1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

IanPolaris wrote...

I disagree.  First of all, if this was all planned out, then why would the reapers even bother decapitating the galactic governments and shutting down the relays at all?  This is good tactics, but only if you think that a unified opposition is an actual threat.  Otherwise you just go in and harvest and "game over".  Not only that, but the fact that Sovereign could be destroyed by conventional weapons, the Reapers DO sleep for most of the cycle and do so in the safety of Dark Space, and the fact the Reapers DO feel a need to have a sentinel to watch over things "just in case" tell me that the original Devs clearly intended the Reapers to be extremely powerful, but ultimately beatable (and yes I mean conventionally beatable).

Not to mention the entire point of bringing the Heretic geth along was becasue Sovereign was not invincible and could be destroyed by the Citadel fleet if he didn't bring backup.

[remydat]

IanPolaris wrote...

If you are in fact unbeatable by conventional means, then tactics and strategy are completely irrelevent.  There would be no point in having the Reapers waste their time and effort (and energy) to shut down anything.  They'd just move in and harvest.

That clearly isn't the case.  If you use clever tactics to weaken the enemy, the implication is that you think the enemy at least has the hypothetical chance of defeating you (or at least inflicint unsustainable losses) if you don't do this.  This is not the mindset of an invulnerable and undefeatable army.

I don't think you do.   Given enough weapons upgrades, enough time to prepare, perhaps some vulnerabilities that we didn't know about in ME1, and there is no reason to think the Reapers aren't ultimately beatable after ME1.  We simply know that we have to improve our odds and do so in a hurry at the end of ME1.

-Polaris

This is illogical.  Whether I am unbeatable or not does not change the fact I want to win as efficiently and effectively as possible.  We know the Reapers want to win efficiently because it is stated in the game that is the entire point of the mass relays.  To speed up time between cycles and allow them to efficiently harvest.  The most efficient method to harvest is by destroying the enemies leaders and military.  Once you do that, the war is pretty much over. 

There was no way Saddaam Hussein could defeat the US conventionally but that did not prevent the US from employing tactics and strategy.  This is like saying because Saddam killed a single US soldier that must mean that given enough time and resources he can beat the entire U.S. Army.  We beat a single Reaper.  Proves jack sh*t except a single Reaper can be defeated by an entire fleet.  That sure bodes well when we have to take on tens of thousands of them, lol.

[remydat]

iakus wrote...

Not to mention the entire point of bringing the Heretic geth along was becasue Sovereign was not invincible and could be destroyed by the Citadel fleet if he didn't bring backup.

Yes a single Reaper is vulnerable without back-up.  An army of Reapers is an entirely different story. If the combined Reaper Army attacked a single planet en mass, they are toast.  Further, if the Reapers were not interested in harvesting (a fact we don't know about in ME1), they could easily win the war without using ground forces and just blasting a planet from space for sending an asteroid on a collision course.

So no ME1 made it perfectly clear to me the task is damn near impossible.  The only reason the crucible even works as a weapon is because the Reapers are not actually trying to exterminate but rather harvest which again is not something we know about in ME1.  The whole concept of harvesting was a means to weaken the Reapers by giving them a reason not to once again simply blast us from space.  

Modifié par remydat, 11 mai 2013 - 07:04 .

[jstme]

remydat wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

If you are in fact unbeatable by conventional means, then tactics and strategy are completely irrelevent.  There would be no point in having the Reapers waste their time and effort (and energy) to shut down anything.  They'd just move in and harvest.

That clearly isn't the case.  If you use clever tactics to weaken the enemy, the implication is that you think the enemy at least has the hypothetical chance of defeating you (or at least inflicint unsustainable losses) if you don't do this.  This is not the mindset of an invulnerable and undefeatable army.

I don't think you do.   Given enough weapons upgrades, enough time to prepare, perhaps some vulnerabilities that we didn't know about in ME1, and there is no reason to think the Reapers aren't ultimately beatable after ME1.  We simply know that we have to improve our odds and do so in a hurry at the end of ME1.

