267 réponses à ce sujet

[shillyard]

__________

As soon as I heard about the Crucible I groaned a little bit.  It
was obviously going to be the Deus ex Machina...the God Machine, that
saved the day.  In retrospect, though, how else could the series end
except WITH a Deus ex Machina?  Conventional victory was impossible,
there were no allies who could take on the Reapers 1v1.  No, it had to
be something contrived.  I had figured the Crucible would shoot out a
beam that traveled along the relays and destroyed the Reapers.  I wasn't
expecting there to be a choice on whether that beam destroyed,
controlled, or mutated everyone.
__________

First note is I haven't played the DLC's.

My issue with ME3 actually wasn't so much the ending, as the logic in doing all the
other missions.  In ME1, why and what Shepherd was doing seemed reasonable enough,
with the only time I went huh, was when the conduit teleported him into a well traffiicked
area of the Citidel--my thought was that Saren was a well respected Spectre until recently,
he could have came here any time; what's the deal with having to track down the conduit.

In ME3, this happened time after time.  Crucible?  No way, obviously a reaper trap.  Getting
Turian help to defend earth?  But they can't even protect Palaven.  Cure the Genophage to
get Krogan help? But a main part of the story is that the Krogan have been militarily neutered
because they tried to take over the galaxy....  Basically, it was made clear that you can't beat
the reapers directly yet practically every other mission is trying to get resources together
to do that.  With the others to build a device who's existence makes no sense.

Part of the issue is that in a starship war, a commando team is essentially no help
(sorry Grunt, no matter how much ammo you have you will be no help in killing a
reaper), and since the reapers were essentially set up as unbeatable even by the
various fleets, displomacy won't be any help either.

However, I thought there was an easy way around that.  After all, the point of ME1
was keeping the Citadel from reaper control.  That was something that apparently
had not happened in all the other reaper invasions.  Instead of making the Citadel
the home of some mysterious intelligence, Shepherd could have spent ME3 investigating
and eventually taking full control if it and the mass relays--after all, if the Citadel can
bring in the Reapers from deep space it could certainly be possible to kick the reapers
back out into deep space (or into a sun or whatever).

My reason for the existence of the reapers would have also been more straightforward:
use of the mass effect will eventually rip apart the galaxy (after all, it allows faster
than light travel and stuff).  The reapers were put together to stamp out the technology
as it was impossible to get it's use stopped any other way.  Seems to agree with their
behavior.  Sleep in dark space (after all, they use the technology), but leave the
relays and one scout.  Once a civilization discovers the mass effect, one of the
first things that happens is they find a relay and make their way to the Citadel.  Mass
effect use therefore noted by the reapers, time to stomp it out.

[David7204]

The Crucible being a Reaper trap makes very little sense. Why would the Reapers have organics build a trap for them? Why not just build it themselves and hide it somewhere?

Infantry matters. It matters today, in an age of B-2s and F-35s, and it will matter in the future, starships or no.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mai 2013 - 12:14 .

[KaiserShep]

Not to mention that the reapers use ground forces to meet their goal. By themselves, they can do tons of damage, but they would be unable to hunt people down. They'd have to just blanket planets with nukes.

[shillyard]

_______
The Crucible being a Reaper trap makes very little sense. Why would the Reapers have organics build a trap for them? Why not just build it themselves and hide it somewhere?

Infantry matters. It matters today, in an age of B-2s and F-35s, and it will matter in the future, starships or no.
-------------

Not to mention that the reapers use ground forces to meet their goal. By themselves, they can do tons of damage, but they would be unable to hunt people down. They'd have to just blanket planets with nukes.
___________


My first thought on hearing about the Crucible was trap:  look at all the handy relays and
this really cool abandoned space station...oops.  Hey, look at these plans for what seem
to be a superweapon.  Not only that, but plans that have been worked on by many consecutive
species since wiped out by the reapers.  I mean, cmon.  Maybe plans could make it one
or two cycles--odds of something discovered by the next cycle but not by the reapers, who, remember
will indoctrinate you if you are not careful--but many cycles, no way.  If such plans exist
it is because the they let them or want them to.

What sort of trap, I don't know since I think the idea is stupid after all, but it could be
something like a backup if the Citadel didn't work.  Hey, lets build the thing in these
plans.  Ooops, it seems to have teleported a bunch of giant machines into our midst.

