748 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

Its not about that. i wrote what is logical and what isnt logical. thats a completly different thing.
Bioware showed us one thread of what could have happen.
I speak in term of logic of what should have happened 


And you should really avoid of giving bioware too much credit for their story telling coherence after the normandy evac scene

Modifié par erezike, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:20 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

erezike wrote...

Exactly! People choose one of the three options regardless of what they know of the catalyst because they know its a game. while you think shepards who refuse are idiots.

No offense, but this strikes me as exactly what you're doing.

"This is a game, so everything will turn out for the best". Hell, you all but confirmed it with your little speech about being raised on Disney stories.

I think shepards who believe the catalyst will turn them over the keys for destroy and control are naives

Big difference being:

My Shepard never thought conventional victory was on the table, so it made sense to throw all his resources at said half-baked plan. Once we're hit by the Catalyst revelation, he realizes this is all he has left.

Your Shepard apparently thought we could win conventionally this entire time but still threw all his resources at said half-baked plan and now still wants to try for a  conventional victory, which was desperate to start with.

One of these characters is not fit to lead.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:23 .

[Erez Kristal]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

erezike wrote...

Exactly! People choose one of the three options regardless of what they know of the catalyst because they know its a game. while you think shepards who refuse are idiots.

No offense, but this strikes me as exactly what you're doing.

"This is a game, so everything will turn out for the best". Hell, you all but confirmed it with your little speech about being raised on Disney stories.

I think shepards who believe the catalyst will turn them over the keys for destroy and control are naives

Big difference being:

My Shepard never thought conventional victory was on the table, so it made sense to throw all his resources at said half-baked plan. Once we're hit by the Catalyst revelation, he realizes this is all he has left.

Your Shepard apparently thought we could win conventionally this entire time but still threw all his resources at said half-baked plan and now still wants to try for a  conventional victory, which was desperate to start with.

One of these characters is not fit to lead.

If you think this is what im doing, then you missed out on all of my points.
I am aware everyone will most likely die, but i think that all evidence show that if shepard pick destroy or control that the chances of galactic defeat will be greater. synthesis is to surrender which poses a different question entirely

My shepard was forced to the crucible plan by his idiotic superiors, hacket who sold him out and kept him in the brig, and anderson who launched an assault on shepard former allies, cerberus and pushed them to their ruin.
Two idiots and he was helpless to do anything.

But he tried to make the best out of it. Like he always does.

Modifié par erezike, 15 juillet 2013 - 07:32 .

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...
Now you are talking about the chances of the next cycle.
But this cycle is still in and is still fighting.
now we are talking about chances of success.
While i think there a very little and tiny chance of success for refuse. you think its doesnt exist.

Just like I dont believe it exist for destroy and control. while synthesis is agreeing to surrender

By "I don't believe" you mean your Shepards don't believe, right. You know better, or at least you should.

[Erez Kristal]

Nitpicking, alan i expected better of you :-)

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

Nitpicking, alan i expected better of you :-)

I stopped taking you seriously about five pages back, true. But some of your posts upthread were quasi-IT, to the point where I'm not at all certain that you do know better about what happens in Refuse.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 juillet 2013 - 08:34 .

[Erez Kristal]

AlanC9 wrote...

erezike wrote...

Nitpicking, alan i expected better of you :-)

I stopped taking you seriously about five pages back, true. But some of your posts upthread were quasi-IT, to the point where I'm not at all certain that you do know better about what happens in Refuse.

  

Lets have a meta gaming analysis shall we? since thats what seem popular around here.

You pick refuse, shepard say he will say he will fight the reaper child on his own terms.
Reaper child is furious. scene is getting dark,
You see liara talking on a memory capsule. you assume someone is listening at some time ahead in the future. 
It looks like a bunker. liara tells all she knows about the war.

You see hear a woman next to a forest telling a story to a child about the shepard.
you dont know how. but the cycles ended.

Everything from here is open to interperation.

But all this meta-gaming talks are irreleant. all that matters is what you know when you make the decision.
The writers could then take it to whatever point they wish. and we are free to bash or praise them for it.
but this thread was never about praise or bash. it was about making the right decision, the most logical one from shep point of view.
and it all falls down to those 3 question i ask not long ago.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

the options are given by the crucible,not the catalyst.The Catalyst simply explains your options

[Erez Kristal]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

the options are given by the crucible,not the catalyst.The Catalyst simply explains your options

how do you know?

[dorktainian]

organics are saved!

they are saved as data. Ever noticed how similar the collector pods are to the VI shep steps into to enter the geth consensus?