-Polaris

This is illogical.  Whether I am unbeatable or not does not change the fact I want to win as efficiently and effectively as possible.  We know the Reapers want to win efficiently because it is stated in the game that is the entire point of the mass relays.  To speed up time between cycles and allow them to efficiently harvest.  The most efficient method to harvest is by destroying the enemies leaders and military.  Once you do that, the war is pretty much over. 

There was no way Saddaam Hussein could defeat the US conventionally but that did not prevent the US from employing tactics and strategy.  This is like saying because Saddam killed a single US soldier that must mean that given enough time and resources he can beat the entire U.S. Army.  We beat a single Reaper.  Proves jack sh*t except a single Reaper can be defeated by an entire fleet.  That sure bodes well when we have to take on tens of thousands of them, lol.

But there is no need for tens of thousands of reaper ships,is there?
The only real reason for lack of conventional victory is that Bioware did not want to write one.
 Reapers in ME3 were buffed even further (it takes galaxy biggest fleet,fully mobilised and combat ready and tested to take down destroyer now,opposite to much smaller fleet taking down Geth fleet + reaper dreadnaught). ME2 technological gains - disregarded. 6 months of precious time - thrown out of an airlock. Protheans fought reapers for more then a century while totally unprepared ,cut off from the start and separated -  and what we do get from their superior technology:  a cynical troll Javik and device with unknown function that is not even Prothean.
Conventional victory is possible if Reapers were nerfed a bit (stating that Sovereign was toughest reaper evar) ,ME2 technology was actually strategically deployed, "we dismissed this claim" council would prepare in those 6 months betwee ME2 and ME3. Finding during ME3 few Prothean buffs,uniting all races and utilising AI race as an ally strategical 
advantage (not to mention using Cerberus research or Leviathan technology to nullify indoctrinaion)  could have resulted in plausible conventional victory scenario.

[remydat]

jstme wrote...

But there is no need for tens of thousands of reaper ships,is there?
The only real reason for lack of conventional victory is that Bioware did not want to write one.
 Reapers in ME3 were buffed even further (it takes galaxy biggest fleet,fully mobilised and combat ready and tested to take down destroyer now,opposite to much smaller fleet taking down Geth fleet + reaper dreadnaught). ME2 technological gains - disregarded. 6 months of precious time - thrown out of an airlock. Protheans fought reapers for more then a century while totally unprepared ,cut off from the start and separated -  and what we do get from their superior technology:  a cynical troll Javik and device with unknown function that is not even Prothean.
Conventional victory is possible if Reapers were nerfed a bit (stating that Sovereign was toughest reaper evar) ,ME2 technology was actually strategically deployed, "we dismissed this claim" council would prepare in those 6 months betwee ME2 and ME3. Finding during ME3 few Prothean buffs,uniting all races and utilising AI race as an ally strategical 
advantage (not to mention using Cerberus research or Leviathan technology to nullify indoctrinaion)  could have resulted in plausible conventional victory scenario.

Well sure, it is a ficational universe so any writer can write anything they want.  However, at the end of ME1, we know it took damn near an entire fleet to take down Sovereign.  We know there are more of them coming as that was the point of Sovereign's mission.  We know there are more Geth behind the PV and at this point we don't know the Geth we encountered were heretics.

So sure, a writer could have written his way out of it if he chose but I am not debating that.  I am debating the idea that it was somehow unforeseen that a conventional victory was not possible or that it was obvious the writers changed the story to make conventional victory impossible.  That is simply not supported by ME1 where we needed an entire fleet to take down a single Reaper and when the ending hints an army of Reapers are on the way and there are still more Geth behind the PV and as far as we know the Reapers coming may just come here and start blowing up planets.  Sovereign was basically a single Reaper scout who was suppose to open the door for the army.

[AlanC9]

IanPolaris wrote...
I disagree.  First of all, if this was all planned out, then why would the reapers even bother decapitating the galactic governments and shutting down the relays at all?  This is good tactics, but only if you think that a unified opposition is an actual threat.

Depends on the definition of "actual threat." Killing a wild boar, or even a cow, can be fairly hazardous if you don't follow proper procedures. But building slaughterhouses doesn't mean that we're in any danger of losing a war with cows.

