419 réponses à ce sujet

[Mathias]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
And it would have been far more satisfying to me and to others.  Uniting the galaxy would have meant something.  And Shepard wouldn't have to betray his/her values, and possibly allies to prove the Reapers' own point.

Two separate issues that aren't related. Uniting the galaxy provides you the fleet and troops necessary to dock the Crucible. It undeniably allows you to win in Mass Effect 3, in concert with actually using the device.

The second issue is how the Crucible actually functions to achieve victory. Had the Crucible simply destroyed the Reapers there would be zero doubt about the game's theme of strength through unity.

I've seen so many people say that if the Crucible just fired and destroyed all the Reapers once it docks, they would've been a lot happier with that, then what we really got. I've thought about this for a while and I think I would be too.

2 things can happen during Priority Earth. Either you don't have enough War Assets and you fail, Reapers win. Or you have enough War Assets, you punch through their defenses, load up the Crucible and fire it, Reapers lose. What follows afterward is the epilogue with tons of variations based on your choices and how much of the game you completed. That would've been a lot more satisfying, assuming of course it was executed with effort and passion.

Modifié par Mdoggy1214, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:06 .

[Erez Kristal]

David7204 wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

What's the point of a conventional ending if it's losing?

In fact, that's exactly what Refuse is in the first place. A conventional ending with the galaxy losing.

Lots of stories end in tragedy. In fact, many of them are highly-regarded.

Mass Effect isn't one of those stories. More importantly, it's poor game design to flesh out an alternate path that ends in failure no matter what.

You mean like destroy and control? both ends with the reapers killing everyone and synthesis ends with galactic slavery.

Modifié par erezike, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:08 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Two separate issues that aren't related. Uniting the galaxy provides you the fleet and troops necessary to dock the Crucible. It undeniably allows you to win in Mass Effect 3, in concert with actually using the device.

Except we see very little of those fleets or troops (which could be a genral complaint about Priority Earth in general, I know)

In addition, it exacts a horrific price upon Shepard and quite arguably the galaxy on top of everything that has already been sacrificed

"I fight for freedom, mine and everyone's.  I fight for the right to choose our own fate"

I guess even Bioware kinda admits picking a color is abdicating that right, even if they laugh at us for taking a stand

The second issue is how the Crucible actually functions to achieve victory. Had the Crucible simply destroyed the Reapers there would be zero doubt about the game's theme of strength through unity.

Except what I wanted wasn't the proverbial "Reaper off button" but the ability to stand against the Reapers on a battleground as equals. You know, like that line in The Avengers:

"Big man in a suit of armor.  Take that off, what are you?"
 
If people have to die to stop the Reapers, let them die, fighting Reapers, not as collateral damage

[Iakus]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I've seen so many people say that if the Crucible just fired and destroyed all the Reapers once it docks, they would've been a lot happier with that, then what we really got. I've thought about this for a while and I think I would be too.

2 things can happen during Priority Earth. Either you don't have enough War Assets and you fail, Reapers win. Or you have enough War Assets, you punch through their defenses, load up the Crucible and fire it, Reapers lose. What follows afterward is the epilogue with tons of variations based on your choices and how much of the game you completed. That would've been a lot more satisfying, assuming of course it was executed with effort and passion.

Reaper off switch isn't a great ending, but yeah it's still miles ahead of what we were forced to "accept"

[CronoDragoon]

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

2 things can happen during Priority Earth. Either you don't have enough War Assets and you fail, Reapers win. Or you have enough War Assets, you punch through their defenses, load up the Crucible and fire it, Reapers lose. What follows afterward is the epilogue with tons of variations based on your choices and how much of the game you completed. That would've been a lot more satisfying, assuming of course it was executed with effort and passion.

That is pretty much what I was looking for. By the time I took out the Hades Cannon I was pretty mentally and emotionally exhausted and ready for the confrontation with TIM, Crucible, and epilogues.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

Except what I wanted wasn't the proverbial "Reaper off button" but the ability to stand against the Reapers on a battleground as equals.