As far as infantry, if the goal is to destroy a planet, all you need to do with the
power of ME3 starships is drop an asteroid on it.  The reapers were apparently after
the people and keeping the planet habitable.  Easy enough, create husks and indoctrinate
others.  If the inhabitants can't destroy the reaper, which infantry can't, they will eventually
be overwhelmed.  As a matter of fact, the better the infantry the better husks they
can make (banshee's etc) and the faster it will go.

[Nightdragon8]

that and they didn't want to destory the enveroment too much because remember they are in the besniuss of only killing the smart ones not the ones pre spaceflight. also why wouldn't ou let the envorment stay stable, it lets new organic life forms evolving.

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
I had a thought experiment along those lines. Let's say we have two Destroy options available. One is your alternative Destroy. The other is using the Crucible to detonate the Citadel relay, thus wiping out the bulk of the Reapers, 90% or so of the human race, all the ME2 squadmates and, of course, Shepard. (Contrive enough Reapers being in-system to make the ensuing conventional war winnable, with additional massive casualties but no outright genocides)

How would they rank?

I'm also going to assume there was no "Take Back Earth" marketing strategy in this scenario.

Here are the differences I see illustrated in your scenario: 1) the collateral damage makes more sense, detonation destruction instead of magic synthetic designation, and 2) the fact that it doesn't targets synthetics makes it less unintentionally racist and does not undermine Rannoch or the interpretation of Destroy as "letting organics and synthetics work things out themselves".

In such a case, I'd still think the sacrifice is overkill, but I would certainly have been less confused which is a good thing.

[AlanC9]

Losing Take Back Earth is a good idea anyway. I like the idea of the PC finding out that the supposed goal of his mission isn't actually worth achieving, but the war is about the Reapers, not Earth.

[David7204]

There has to be some kind of actual concrete goal for Shepard set down at the beginning. Some goal for the allied fleets. If not Earth, then what?

[AlanC9]

The concrete goal is uniting the galaxy to build and deploy the Crucible, obviously. Won't work for marketing, but I don't see why you need to express the PC's concrete goal in the marketing; a lot of games don't.

[David7204]

That is not a good idea.

Devoting a lot of the galaxies resources into the Crucible is one thing. And lots of players hated it, and not without reason. Explicitly devoting all of the galaxies' resources into the Crucible is another thing entirely.

Modifié par David7204, 31 mai 2013 - 06:08 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The entire galaxy was under attack. At least the "southern" section was. The Asari were not feeling the brunt of the attack yet. Neither were the Salarians. I don't think it would have been quite as simple as ONE council meeting to decide the fate of the galaxy in reality. There would have been meeting after meeting of the Council while this matter was being discussed and debated to death.

There are other things to consider as well...

* Liara, being a Prothean expert, would probably know that Temple of Athame inside and out, especially having a PhD in Archaeology from the University of Serrice, and how many times she uses "Goddess". One can assume since her mother was a Matriarch and a powerful one it is likely that she'd seen that place inside since she was a small child. So why didn't she meet with Tevos after the Council meeting while Shepard was meeting with Udina? The writings indicate something is there. She would know that. Why not? Drama. That's the only reason. It removes the KL - Shepard fight.

* Then if Shepard has that missing piece of information from the Asari, Udina might feel less frustrated and not sell out to Cerberus. Face the facts, Udina was feeling helpless. The Illusive Man probably told him that he had a way of saving Earth, and a way of controlling the Reapers, and that all he needed was to gain control of the Citadel to do it.

But these stories are like the fantasy stories. We fought the battle for the Elves and made peace with the Werewolves or sided with one or the other (Quarians and Geth); We got rid of the curse of the Dwarves (Krogan). We failed to retrieve Andrastes Ashes (Thessia). We assaulted Denerim (Earth) and then entered Ft. Drakon (The Citadel) where we faced The Illusive Man and the Arch Demon (The Catalyst). We destroyed the Darkspawn and sacrificed ourselves OR we had used the MacGuffin (Morrigan) and survived, or brought Loghain or Alister with us and they made the fatal blow and sacrifice.

Or if DA:O had been written by Mac Walters....

http://social.biowar...9952/1#14179952

Shepard may have victories along the way, but the final confrontation will have to be on The Citadel. It's the home of the Arch Demon.