I strongly disagree.  ME1 and even parts of ME2 (Thanix Guns, Klendagon Railgun) tell me that the Devs had intended to make the Reapers ultimately beatable.

I don't see any evidence in ME1 one way or the other. Except that Sovereign seems hellaciously tough, but that may have just been Bio overdoing it. My take on ME2 is that they wanted to even the balance a little so a bunch of Sovereigns wouldn't curbstomp the galaxy out of hand.

Anyway, Bio's been pretty upfront that they hadn't thought too much about the ending one way or the other before actually starting on ME3. And there's never been any version of the ME3 plot - even the dropped dark energy plot - that went to a conventional victory.

[Bill Casey]

They completely ignore that they turned the main character and the player into one of three flavors of "complete monster" after letting them play as a hero...

That's not bittersweet; that's soul crushingly disturbing...

How do they not get this?

Modifié par Bill Casey, 11 mai 2013 - 07:31 .

[Morlath]

- It takes the entire Alliance fleet to defeat Sovereign.
- It takes the mother of all thresher maws to defeat the Reaper on Tuchanka.
- It takes the entire Migrant fleet with Shepard on-sight to take down the Reaper on Rannoch.
- Priority: Earth needs missiles right down a Reaper's throat in order to beat it or a Cain aimed at a sweet spot.
- In space the Reapers' aren't taking energy away from their Kinetic Barriers in order to use their mass effect systems.

The consistency is mostly there when it comes to just how tough the Reapers are.

[Morlath]

AlanC9 wrote...

Anyway, Bio's been pretty upfront that they hadn't thought too much about the ending one way or the other before actually starting on ME3. And there's never been any version of the ME3 plot - even the dropped dark energy plot - that went to a conventional victory.

And I want to talk about this before someone else brings up a complaint.

It's a total fallacy that you have to know how a creative piece ends before starting it. Some artists do better with a plan, some prefer to let the story and characters actually show the writers what happens at the end and some do a mixture of the two.

It's ignorance to blame any writing issues on the fact the ending wasn't worked on pre-ME3, just like it's ignorance to blame any plot holes or loose ends on the same deal. While making a series can provide its own unique issues, writing the ending at the end is not the reason why something does or doesn't fail.

[jstme]

Morlath wrote...

1- It takes the entire Alliance fleet to defeat Sovereign.
2- It takes the mother of all thresher maws to defeat the Reaper on Tuchanka.
3- It takes the entire Migrant fleet with Shepard on-sight to take down the Reaper on Rannoch.
4- Priority: Earth needs missiles right down a Reaper's throat in order to beat it or a Cain aimed at a sweet spot.
5- In space the Reapers' aren't taking energy away from their Kinetic Barriers in order to use their mass effect systems.

The consistency is mostly there when it comes to just how tough the Reapers are.

There is no consistency.

1 - ME1: It takes 1 Alliance fleet to take down Geth fleet and Reaper Dreadnaught,Alliance fleet suffers few losses.
2- ME3: Giant worm takes down reaper destroyer.
3- ME3:it takes entire Quarian (so much larger then Alliance fleet from ME1) fleet to take down reaper destroyer.
4- ME3: it takes few missiles to take down reaper destroyer.
consistency mostly where?
5- So what?

[chemiclord]

Morlath wrote...

And I want to talk about this before someone else brings up a complaint.

It's a total fallacy that you have to know how a creative piece ends before starting it. Some artists do better with a plan, some prefer to let the story and characters actually show the writers what happens at the end and some do a mixture of the two.

It's ignorance to blame any writing issues on the fact the ending wasn't worked on pre-ME3, just like it's ignorance to blame any plot holes or loose ends on the same deal. While making a series can provide its own unique issues, writing the ending at the end is not the reason why something does or doesn't fail.

Sure, it's POSSIBLE to compose a great story without a framework, writing by the seat of your pants.  I work with such a guy who's basically been winging it for ten+ years.  It's certainly DOABLE, but it requires a very refined set of skills to be able to keep details straight and all the story threads in order.  It's VERY difficult to pull off effectively.