Why? What's the point? Whether you dock the Crucible and it kills the Reapers, or you dock the Crucible and it disables them and then you kill them, in both scenarios it's still through your hard work that they die. You are just adding an extra step afterwards that would not have fit into Mass Effect 3. Now perhaps if it wasn't a trilogy and something came after 3 but...I don't know if I could handle 2 games with this much death and destruction.

It seems to me that you are saying we didn't "work hard enough" or something to defeat the Reapers in ME3. We all know that's B.S. considering the amount of sacrifice that already exists in the game. After all, isn't that one of the primary counterpoints to including the geth/EDI destruction?

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:39 .

[rashie]

iakus wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I've seen so many people say that if the Crucible just fired and destroyed all the Reapers once it docks, they would've been a lot happier with that, then what we really got. I've thought about this for a while and I think I would be too.

2 things can happen during Priority Earth. Either you don't have enough War Assets and you fail, Reapers win. Or you have enough War Assets, you punch through their defenses, load up the Crucible and fire it, Reapers lose. What follows afterward is the epilogue with tons of variations based on your choices and how much of the game you completed. That would've been a lot more satisfying, assuming of course it was executed with effort and passion.

Reaper off switch isn't a great ending, but yeah it's still miles ahead of what we were forced to "accept"

If Leviathan had been in the game from the start as an explanation instead of the star child in the last 5 minutes of the game it would. The star child would not have been needed if leviathan had handled the reapers origins and motives and hence people would have no reason to complain about lose ends since they already got the explanations needed earlier.

I imagine such an ending would been similar to what DA:O got, once you slice the head of the archdemon the darkspawn retreats and the blight is simply just defeated and you get epilogue sliders telling what effects your choices had. Seeing something like that would have been a far better ending.

Modifié par rashie, 01 octobre 2013 - 04:33 .

[Han Shot First]

erezike wrote...

Refuse is one of the only two logical choices to make.

Refuse is the least logical choice to make. Shepard refuses to use the superweapon the galaxy as spent a year(?) or so pooling all of its resources to build, and which the entire galactic war plan revolves around. In doing so Shepard sabotages the war effort and condemns every space-faring civilization to extinction including his (or her) own. Refuse turns Shepard into the most disastrously incompetent military commander in human history, responsible for by far the worst defeat in the history of warfare.

Refuse Shep makes Gaius Terentius Varro look like a military genius.

(Varro was responsible for Cannae)

Modifié par Han Shot First, 01 octobre 2013 - 05:00 .

[ATiBotka]

grey_wind wrote...

All the dialogue centered around the Refusal ending is great, especially the speech Shepard gives Star-Jar.

Man that speech is just bad. And stupid as hell. I hate it.

Modifié par ATiBotka, 01 octobre 2013 - 05:09 .

[Erez Kristal]

Han Shot First wrote...

erezike wrote...

Refuse is one of the only two logical choices to make.

Refuse is the least logical choice to make. Shepard refuses to use the superweapon the galaxy as spent a year(?) or so pooling all of its resources to build, and which the entire galactic war plan revolves around. In doing so Shepard sabotages the war effort and condemns every space-faring civilization to extinction including his (or her) own. Refuse turns Shepard into the most disastrously incompetent military commander in human history, responsible for by far the worst defeat in the history of warfare.

Refuse Shep makes Gaius Terentius Varro look like a military genius.

(Varro was responsible for Cannae)

there was nothing to sabotage. the crucible was an obvious reaper device. built to serve their goals.
its all in my quote.
The choice of using destroy or control are no choices at all. they are only there to create an illusion of choice for you to pick synthesis which is the only option the reapers truly want.

Or you can refuse and become independet from the reapers ploy.


 

Applepie_Svk wrote...

Jagri wrote...

So the Star Child was just having a few jollies by letting Shepard have some false hope before picking a method to kill himself at the hero sacrifice machine? ^^ How fun.

Starchild: "Dude! Harbinger, he is doing it! The idiot just grabbed a live wire thinking he could control all Reapers that way."

Harbinger: "Seriously dude?! Really, this is the best this cycle has to offer?"

