1132 réponses à ce sujet

[NeonFlux117]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You know, you make a good point neonflux117, maybe it was just the pacing that ****ed everything up, and not the reapers mary sueness itself, which could have been a byproduct of that cramming.

Things happen just way, way, way to quick in ME3. I mean your jumping form curing the genopage, to liberating the citadel, to brokering peace or destroy the quarian or geth, to finding the truth about the reapers, to wrapping up Cerberus, then retaking Earth and ending the reaper theat. 

There is no downtime-except citadle DLC and Omega- which are kinda side questy in their nature. 

ME1 and ME2 both allow the player downtime between major events. If it's ME1 visting planets and doing side missions and stuff. And in ME2 it's the loyalty missions, exploring th 4 hub worlds and  so on and so. 

The pacing if ME3 is always go, go, go, go, end.

Again, it's rushed. Much like the narrative. 

[Fixers0]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's almost painful to see how combative and angry any thread with david becomes. Why? Seriously. Try to imagine we're just a bunch of average Joes talking about different car tire brands or how to make homemade beef jerky. Something pointless and casual and mostly fun. Because that's the realm video games where lie. Pointless, casual, and fun. It's not a Holy War.

Well that's david in all his heroic glory for you.

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's almost painful to see how combative and angry any thread with david becomes. Why? Seriously. Try to imagine we're just a bunch of average Joes talking about different car tire brands or how to make homemade beef jerky. Something pointless and casual and mostly fun. Because that's the realm video games where lie. Pointless, casual, and fun. It's not a Holy War.

'Pointless'? 

Stories are anything but pointless.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 10:37 .

[NeonFlux117]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

You know, you make a good point neonflux117, maybe it was just the pacing that ****ed everything up, and not the reapers mary sueness itself, which could have been a byproduct of that cramming.

Things happen just way, way, way to quick in ME3. I mean your jumping form curing the genopage, to liberating the citadel, to brokering peace or destroying the quarian or geth, to finding the truth about the reapers, to wrapping up Cerberus, then retaking Earth and ending the reaper theat. 

There is no downtime-except citadle DLC and Omega- which are kinda side questy in their nature. 

ME1 and ME2 both allow the player downtime between major events. If it's ME1 visting planets and doing side missions and stuff. And in ME2 it's the loyalty missions, exploring the 4 hub worlds and  so on and so. 

The pacing if ME3 is always go, go, go, go, end.

Again, it's rushed. Much like the narrative. 

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

Yeah, for someone's who is heroic, he seems like someone who'd make little kids cry.

Don't be silly. People in real life don't constantly make stupid insults and accusations, as is par for the course on the BSN. So I don't have the counter them.

[NeonFlux117]

Double post, lol. Dafuq??? herpaderp. I sorry

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

Darth Brotarian wrote...

But there's a difference as well, going to your other point, between being hard, and being presented as impossible. The reapers are one such enemy who is presented as impossible to beat, and that's the problem. They are too powerful, they are too good, they're exsistence, ability to plot and plan ahead, and the speed by which they can accomplish their plans, all scream mary sue.

We're at a very, very ridiculous point if the mere existence of an enemy who doesn't have a completely stupid and pointless weakness is a 'Mary Sue.'

Out of what I listed, you can be good at 2, but not all three.

You can be powerful, and plan ahead by the thousands of years the reapers did, but your plans would need to unfold slowly to make the battle against them fair.

You can be fast hitting and brilliant in your plan, but than you would need to rely on that speed as your main means of conquest and not do so well in a fair one on one fight, thus providing a weakness the players can exploit.

You can be an all powerful, fast moving, juggernaught of a behemoth to contend against, but you shouldn't be a master tactician if you're already vastly more powrful and can move and mobolize faster than anything in the known galaxy, becuase it allows players a means to logically counter the reapers.

