419 réponses à ce sujet

[Kataphrut94]

You're preaching to the choir on the Reapers being OP, but it's kind of late to complain about that now. I've said many times that ME3 and the endings aren't totally to blame for that; it was ME1 that set them up and ME2 that did nothing to suggest there was a meaningful way to deal with them.

As for the mystical stuff, I prefer to just play the cards I'm dealt on that one. We've already got the Reapers, the Thorian, the Protheans, Project Lazarus and even the asari stretching the suspension of disbelief, so a bit of sparkly God-analogues aren't that big of a deal-breaker.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
YES!!!!  This human gets it!

I've been saying this for over a year now. It is my main criticism of the structure of Destroy: that is bizarrely represents both the ultimate rejection of the Catalyst's beliefs and simultaneously the ultimate confirmation that the cycles were necessary. Consequently the ending means virtually nothing on a larger, thematic scale. The only dialogue you can take from Paragon Destroy is "oh well, war sucks sometimes and you have to make hard choices" which is 1. borderline tautology and therefore 2. barren ground for interesting philosophical debate. Control, on the other hand, is RICH with philosophical meaning, uncertainty, and shades of grey. It is the most interesting ending to think about, bar none. That doesn't mean it's necessarily the appropriate ending based on how a Paragon peace-maker plays.

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.

If everything is unconventional then the idea behind the Crucible is fine. It's only the specific way in which Destroy dispenses its beam that presents a problem. The idea of a superweapon itself is not problematic, and in my opinion necessary to the "glimmer of hope" tone of ME3.

Moreover, I consider the idea that each previous defeated cycle contributed to its plans to be philosophically beautiful. It transforms Shepard's defeat of the Reapers into a posthumous victory for all the Reaper victims.

The idea of the Catalyst is also fine. The issue is that they tried to make it an ending plot twist when it should have been introduced WAY earlier, possibly at the end of ME2 in an alternate universe where ME2's story contributes to the larger plot arc.

[zed888]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

You're preaching to the choir on the Reapers being OP, but it's kind of late to complain about that now. I've said many times that ME3 and the endings aren't totally to blame for that; it was ME1 that set them up and ME2 that did nothing to suggest there was a meaningful way to deal with them.

As for the mystical stuff, I prefer to just play the cards I'm dealt on that one. We've already got the Reapers, the Thorian, the Protheans, Project Lazarus and even the asari stretching the suspension of disbelief, so a bit of sparkly God-analogues aren't that big of a deal-breaker.

ME1 also had Vigil saying the Reapers were vulnerable in their dormant state, so it did have a way to deal with them provided that you could get there.   It might not have made for a great game, but there was that possibility.

The mystical stuff was a complete deal-breaker for me.  Lazarus, etc were iffy, but my disbelief can only stay suspended so long and it crashed down after the heavenly elevator panel.  I had no problem picking refuse at all, since it was that or exit to main menu.  Shepard picked dying on her feet to living also dying on her knees, and the MEU ended there.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

If everything is unconventional then the idea behind the Crucible is fine. It's only the specific way in which Destroy dispenses its beam that presents a problem. The idea of a superweapon itself is not problematic, and in my opinion necessary to the "glimmer of hope" tone of ME3.

Moreover, I consider the idea that each previous defeated cycle contributed to its plans to be philosophically beautiful. It transforms Shepard's defeat of the Reapers into a posthumous victory for all the Reaper victims.

The idea of the Catalyst is also fine. The issue is that they tried to make it an ending plot twist when it should have been introduced WAY earlier, possibly at the end of ME2 in an alternate universe where ME2's story contributes to the larger plot arc.

The Crucible as a superweapon is kind of a silly idea, but after ME2 was pretty much the only option left.  Personally I would have preferred an ME2 where Shepard spent the game gathering potentially useful intel and weapon designs to be used when the Reapers arrive.  Thus we could battle them not with a single device, but with an array of old and new technology, where no single weapon tilts the balance, but the combined efforts of many races, past and present, that we can see

But that would have required a completely different ME2.