Organics are saved as data - and then their bodies are pulped (destroyed) and used as reaper goo.

Salvation (as data) through destruction (yay they're saving us all.....in a matrix type virtual reality)

hense the cutscenes in the extended cut. Nothing matters because no matter what you choose you end up as a part of a reaper VR.

now thats meta gaming.

[IntelligentME3Fanboy]

erezike wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

the options are given by the crucible,not the catalyst.The Catalyst simply explains your options

how do you know?

it's simple.Think of it as a lamp.Like a lamp needs electricity to function,the crucible needs the citadel to function

[Erez Kristal]

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

erezike wrote...

IntelligentME3Fanboy wrote...

the options are given by the crucible,not the catalyst.The Catalyst simply explains your options

how do you know?

it's simple.Think of it as a lamp.Like a lamp needs electricity to function,the crucible needs the citadel to function

I see... But if the citadel is whats give it function and crucible is what give it the energy, and the catalyst is what tcontrols the citadel then isnt it in charge?

Modifié par erezike, 15 juillet 2013 - 09:14 .

[AlanC9]

[quote]erezike wrote...


[/quote]  

Lets have a meta gaming analysis shall we? since thats what seem popular around here.[/quote]

You don't seem to understand what the term "meta-gaming" means; you should stop using it.

[quote]
You see hear a woman next to a forest telling a story to a child about the shepard.
you dont know how. but the cycles ended.

Everything from here is open to interperation.[/quote]

Not everything. Stargazer 2 specifically says that the "archives tell the true story of those who came before us," that "they fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to," that their survival is due to "the information they passed down," and that there is no information about Shepard except what's in the archives  Any interpretation has to cope with those facts.

Of course, someone without any intellectual integrity canbend his interpretation quite a bit.

[Display Name Owner]

erezike wrote...

isnudo wrote...

Then it's between 'anything can happen' and the certain extinction of this cycle and potentially every single one in the following billions of years.

And this is where we just disagree I suppose, I say "certain extinction" and you say there's a probability of survival. In my mind there is no hope whatsoever for survival besides the successful use of the Crucible. The fleets being torn up above you as you talk to the Catalyst are all the galaxy has. Turian fleets, Alliance fleets, Asari fleets,Citadel fleets, Geth/Quarian fleets (if they survived), Salarian fleets (if they joined in), mercenaries, Batarians, Rachni, Volus ships... Every one is already losing right above you when you choose Refuse. If there were any chance of those fleets winning a protracted war, which military leaders tell you more than once there isn't - and these are people who have the information Shep doesn't - it's already gone. Whatever you choose, this is the final battle, and I don't see how that's even disputable. If your choices are between taking an untrustworthy option or consigning the galaxy to it's doom, you can only take the one with the higher probability (that is - any probability at all) of working.

I was raised on stories of fighting against the odds, of avoiding submission. of few beating many.
As you count the alliance ships destroyed. i count the reapers ships destroyed.
I know its about numbers in the end, can i destroyed more reaper ships than they can build them.
It may take me 5000 years. hell it may take me 20,000.

Despite what the reapers would like you to believe they have weaknesses a lot of weaknesses.
The galaxy leaders proved to be largely incompetent throughout the war. but the strong survived and will keep the fighting on.

Right, but how many Reaper ships even were destroyed? A dozen? 2 dozen? 5? It doesn't even matter since the vast majority of their fleet is out steamrolling the galaxy whilst their defence force at Earth is crushing the galaxy's defenders. It's not about numbers lost, in this instance it's about what's left afterwards. And what's left is no Alliance ships and thousands of Reapers. The answer is no, you couldn't destroy more than they can build. Every force in the galaxy gathered up it's entire navy and threw them at Earth, and it amounted to an unsuccessful raid as far as the Reapers were concerned. Unless the Crucible is used I mean.

And who are the strong that survived? This is just it - the Hammer (or sword, I forget which is which. In fact It doesn't matter because this applies to both) forces are losing whilst Shep is talking to the Catalyst. No one survives. So they're dead, and the galaxy's leaders are trapped in the Citadel. Everyone else is busy fighting a losing battle as their worlds are ravaged.

Modifié par isnudo, 16 juillet 2013 - 12:42 .

[Archonsg]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

erezike wrote...

Exactly! People choose one of the three options regardless of what they know of the catalyst because they know its a game. while you think shepards who refuse are idiots.

No offense, but this strikes me as exactly what you're doing.

"This is a game, so everything will turn out for the best". Hell, you all but confirmed it with your little speech about being raised on Disney stories.