The problem with mass effect 3, which is also a problem of mass effect 2, is the reapers don't seem to actually have any sort of weaknes. They're flight and ftl systems make them impossibly fast, able to spread through the galaxy that would make the flash blush. They're almost neigh invulnerable in a one on one engagement, making them impossible to beat in both conventional and unconventional theaters of war. And they seem to have a strategy of manipulating everyone and everything in the galaxy through indoctrinated sleeper agents to the point that light yagami aught to be taking notes on their long term plans and failsafes.

They are not fun, because they are much like fighing any OP faction or character, there is too mcuh work needed in order to achieve even minor victories, and any true victory against them would need to come from either a source thats more OP than they are, or by a sudden and unexplained drop in power from the enemy, either of which is a sign of bad writing and makes for an unrewarding feeling confrontation.

[David7204]

An enemy without stupid weaknesses is not a problem at all.

It's also reality.

They're not impossible to beat. Yes, it would take some tweaking around to make things perfect. To make things 10 out of 10. Some changes to the Battle of the Citadel and ME 2.

But that wouldn't change anything significant. They would still be immense monsters. The galaxy would still be the galaxy and the Reapers would still be the Reapers.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 10:43 .

[Cainhurst Crow]

StreetMagic wrote...

It's almost painful to see how combative and angry any thread with david becomes. Why? Seriously. Try to imagine we're just a bunch of average Joes talking about different car tire brands or how to make homemade beef jerky. Something pointless and casual and mostly fun. Because that's the realm video games where lie. Pointless, casual, and fun. It's not a Holy War.

I ain't going to stand for david trying to say a yugo subcompact is a great muscle car and than imply I'm a liar for sayng that's bull****.

[Reorte]

The Reaper plot would've been better dropped after ME1 and a new one found since anything that's curbstomped everyone for billions of years is never going to be convincingly defeatable. Give them any sort of weakness and it's hard to persuade me that a previous cycle wouldn't have found it. If there had been much fewer cycles (say a dozen) I might be able to accept defeatable Reapers. Keep them locked in intergalactic space.

That said, it could've been handled much better. As has already been said one game was too few for them to arrive and the whole Reaper war to get resolved.

[David7204]

That's nonsense.

Does every person on the BSN give up this easily? It's ridiculous. Take one look at the Reapers, see they're big, powerful ships, and throw your hands up saying, "Nope. Can't be done. Completely impossible."

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 10:46 .

[Reorte]

David7204 wrote...

That's nonsense.

Does every person on the BSN give up this easily? It's ridiculous. Take one look at the Reapers, see they're big, powerful ships, and throw your hands up saying, "Nope. Can't be done. Completely impossible."

I think you need to consider the difference between writing plausible fiction and what dealing with such things would be like in reality.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

An enemy without stupid weaknesses is not a problem at all.

It's also reality.

They're not impossible to beat. Yes, it would take some tweaking around to make things perfect. To make things 10 out of 10. Some changes to the Battle of the Citadel and ME 2.

But that wouldn't change anything significant. They would still be immense monsters. The galaxy would still be the galaxy and the Reapers would still be the Reapers.

Some tweaking? The rate they manage to conquer the galaxy as it is now requires they have some major re-evauluation, especially since according to the lore perviously, it took them hundreds of years to finish harvesting the galaxy, and that was with the relay network under their control.

Neon had it right, and so did I, I think in my bias opinion. They should have either been saved for the next game, mass effect 4. Or they should not have been included at all and saved everyone the massive understaking of trying to resolve this massive conflict in just 3 games.

[David7204]

Reorte wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That's nonsense.

Does every person on the BSN give up this easily? It's ridiculous. Take one look at the Reapers, see they're big, powerful ships, and throw your hands up saying, "Nope. Can't be done. Completely impossible."

I think you need to consider the difference between writing plausible fiction and what dealing with such things would be like in reality.

The plain and simple truth is that nobody knows. Such warfare would involve weapons and tactics that we really can't do anything more than guess on.

[David7204]

Darth Brotarian wrote...