Harbinger: This is CRN /ConcsensusReaperNetwork/, I have a breaking news here from the Citadel - WE DID IT AGAIN AFTER 1000000000000 TIMES ! This joke will never gets old... Watch the daily updates for all funny pictures and videos of a hero for this cycle and his heroic act of stupidity.

Harbinger: Don´t forget to visit our website GalaxyWideReap as GWR.CRN.Reap/Catalyst/TheArtofTrolling/Stupidity/Sacrifice... otherwise this cycle we´ve managed to even make a footage and video of few touching moments when our hero was sending his goodbye to his injured comradesm very touching stuff... I´ve to stop shooting for awhile to wash all the tears...

Modifié par erezike, 01 octobre 2013 - 05:38 .

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Why? What's the point? Whether you dock the Crucible and it kills the Reapers, or you dock the Crucible and it disables them and then you kill them, in both scenarios it's still through your hard work that they die. You are just adding an extra step afterwards that would not have fit into Mass Effect 3. Now perhaps if it wasn't a trilogy and something came after 3 but...I don't know if I could handle 2 games with this much death and destruction.

It seems to me that you are saying we didn't "work hard enough" or something to defeat the Reapers in ME3. We all know that's B.S. considering the amount of sacrifice that already exists in the game. After all, isn't that one of the primary counterpoints to including the geth/EDI destruction?

The difference is the final sacrifice.

In one scenerio were's murdering our own allies to ensure the destruction of the Reapers.  In another, we may still lose allies, but at least they die in a fair fight.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
The difference is the final sacrifice.

In one scenerio were's murdering our own allies to ensure the destruction of the Reapers.  In another, we may still lose allies, but at least they die in a fair fight.

I see, so the problem is the way in which the Crucible's destruction of the geth/EDI undermines the strength through unity theme. I agree, though we are no longer talking about conventional vs. unconventional victory. In truth no further sacrifice is needed at all in terms of "was this victory earned?" The extra sacrifice is only to balance Destroy with the other endings, which is a bad way to structure ending consequences.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
The difference is the final sacrifice.

In one scenerio were's murdering our own allies to ensure the destruction of the Reapers.  In another, we may still lose allies, but at least they die in a fair fight.

I see, so the problem is the way in which the Crucible's destruction of the geth/EDI undermines the strength through unity theme. I agree, though we are no longer talking about conventional vs. unconventional victory. In truth no further sacrifice is needed at all in terms of "was this victory earned?" The extra sacrifice is only to balance Destroy with the other endings, which is a bad way to structure ending consequences.

YES!!!!  This human gets it!

But in the end, any strategy which defeats the Reapers with or without the Crucible has to be "unconventional"

Too often peope seem to attribute "conventional victory" With flinging ships headlong ito the teeth of Reaper fire.

Well DUH! that's not going to work.  But that stopped being "conventional" over a century ago.  The Reapers are only this gargantuan, nigh-invulnerable force because Bioware declared it so (repeatedly, in ME3) 

The only reason "We fought as a galaxy united" doesn't work is because Bioware declared through DM Fiat that it can't work.  And that after letting us spend the entire freaking trilogy trying to warn the galaxy about the threat.

What a waste of time.

[Erez Kristal]

Hard work is meaningless sure there was sacrifice.
but at the end of the day the score was still 82-2 to the reapers .
in the end result the crucible as a plot device felt like cheating the way to victory through a bad plot.

the casualties dont give you a sense of good victory.
its the fight you fought.

So when you enemy(the reapers) act in an amazing stupid way and hand you over the victory on a silver plate it feels like cheap and very bad story telling. which is why the crucible is a terrible idea.
You lose in all of the options except refuse.
In refuse you live to fight another day. but you still sucked up until refuse the building the imaginary reaper off switch.

Modifié par erezike, 01 octobre 2013 - 06:05 .

[AlanC9]

erezike wrote...

its all in my quote.
The choice of using destroy or control are no choices at all. they are only there to create an illusion of choice for you to pick synthesis which is the only option the reapers truly want.

Or you can refuse and become independet from the reapers ploy.

The only  problem with this argument, of course, is that it has nothing to do with what actually happens in ME3.

And in Refuse you live to lose another day. Shepard's cycle gets exterminated. He might as well have died on Eden Prime.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2013 - 06:11 .