As to each cycle adding to the Crucible, yeah nice idea in concept except 1) We don't know what's been added to it and what those differences are  2) How is anyone able to add to the Crucible when they don' t know what the Crucible is supposed to do in the first place? 3) In the end, It's still just a big battery

The Catalyst is a symptom, the symbol of all that is wrong with the endings.  It isn't the problem as such, it's the personification of the problem.

[Iakus]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

None of that mystical bull**** bothers you? Not to mention the mystical bull**** surrounding each of the endings. And the reapers are so overpowered that they can't be defeated conventionally because ... dun dun dun.... indoctrination, and you never know when they're really dead, so you need some higher power to defeat them. 

It bothers me, a lot.  Shepard went from a homage to Alan Shepard to a messianic "The Shepherd" and I really dislike that.

The Reapers didn't have to be so overpowered that the DM has to "let" us beat them if we submit to the blood magic ritual. 

Basically our game became thier game.  Our Shepards became their Shepards.

And this is why despite what I'm hearing about DAI, I'm highly skeptical of claims that "You are the Inquisitor.  This is your story"

[TheN7Penguin]

Imo the Reapers were fine. Their power made sense. For giant machines that want to harvest all life in the galaxy, they're hardly going to be weak. It would make no sense if they were easy to defeat. They're like the oldest race in the galaxy. They've had lots of time to perfect their destructive capabilities.
And it'd only make sense for a weapon like the crucible to exist. Because it isn't the only cycle to happen with the Reapers. So there'd be other attempts to destroy them in previous cycles. And for a race as technologically advanced as the Protheans, the weapon SHOULD exist. Shepard's cycle uses technology from previous attempts to stop the Reapers. So maybe the Protheans had technology left for them to start building the crucible. It's like a joint attempt for hundreds of different races who were left in the same position and aimed to destroy the Reapers but never managed it.

At least, that was the way I took it.

[Deverz]

iakus wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

None of that mystical bull**** bothers you? Not to mention the mystical bull**** surrounding each of the endings. And the reapers are so overpowered that they can't be defeated conventionally because ... dun dun dun.... indoctrination, and you never know when they're really dead, so you need some higher power to defeat them. 

It bothers me, a lot.  Shepard went from a homage to Alan Shepard to a messianic "The Shepherd" and I really dislike that.

The Reapers didn't have to be so overpowered that the DM has to "let" us beat them if we submit to the blood magic ritual. 

Basically our game became thier game.  Our Shepards became their Shepards.

And this is why despite what I'm hearing about DAI, I'm highly skeptical of claims that "You are the Inquisitor.  This is your story"

It's actually quite interesting to see how they are marketing DAI. I don't usually like sounding like a conspiracy theorist, but lots of the things they're saying seem to tie into the ME3 backlash. They understand that no one liked that Shepard was taken away from them, so they're stressing player agency and promising less auto-dialogue. Whereas some of the pre-release ME3 news articles seem to suggest some indecisiveness over how the endings was gonna turn out (16 endings, not ABC, Rachni plays a huge role in final battle etc.), they're now saying that unless they know for certain it's in the game they're not going to tell us about it. They don't want to overpromise and underdeliver (wink wink). 

/tinfoilhat off

Modifié par Deverz, 02 octobre 2013 - 05:50 .

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

WHen they dangle that hope in front of you after a major uproar over the endings, only to be told SO BE IT!  yeah I feel totally justified in being trolled for daring to disagree that the endings are awesome.

I'm with Dean on this one. It's a victim complex. To draw a comparison, it would be like someone complaining that Shepard always dies when hooking up with Morinth. What else did you expect from the narrative's build-up?

And  yet this same game showed us that every single race was fighing its own war, looking to their own borders and not cooperating at all.  No wonder they were getting curb-stomped, it almost didn't matter they still had the relay network going..  

Think of what they could do if they pooled thier resources and worked together!

They could...fail together. 

The game demonstrated pretty clearly that no one thought conventional victory was possible, in any scenario.

What you want to happen isn't even consistent with the Shepard you're forced to play. Even in the best scenarios, Shepard admits that the Crucible is needed for victory. If he/you honestly thought victory without the Crucible was possible, throwing all your resources on an idiotic gambit is the worst thing you could do.