I think shepards who believe the catalyst will turn them over the keys for destroy and control are naives

Big difference being:

My Shepard never thought conventional victory was on the table, so it made sense to throw all his resources at said half-baked plan. Once we're hit by the Catalyst revelation, he realizes this is all he has left.

Your Shepard apparently thought we could win conventionally this entire time but still threw all his resources at said half-baked plan and now still wants to try for a  conventional victory, which was desperate to start with.

One of these characters is not fit to lead.

All of which really doesn't matter in truth. In the end,  all choices are poor for a *RPG* game. Now had Mass Effect been touted as and sold as an "action adventure" game, I'll have less of an issue with the endings. 

The difference, a RPG game is *supposed*to cater to a larger,  much larger point of views and perspective,  allowing for the the player to have agency over what happens. While in an action adventure  game,  the protagonist's role,  pov,  characterization is locked to that of the author's. 

Thus,  there *should* have been a way for the player to "win"  an *unconventional military* victory without submitting to the catalyst's will and program. 

A good deal of the problem for me at least is that,  for the most part,  the ME series is a good RPG,  but in order to force an end in view of the authors who wrote that ending,  player agency was taken away and we were given a character who replaced our own. 

When you have a significant number of people going,  "No,  my Shepard would not do that..." you have done something wrong given that the player was in control of this character's behavior for well over three games. 

This has nothing to do with this "Disney" upbringing as some of you like to throw around. 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Archonsg wrote...

All of which really doesn't matter in truth. In the end,  all choices are poor for a *RPG* game. Now had Mass Effect been touted as and sold as an "action adventure" game, I'll have less of an issue with the endings. 

The difference, a RPG game is *supposed*to cater to a larger,  much larger point of views and perspective,  allowing for the the player to have agency over what happens. While in an action adventure  game,  the protagonist's role,  pov,  characterization is locked to that of the author's. 

Thus,  there *should* have been a way for the player to "win"  an *unconventional military* victory without submitting to the catalyst's will and program. 

A good deal of the problem for me at least is that,  for the most part,  the ME series is a good RPG,  but in order to force an end in view of the authors who wrote that ending,  player agency was taken away and we were given a character who replaced our own. 

When you have a significant number of people going,  "No,  my Shepard would not do that..." you have done something wrong given that the player was in control of this character's behavior for well over three games. 

This has nothing to do with this "Disney" upbringing as some of you like to throw around. 

Hey, I'm just tossing out what seems to be described by erezike's own posts.

If your criticism is that Bioware should have made conventional victory the modus operandi in ME3, I could get behind that. There's nothing inherently Disney about winning a war, even a war against your favor, provided the writers are clever enough about it. It would have removed the last minute ass pull of the Crucible and kept things grounded.

Now, if your position is that you should have been able to win conventionally with Refuse, then sorry that's just not in the cards from how the entire game plays out. That's where the Disney ending criticism comes in. A happy ending is not what I mean about a Disney ending. A happy ending without any sense of logic or structure to it is.

Mass Effect 3 doesn't let you play a Shepard who believes in conventional victory, as evidenced by how complacent he is with the Crucible plan, even with all the best variables. Every military leader has made it clear conventional victory isn't happening. Add on top of that the take over of every major race's homeworld (bar Salarians), the Reapers having the ability to shut down the Relay Network at their whim, the Reapers' superior technology, their lack of need for supply lines, Shepard's certain death on the Citadel, and that every previous cycle has failed to stop the Reapers.

Against all that, believing we can win conventionally via Refuse is laughable, at best. As I said, if there was the smallest chance for conventional victory, Shepard blew it when they threw all their resources at the Crucible plan. If we had the resources to do it, then right after Rannoch we should have said "Screw the Crucible, let's do this the right way".

If you want to play a Shepard who believes conventional victory is possible via Refuse, then you're also playing a Shepard who chose to say absolutely nothing this entire time while everyone geared for a suicide run. In essence, Shepard is an idiot.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 16 juillet 2013 - 01:34 .

[AlanC9]

Archonsg wrote...
The difference, a RPG game is *supposed*to cater to a larger,  much larger point of views and perspective,  allowing for the the player to have agency over what happens. While in an action adventure  game,  the protagonist's role,  pov,  characterization is locked to that of the author's. 

Thus,  there *should* have been a way for the player to "win"  an *unconventional military* victory without submitting to the catalyst's will and program. 

I don't follow the "thus" there. The PC really wants to do something, and because it's an RPG he should be able to do it? 

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

Archonsg wrote...
The difference, a RPG game is *supposed*to cater to a larger,  much larger point of views and perspective,  allowing for the the player to have agency over what happens. While in an action adventure  game,  the protagonist's role,  pov,  characterization is locked to that of the author's. 