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

The only reason "We fought as a galaxy united" doesn't work is because Bioware declared through DM Fiat that it can't work.  And that after letting us spend the entire freaking trilogy trying to warn the galaxy about the threat.

Making it so he galaxy could win that way would also be DM Fiat, as you well know.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 octobre 2013 - 06:15 .

[AlanC9]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder if the Vorcha get spared, if you choose Refuse.

Maybe. They're not really a technological life form themselves. I can see them getting a pass the way primitive humans did.

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

The only reason "We fought as a galaxy united" doesn't work is because Bioware declared through DM Fiat that it can't work.  And that after letting us spend the entire freaking trilogy trying to warn the galaxy about the threat.

Making it so he galaxy could win that way would also be DM Fiat, as you well know.

Could is not DM Fiat

Must is

[Iakus]

StreetMagic wrote...

I wonder if the Vorcha get spared, if you choose Refuse.

No, Vorcha live

They break the machines

[Reorte]

erezike wrote...


So when you enemy(the reapers) act in an amazing stupid way and hand you over the victory on a silver plate it feels like cheap and very bad story telling. which is why the crucible is a terrible idea.
You lose in all of the options except refuse.
In refuse you live to fight another day. but you still sucked up until refuse the building the imaginary reaper off switch.

Er, in Refuse you and everyone else dies.

I agree that the Reaper-off Crucible / Catalyst was a terrible idea but what wouldn't be a terrible idea? That's all part of the problem with writing yourself into a corner like that. The Reapers have had such a history and experience of success it's hard to think of any sensible way that they could be beaten - it would imply that this cycle is so much better than the huge number of previous ones, which would be equally bad.

The only loophole I can think of is Sovereign. I can just about accept that no previous cycle has had a destroyed Reaper to study (ME2's derelict Reaper would need replacing of course). The chance to study Sovereign, gain intelligence and technology, and add in a decent timescale to apply it all might just about be convincing. That would be the acceptably unique feature of this cycle, and even then it would still be a hard fight and need everyone to pull together. The downside is that that leaves us with something fairly straightforward and unimaginative but  that's better than trying to be different merely for the sake of it and falling flat on your face because you haven't got a way of making different work.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

iakus wrote...

The only reason "We fought as a galaxy united" doesn't work is because Bioware declared through DM Fiat that it can't work.  And that after letting us spend the entire freaking trilogy trying to warn the galaxy about the threat.

Making it so he galaxy could win that way would also be DM Fiat, as you well know.

Could is not DM Fiat

Must is

Don't be ridiculous. Bio gets to set how powerful the Reapers are. It's their universe.

Whether the Reapers can or cannot be defeated via a certain means is Bio's call. It cannot be otherwise.

[AlanC9]

Reorte wrote...
The downside is that that leaves us with something fairly straightforward and unimaginative but  that's better than trying to be different merely for the sake of it and falling flat on your face because you haven't got a way of making different work.

I'm not sure it makes sense to say that Bio was trying to be "different" with the Crucible plot. Defeating an unbeatable enemy with a superweapon is one of the oldest SF tropes there is. Avoiding a strictly military victory is even more common, since it gives the hero something decisive to do.

[Mathias]

iakus wrote...

Mdoggy1214 wrote...

I've seen so many people say that if the Crucible just fired and destroyed all the Reapers once it docks, they would've been a lot happier with that, then what we really got. I've thought about this for a while and I think I would be too.

2 things can happen during Priority Earth. Either you don't have enough War Assets and you fail, Reapers win. Or you have enough War Assets, you punch through their defenses, load up the Crucible and fire it, Reapers lose. What follows afterward is the epilogue with tons of variations based on your choices and how much of the game you completed. That would've been a lot more satisfying, assuming of course it was executed with effort and passion.

Reaper off switch isn't a great ending, but yeah it's still miles ahead of what we were forced to "accept"

Given the sheer level of power that they built up for the Reapers, you pretty much need a Reaper off switch, or be able to beat them conventionally. That's not to say it's a bad thing, you can build a great ending off an "off switch" or some kind of superweapon.