[Megaton_Hope]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...
* Liara, being a Prothean expert, would probably know that Temple of Athame inside and out, especially having a PhD in Archaeology from the University of Serrice, and how many times she uses "Goddess". One can assume since her mother was a Matriarch and a powerful one it is likely that she'd seen that place inside since she was a small child.

Erm, that's makin' some assumptions. Now, the game mentions that she'd been taken to the Temple by Benezia, but that she was a child at the time and wasn't told its true purpose. It's also likely that, this being a closely-held secret, it was breached on a need-to-know basis. When Liara was just studying Protheans, she did not need to know; she was just another academic, and this was a major military/diplomatic secret.

It's apparent that Benezia probably knew, although that does beg the question of what Benezia didn't guide Saren there after her indoctrination. But Benezia has no reason to share all of the secrets which have been divulged to her to her daughter. In fact, it's contrary to the treatment of classified intelligence to do so.

And the Asari have set a spy on Liara, as well, because they don't trust her. Possibly because she became an information broker on a sketchy colony, then went on a murderous vendetta. So her being cleared for this kind of info is unlikely. (It took 'em a while to trust Shepard, as well, they were pretty much about to be wiped out.)

[McFlurry598]

Robosexual wrote...

In answer to one of your few questions:

Silcron wrote...

is Mass Effect 3 ending as bad as we've made it look?

Noooo. The reaction to the end was probably the biggest overreaction in videogaming history. It was blown so far out of proportion it hit the stratosphere.

Stratosphere? It went farther, it went past the stratosphere, shattered through the thermosphere and created a black hole of complaints which has evolved into BSN. I loved the ending

[SpamBot2000]

McFlurry598 wrote...

Robosexual wrote...

In answer to one of your few questions:

Silcron wrote...

is Mass Effect 3 ending as bad as we've made it look?

Noooo. The reaction to the end was probably the biggest overreaction in videogaming history. It was blown so far out of proportion it hit the stratosphere.

Stratosphere? It went farther, it went past the stratosphere, shattered through the thermosphere and created a black hole of complaints which has evolved into BSN. I loved the ending

You two better be ironic on purpose. Or that's the biggest exaggeration in the entire history of the universe, by a factor of zillion!

Modifié par SpamBot2000, 31 mai 2013 - 01:30 .

[CronoDragoon]

AlanC9 wrote...
Losing Take Back Earth is a good idea anyway. I like the idea of the PC
finding out that the supposed goal of his mission isn't actually worth
achieving, but the war is about the Reapers, not Earth.

In this case the ultimate question of the series would be the willingness to favor the galactic good over the good of your own species. While I could see one interpreting the tension of the series to match such a question, ultimately I believe Mass Effect 3 realizes that such a question isn't very compelling, because it's simply a fact that each species will want to look after itself. In this regard I appreciate Mass Effect 3 because it asks rather what you can do for the galactic good given each species will be looking after itself. The fact that Shepard can unite the galaxy despite their differences and turn what is good for a species into what's good for the galaxy is what I like about Paragon Shepard.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 31 mai 2013 - 02:44 .

[AlanC9]

David7204 wrote...

That is not a good idea.

Devoting a lot of the galaxies resources into the Crucible is one thing. And lots of players hated it, and not without reason. Explicitly devoting all of the galaxies' resources into the Crucible is another thing entirely.

Not following you at all. I didn't advocate changing anything except the marketing. The galaxy wouldn't know anything more about the Crucible's function.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 mai 2013 - 04:59 .

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

In this case the ultimate question of the series would be the willingness to favor the galactic good over the good of your own species. While I could see one interpreting the tension of the series to match such a question, ultimately I believe Mass Effect 3 realizes that such a question isn't very compelling, because it's simply a fact that each species will want to look after itself. In this regard I appreciate Mass Effect 3 because it asks rather what you can do for the galactic good given each species will be looking after itself. The fact that Shepard can unite the galaxy despite their differences and turn what is good for a species into what's good for the galaxy is what I like about Paragon Shepard.

A player who won't favor good for everyone over good for humanity would still be able to pick Control, Synthesis, or maybe even original Destroy; I don't see a reason offhand why both versions couldn't co-exist.

Anyway, a player who won't favor galactic good over good for humanity has bad values. No reason not to make him feel bad.

[Bill Casey]

AlanC9 wrote...

What you don't got is an ending without, as you say, morally questionable choices.

The endings aren't morally questionable...
Shepard being a Spectre is morally questionable...

The endings are morally abhorrent...