I had NEVER thought Bioware's writing team had those skills to do it, and neither ME2 or ME3 gave me any reason to doubt that assessment.

For most of us, the only way to keep a story on track and coherent is to have a framework in place.  I liken storytelling in that regard to growing ivy.  It may not follow your frame cleanly... it may twist and wind around, then jump a corner and start growing down the banister; but without that framework laid, it doesn't grow at all.  It's just an unsightly mess.

Modifié par chemiclord, 11 mai 2013 - 08:22 .

[CueEllTee]

The ending was abysmal and completely nonsensical, probably because two people wrote it at the last minute with no feedback from every other writer who worked on the game.

The moral of the story? Let your excellent writing staff at least have input in the narrative your games at all times, regardless of your personal "artistic vision."

If they've learned that lesson, then I'd be more than happy to buy their stuff until Judgement Day.

[Morlath]

chemiclord wrote...

Sure, it's POSSIBLE to compose a great story without a framework, writing by the seat of your pants.  I work with such a guy who's basically been winging it for ten+ years.  It's certainly DOABLE, but it requires a very refined set of skills to be able to keep details straight and all the story threads in order.  It's VERY difficult to pull off effectively.

For most of us, the only way to keep a story on track and coherent is to have a framework in place.  I liken storytelling in that regard to growing ivy.  It may not follow your frame cleanly... it may twist and wind around, then jump a corner and start growing down the banister; but without that framework laid, it doesn't grow at all.  It's just an unsightly mess.

Again it's down to each individual writer on their own style and none are better than the rest. It's not as if the stories themselves don't get worked on once the initial draft is completed so starting at the beginning of ME3 without knowing how you want to end it is not a bad thing in and of itself.

And it's not "flying by the seat of your pants" to write in that way. Some writers don't even put that a framwork until after their initial concept has been finished from end to end and they can still create some brilliant works.

[N7Gold]

Again, they underestimated how much we cared about the characters... I thought they already learned this when they made Tali and Garrus romanceable in ME2.

[EagleScoutDJB]

I hope the next game is great. I don't trust EA and won't be buying it but I still hope that Bioware redeems themselves with the next Mass Effect.

[Megaton_Hope]

Morlath wrote...

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.

The solution doesn't have to be a singular gun, dood.

Even if they're only good to be fired once, one shot one kill should be good enough for Reapers, who are powerful but not exactly numerous. Trick is convincing people to build enough of them and put them where they need to be for defense of a given planet/system/relay from the next Reaper. Which could come up in ME2 or ME3 as an option. Perhaps one of several options with different results.

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.

No big deal. Artillery handles that like this:



The gun body is allowed to propel itself backward as it fires, providing the "equal and opposite reaction" without, for example, shaking to pieces. Because the gun body is an enormously heavy piece of steel, it absorbs quite a lot of energy this way.

[TheRealJayDee]

Morlath wrote...

And I want to talk about this before someone else brings up a complaint.

It's a total fallacy that you have to know how a creative piece ends before starting it. Some artists do better with a plan, some prefer to let the story and characters actually show the writers what happens at the end and some do a mixture of the two.

It's ignorance to blame any writing issues on the fact the ending wasn't worked on pre-ME3, just like it's ignorance to blame any plot holes or loose ends on the same deal. While making a series can provide its own unique issues, writing the ending at the end is not the reason why something does or doesn't fail.

It's one thing to make things up as you go when writing a book or screenplays or comics. It's a little risky, but it's entirely doable and the preferred method for some people, no doubt. 

It's probably also possible to not plan ahead when making a trilogy of games, with an ongoing story that is supposedly heavily influenced by player input. Too bad that Mass Effect ended up being an example of this method not working.
 
Things like going from "Yeah, we made an awesome ending with this Suicide Mission in ME2!" to "OMG, the variables in ME3, how could we do something like that?" - problematic imo. I'm not saying the method by itself is the root of every problem of the trilogy's narrative, but it sure as hell didn't help.

Modifié par TheRealJayDee, 11 mai 2013 - 09:08 .

[Morlath]

TheRealJayDee wrote...