Thus,  there *should* have been a way for the player to "win"  an *unconventional military* victory without submitting to the catalyst's will and program. 

I don't follow the "thus" there. The PC really wants to do something, and because it's an RPG he should be able to do it? 

Well, in theory at least the player should have maximum control over his character's actions, without breaking the narrative being told. Of course, there's no rule that the game has to respond to whatever the player wants favorably.

Just because I have Shepard do a rain dance on the Citadel doesn't mean it has to rain. Same basic concept as the Refuse Ending.

[AlanC9]

Right. What I should have asked was whether that was a reason for the PC to succeed at something.

[Erez Kristal]

AlanC9 wrote...


You don't seem to understand what the term "meta-gaming" means; you should stop using it.

You see hear a woman next to a forest telling a story to a child about the shepard.
you dont know how. but the cycles ended.

Everything from here is open to interperation.

Not everything. Stargazer 2 specifically says that the "archives tell the true story of those who came before us," that "they fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to," that their survival is due to "the information they passed down," and that there is no information about Shepard except what's in the archives  Any interpretation has to cope with those facts.

Of course, someone without any intellectual integrity canbend his interpretation quite a bit.

What a vain an empty post, alan. i posted a referance to meta gaming, at the beginning please have a look. if you are basing your decision on the cutscenes you see afterwards, or due to knowledge that this is a video game so every thing will turn out well. then this is meta gaming.

And the part where you try to insult the intelligence. I will just have to edcuate you on this topic.
Pretend this is a real story. Liara recorded the information cach before and maybe also after the united galactic attack on the reapers on earth. all she put in there was information. different bits of information.

All that you know is that someone was watching this information.
You know nothing more about the story. absolutely nothing. 

So even if you insist on meta gaming in order to make your decision you wouldnt be able to know what is happening in the refuse ending. you can only persume.
just like can persume the cutscenes you see after shepard jumps into his death all are all pieces of his imagination due to wishful thinking.


Use logic to place your arguments not fallacies

Modifié par erezike, 16 juillet 2013 - 05:02 .

[Erez Kristal]

isnudo wrote...

erezike wrote...

isnudo wrote...

Then it's between 'anything can happen' and the certain extinction of this cycle and potentially every single one in the following billions of years.

And this is where we just disagree I suppose, I say "certain extinction" and you say there's a probability of survival. In my mind there is no hope whatsoever for survival besides the successful use of the Crucible. The fleets being torn up above you as you talk to the Catalyst are all the galaxy has. Turian fleets, Alliance fleets, Asari fleets,Citadel fleets, Geth/Quarian fleets (if they survived), Salarian fleets (if they joined in), mercenaries, Batarians, Rachni, Volus ships... Every one is already losing right above you when you choose Refuse. If there were any chance of those fleets winning a protracted war, which military leaders tell you more than once there isn't - and these are people who have the information Shep doesn't - it's already gone. Whatever you choose, this is the final battle, and I don't see how that's even disputable. If your choices are between taking an untrustworthy option or consigning the galaxy to it's doom, you can only take the one with the higher probability (that is - any probability at all) of working.

I was raised on stories of fighting against the odds, of avoiding submission. of few beating many.
As you count the alliance ships destroyed. i count the reapers ships destroyed.
I know its about numbers in the end, can i destroyed more reaper ships than they can build them.
It may take me 5000 years. hell it may take me 20,000.

Despite what the reapers would like you to believe they have weaknesses a lot of weaknesses.
The galaxy leaders proved to be largely incompetent throughout the war. but the strong survived and will keep the fighting on.

Right, but how many Reaper ships even were destroyed? A dozen? 2 dozen? 5? It doesn't even matter since the vast majority of their fleet is out steamrolling the galaxy whilst their defence force at Earth is crushing the galaxy's defenders. It's not about numbers lost, in this instance it's about what's left afterwards. And what's left is no Alliance ships and thousands of Reapers. The answer is no, you couldn't destroy more than they can build. Every force in the galaxy gathered up it's entire navy and threw them at Earth, and it amounted to an unsuccessful raid as far as the Reapers were concerned. Unless the Crucible is used I mean.

And who are the strong that survived? This is just it - the Hammer (or sword, I forget which is which. In fact It doesn't matter because this applies to both) forces are losing whilst Shep is talking to the Catalyst. No one survives. So they're dead, and the galaxy's leaders are trapped in the Citadel. Everyone else is busy fighting a losing battle as their worlds are ravaged.

you are missing the point. you expect to a quick and decisive victory. the earth fleet was built in 40 years. the geth in 300.
I am talking of a thousands years struggle.

