you think magic is on the table and military leaders should consider that? Because magic is the only way that gun is going to be working on any practical level. Basic physics says it isn't going to work.

IanPolaris wrote...
As for the others, maybe it's practical or maybe not.

It's not practical. That's really the end of it.

Modifié par David7204, 11 mai 2013 - 09:00 .

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

No, it certainly isn't. I'm not a weapons expert, but I do understand a bit of physics.

The energy such a gun would require would be beyond your comprehension. We're talking dozens and dozens of entire cities of power plants. Entire fleets of ships to gather fuel. The heat from a single shot would melt millions of tons of metal into slag. The recoil from firing such a weapon would be titantic. It would literally knock the entire planet out of it's orbit.

No. It's off the table.

First of all, Themodynamics in Mass Effect is dodgy at best.  I would also posit that if you have a rail-gun hooked up with a mass effect generator, you could get much more KE than you might expect.  [Yes this plays hob with energy conservation, but much of the Mass Effect Physics is dodgy at best].  I also point out that the protheans were able to harness the energy of fast rotating black holes to allow for a stable zone near the galactic core.  That sort of technology would permit the sort of power you are talking about.

I note that even 'conventional Thanix Canons made since Sovereign, can and do damage Reaper Capital ships, and those can be powered by powerplants by ships as small as fighters.

So no, it's not off the table.  Not automatically.  It's one of those logistical and engineering problems that would need to be examined.

-Polaris

[IanPolaris]

David7204 wrote...

Apparently, you think magic is on the table and military leaders should consider that? Because magic is the only way that gun is going to be working on any practical level. Basic physics says it isn't going to work.

IanPolaris wrote...
As for the others, maybe it's practical or maybe not.

It's not practical. That's really the end of it.

[Citation Needed]

-Polaris

Edit PS:  We know that it was fired at least once and it killed at least one Reaper, so it's at least *possible*

Modifié par IanPolaris, 11 mai 2013 - 09:02 .

[tevix]

I said "studied" not "mass produced".

Besides, you're head-canoning the living daylights out of this gun. We know very little about it. For all we know the creators had the technology to stabilize it, or make it more efficient than you think.

We just don't know. It was a point of interest dropped into oblivion.

[Megaton_Hope]

Morlath wrote...

Where is this gun?

Even if they had working plans how many guns like what you're suggesting could be made in six months? Enough to take out a thousand Reapers?

Cerberus does know where it is, according to the Illusive Man. Allegedly it burned out or it's been reduced to a non-functional condition over time. Should provide some clues to how it originally worked with some study, though. (Way it was described makes it sound like a linear accelerator that uses mass effect fields to propel a projectile somehow, like a much larger version of Shepard's rifle.)

Cerberus also had quite a bit longer than six months. They didn't discover the Reaper corpse after Shepard takes part in Arrival, their researchers had died before Shepard was even awakened, presumably. Potentially as much as two-and-a-half years, maybe even more, since no mention is made of when the derelict was discovered orbiting the brown dwarf.

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

If TIM could find it by reverse targeting from Klendagon (sp?), then the Alliance should be able to find it as well.  We know it still exists (or at least did in ME2).  As for the others, maybe it's practical or maybe not.  That could be what much of the plot depends on (i.e. finding ways to improve on the design so it could be produced cheaply enough, fast enough, and in enough quantity so it could at least allow the Alliance to fight the reapers on better terms).

This is just one possible example.

-Polaris

TIM didn't care about the casualties of his reverse-engineering.

A game couldn't depend on the character finding enough resources, people and improvements to one weapon, building large enough mass production factories and then making the things so that they protect the entire galaxy as a war is waging. For starters, that story makes no sense at all.

[David7204]

You're talking to me about physics and in the same breath suggesting this as a solution?

Also, I dunno where you heard about the Protheans 'harness the energy of fast rotating black holes.' I've never heard a damn thing about that. I'd be interesting in hearing you explain that to me.

[Morlath]

IanPolaris wrote...

First of all, Themodynamics in Mass Effect is dodgy at best.  I would also posit that if you have a rail-gun hooked up with a mass effect generator, you could get much more KE than you might expect.  [Yes this plays hob with energy conservation, but much of the Mass Effect Physics is dodgy at best].  I also point out that the protheans were able to harness the energy of fast rotating black holes to allow for a stable zone near the galactic core.  That sort of technology would permit the sort of power you are talking about.

-Polaris

The journal in (at least) ME1 talks about how even with the mass effect cores for guns, it essentially still comes down to recoil vs power.