It's one thing to make things up as you go when writing a book or screenplays or comics. It's a little risky, but it's entirely doable and the preferred method for some people, no doubt. 

It's probably also possible to not plan ahead when making a trilogy of games, with an ongoing story that is supposedly heavily influenced by player input. Too bad that Mass Effect ended up being an example of this method not working.
Things like going from "Yeah, we made an awesome ending with this Suicide Mission in ME2!" to "OMG, the variables in ME3, how could we do something like that?" - problematic imo. I'm not saying the method by itself is the root of every problem of the trilogy's narrative, but it sure as hell didn't help.

Except for the most part people seem to have no problem with the majority of ME3 when you take out the last five/ten minutes.

I think one problem is the intense emphasis the players have one wanting every single decision to make a major difference rather than only the major ones. Some decisions just don't impact a galactic war.

[Megaton_Hope]

Even the major decisions, like committing genocide, don't have an impact. Look at what you can do to the Rachni on Noveria. No impact whatsoever. Even though the choice is between unleashing a race capable of interstellar travel back into the universe, or exterminating their last queen, which presumably means they can no longer breed. If you take that second option, there's still a goddamn queen breeding new Rachni, created from narrative nothing-space because they didn't want the choice to matter.

Or overwriting the hostile Geth, pressuring the Quarian Admirals to make peace (along with support from the crowd), those do nothing as well. There are hostile Geth, because the Quarians go to war and make all the Geth hostile.

Or making Anderson the Councilor, does nothing because Udina becomes the ****ing Councilor anyway.

[remydat]

But that is precisely how life works sometimes. Sometimes you make a decision thinking it will have far reaching consequences but realise that in the end it didn't matter much. And the reverse is true. Sometimes you make what you think are minor decisions and they end up having more importance than you ever anticipated.

Those decisions matter regardless though because they impact you morally. I didn't save the Rachni Queen because I expected some big payoff. I saved her because morally it was the right choice for me. In any event, there are still consequences just not as massive as you apparently wanted. Saving the Rachni Queen that you saved on Noveria ends up benefitting the war. Saving the fake Rachni Queen results in her eventually betraying you.

[Megaton_Hope]

Usually the result of genocide is genocide, though! You don't normally get a mulligan on that one.

[MasterShepardN7]

Wow if they think it's because of our attachment to the characters they've learned nothing. I mean seriously I'm not going to open that can of craziness again, but to nutshell it people were upset by the lack of a good/well structured ending, plot holes, inconsistency, etc. The list goes on and on. I mean come on character attachment? Don't get me wrong there were many good characters, but that was nothing in comparison to the real problems. Maybe there really isn't too much hope for the future of this series after all. That and if ea keeps ****ing everything up too. *sigh*

[remydat]

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Usually the result of genocide is genocide, though! You don't normally get a mulligan on that one.

There was no mulligan.  If I commit genocide, the fact that unbeknownst to me there were other members of the group I exterminated doesn't magically mean the people I killed are ressurected.  They are still dead and I still committed genocide.

[The Night Mammoth]

Morlath wrote...
Except for the most part people seem to have no problem with the majority of ME3 when you take out the last five/ten minutes.

I think one problem is the intense emphasis the players have one wanting every single decision to make a major difference rather than only the major ones. Some decisions just don't impact a galactic war.

I know it doesn't make a difference now, but I'm pretty certain the writers admitted that they didn't properly think through making so many new characters, and then making it possible for them all to die, so found it much more difficult when going into ME3, having to bring them back and account for the different permutations. 

[Megaton_Hope]

remydat wrote...

Megaton_Hope wrote...

Usually the result of genocide is genocide, though! You don't normally get a mulligan on that one.

There was no mulligan.  If I commit genocide, the fact that unbeknownst to me there were other members of the group I exterminated doesn't magically mean the people I killed are ressurected.  They are still dead and I still committed genocide.

She was actually manufactured by the Reapers. A monster shaped to make hollow children...by the machines.

So basically it was a successful genocide, except that the good fairy came along afterward and made a new one.

Well, the bad fairy. The Reapers are bad.