The reapers require specific materials in order to build their new ships, while the rest of the galaxy can use every one of the billions of stars around the galaxy.

[AlexMBrennan]

I am talking of a thousands years struggle

At current casualty rates there won't be anyone left after a century.

The reapers require specific materials in order to build their new ships

We know that the reapers make more reapers from gooified humans but this is purely a side-effect of their "preserve life" mission.
We do not know that this is the only way of making reapers, and the idea that elder space cods would not know about animal husbandry is absurd (that's like saying the only way to make a bacon sandwich is to hope that single cell bacteria evolve into new pigs when you own a pig farm)

[Erez Kristal]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...


Mass Effect 3 doesn't let you play a Shepard who believes in conventional victory, as evidenced by how complacent he is with the Crucible plan, even with all the best variables. Every military leader has made it clear conventional victory isn't happening. Add on top of that the take over of every major race's homeworld (bar Salarians), the Reapers having the ability to shut down the Relay Network at their whim, the Reapers' superior technology, their lack of need for supply lines, Shepard's certain death on the Citadel, and that every previous cycle has failed to stop the Reapers.

Against all that, believing we can win conventionally via Refuse is laughable, at best. As I said, if there was the smallest chance for conventional victory, Shepard blew it when they threw all their resources at the Crucible plan. If we had the resources to do it, then right after Rannoch we should have said "Screw the Crucible, let's do this the right way".

If you want to play a Shepard who believes conventional victory is possible via Refuse, then you're also playing a Shepard who chose to say absolutely nothing this entire time while everyone geared for a suicide run. In essence, Shepard is an idiot.

 

The sad truth of when bioware takes over shepard.
Now to the point. You cannot put your personal input all the time. and not being able to put it all of the time doesnt mean you have to screw it when you do have the opportunity, my shepard didnt turn himself in or got himself captured. but still he had to clean the quarrian-geth mess bioware created in the best way. my shepard didnt abandonen cerberus and left them to be indoctrianted when going to far. but still he had to clean the mess anderson and bioware created.

My shepard didnt push for the crucible, but still he had to make the best out of it.
You cling to how helpless refuse is.
While you ignore the fact that you are nothing but a little pawn for your enemy.
How good do you think are your chances?

The Main problem here, is because bioware took control from us and forced our shepard to do idiotic things. the players got accustomed that by following bioware visions of stupidity they will get away with it. and instead of arguing for the logic of. It make sense to do what the catalyst say, hes a pal! players think. bioware crafted this plan. its a bioware game so this is the right decision....

Can you really not see how ridiculous this sound?

So please stop arguing about how hopeless refuse is.( you understand of galactic wide conflict seems to be lacking. you have not strategy for this conflict beyond your crucible plan, no plan B. while i had B,C and D) because you have no strategies other than the crucible. please only focus on what you know. 
And tell me why you think listening to a murderering star child is such a good plan

[Erez Kristal]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I am talking of a thousands years struggle

At current casualty rates there won't be anyone left after a century.

The reapers require specific materials in order to build their new ships

We know that the reapers make more reapers from gooified humans but this is purely a side-effect of their "preserve life" mission.
We do not know that this is the only way of making reapers, and the idea that elder space cods would not know about animal husbandry is absurd (that's like saying the only way to make a bacon sandwich is to hope that single cell bacteria evolve into new pigs when you own a pig farm)

we know they need organics tissue in order to build their complexed ships
we know that if they were able to make unlimited number of reapers, they would have, truly leaving the galaxy no chance in any conflict.

at current casualty rate everyone will be dead in five years.
But that is only because everyone were fighting to save their homeworlds, they were fighting the reapers like any other enemy. one cannot win against the reapers when fighting in their regular tactics. the reapers are here to destroy no occupy. this is a scorched earth policy - war. this is a war where you settle on remoted plants and turn off electronics to avoid attracting reapers.  a war where krogans live and train in underground bunkers. and geth create new ships inside the planets cores.
A war where you incodtrinate lost cvilians and turn them into shock troopers. where you nuke lost cvilians centers.(traps) where you mass produce human soldiers clone from shep Dna.
its going to be long, chances of victory are slim. but they are better than control and destroy

Modifié par erezike, 16 juillet 2013 - 09:08 .

[legion ME3]

 Destruction is the best you win and the reapers die whichshepard had been planning to do the Synthesis leaves no future for the mass effect series as everything becomes peaceful and controlling the reapers is what the illusive mab wanted to do