Some tweaking? The rate they manage to conquer the galaxy as it is now requires they have some major re-evauluation, especially since according to the lore perviously, it took them hundreds of years to finish harvesting the galaxy, and that was with the relay network under their control.

No, It took them hundreds of years to exterminate the galaxy. It's just a long tail. Their rate of harvest is going to be logarithmic. One year defeating the galaxy. Four years defeating serious remnents. 295 years hunting down stragglers and non-so-serious remnents.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 10:53 .

[Fixers0]

 Basic tactical advice for Military commanders.

“Always endeavor to fight the enemy on your own terms. If you outnumber the foe, use reserves to break through when the enemy’s over-stretched lines collapse. If you are outnumbered, then concentrate your forces so that the enemy can fight only your best troops. If you are powerful at close quarters then engage in dense terrain where your advantage will prove greatest. If you are superior at long range, then attack along an extended front. Remember always, however, that a commander who puts his faith in heavy weaponry alone will be easily outmaneuvered, and a commander who relies on close combat without adequate support will lose his force to disciplined fire. No one has ever won a battle who failed to take advantage of his enemy’s weakness, or take heed of his own.”

Now, that wasn't hard to comprehend, wasn't it? though for the Writers seemingly it was.

Modifié par Fixers0, 18 août 2013 - 10:52 .

[David7204]

As as said, we're at a very ridiculous point if we're seriously claiming that stupid and pointless weaknesses are good writing.

They aren't.

[Fixers0]

David7204 wrote...

As as said, we're at a very ridiculous point if we're seriously claiming that stupid and pointless weaknesses are good writing.

They aren't.

We're allready at the point were a certain military figure is claiming that a war isn't about strategy or tactics, there's not much lower we can go.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

As as said, we're at a very ridiculous point if we're seriously claiming that stupid and pointless weaknesses are good writing.

They aren't.

Flawless perfection and no flaws in any field is apparently a sign of a great writer. Because the weaknesses I described aren't stupid or pointless.

They serve a point, the give the players a logical incentive for fighting the reapers and a logcial means of defeating them. It isn't stupid either, not entirely at least, as it provides a way for the reapers to still be as successful at harvesting as they had been, but not so much that a deus ex machina is needed to beat them.

[Cainhurst Crow]

Fixers0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

As as said, we're at a very ridiculous point if we're seriously claiming that stupid and pointless weaknesses are good writing.

They aren't.

We're allready at the point were a certain military figure is claiming that a war isn't about strategy or tactics, there's not much lower we can go.

All that's left is giving up, or trying the power of firendship to save the day, and both seem like very low standards for a sci-fi game.

[David7204]

What post did you describe potential weaknesses in? Because I don't see any.

A DEM isn't needed to defeat the Reapers as they are. It's unfortunate that ME 3 features the Crucible, but that's evidence after the fact.

[Cainhurst Crow]

David7204 wrote...

What post did you describe potential weaknesses in? Because I don't see any.

A DEM isn't needed to defeat the Reapers as they are. It's unfortunate that ME 3 features the Crucible, but that's evidence after the fact.

Here is my post on the matter sport.

I believe your reply below was

"An enemy without stupid weaknesses is not a problem at all.

It's also reality."

[David7204]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't think anyone wants to give up necessarily. To me, it's the writers who emphasize this point about the strength of the Reapers and how they can't be taken down conventionally (at least that's Hackett/Liara's words). I have to take their word for it.

I'm not talking about characters in the game. I'm talking about people on the BSN.

That fact that few or any people were insisting a meaningful and satisfying defeat of the Reapers was impossible in ME 1 or ME 2 should prove that this is just a reaction to what happened in ME 3, which is irrelevant.

People basically taking a look at the Crucible. Not liking it, but not able to think up anything better. Assuming that because they can't, nobody could possibly think up anything better. Insisting that a DEM was inevitable and they knew it all along despite having very conveniently never mentioned it until after ME 3 was released.

Modifié par David7204, 18 août 2013 - 11:05 .