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 02 octobre 2013 - 05:56 .

[Reorte]

Fred0071 wrote...

Imo the Reapers were fine. Their power made sense. For giant machines that want to harvest all life in the galaxy, they're hardly going to be weak. It would make no sense if they were easy to defeat. They're like the oldest race in the galaxy. They've had lots of time to perfect their destructive capabilities.

The problem with that as the basic premise of the Reapers is that it doesn't mean that it makes no sense that they're easy to defeat, it makes no sense (or at least very little) that they're possible to defeat, any more than it would be for a Bronze Age army to defeat a modern military.

And it'd only make sense for a weapon like the crucible to exist. Because it isn't the only cycle to happen with the Reapers. So there'd be other attempts to destroy them in previous cycles. And for a race as technologically advanced as the Protheans, the weapon SHOULD exist. Shepard's cycle uses technology from previous attempts to stop the Reapers. So maybe the Protheans had technology left for them to start building the crucible. It's like a joint attempt for hundreds of different races who were left in the same position and aimed to destroy the Reapers but never managed it.

At least, that was the way I took it.

The odd bit of technology slipping through from one cycle to the next is just about believable, they really slipped up badly saying that the Crucible plans had passed down many and that the Reapers had somehow not realised they'd survived. I'd have much preferred that the big advantage we had was the defeat of Sovereign though, being able to study a defeated Reaper being this cycle's unique advantage (thanks to the Protheans, via a somewhat more interesting route than "superweapon plans").

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
But that would have required a completely different ME2.

It would require a completely different ME1 as well. THAT was the game that most hyped the Reapers, lest we forget. No amount of new technology short of the discovery of a superweapon or collection of them is going to be enough to defeat that which is infinitely our greater with limitless numbers. Although perhaps ME2 should have simply BEEN about finding this superweapon.

As to each cycle adding to the Crucible, yeah nice idea in concept except 1) We don't know what's been added to it and what those differences are  2) How is anyone able to add to the Crucible when they don' t know what the Crucible is supposed to do in the first place? 3) In the end, It's still just a big battery

I don't see how either is relevant thematically or philosophically, but for 2 we can only speak for Shepard's cycle when we say they don't know what it does.

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

Yes, you are being hyperbolic. And nursing a victim complex. You are not being trolled when a path that Bioware spent the greater part of the entire game telling would not work ends up... not working.

WHen they dangle that hope in front of you after a major uproar over the endings, only to be told SO BE IT!  yeah I feel totally justified in being trolled for daring to disagree that the endings are awesome.

You can feel however justified you want. You're still being irrational about it.

Bioware never implied or led you on that Refuse would reverse the weight of the narrative and the previous, unexpanded version of 'the Reapers destroyed the Crucible- Bad End' in the pre-EC.

When every reasonable, and  unreasonable, authority figure in the game agrees on the point that the Crucible is necessary for victory, when the principle of conventional victory is discredited on multiple occassions (including the very first level) by having the greatest defenses and power bases of the galaxy fall to the reapers with 'slowing them down' being the ultimate result of the great alliance you forged, when the entire narrative end game begins the Reapers making massive advances across the galaxy and ending with an entire do-or-die gamble to reach the superweapon gambit you have spent the entire game gathering allies and resources to execute...

If you are in any way surprised at the themes and buildup of the game playing out exactly as they had told you they would, you have no basis to claim you were given anything less than what you deserved.

And  yet this same game showed us that every single race was fighing its own war, looking to their own borders and not cooperating at all.  No wonder they were getting curb-stomped, it almost didn't matter they still had the relay network going..  

Think of what they could do if they pooled thier resources and worked together!

They could...fail together.

If they were stupid.

Alternatively, a galactic alliance of resources and cooperation could... build and deploy a superweapon to beat the unbeatable conventional might of the Reapers.

Are we even reading the same forums?

I (and others) have been called entitled, stupid,"crybabies" and worse.  I've had my opinions belittled on a fairly consistent basis.  Yes I try to let it roll off.  But it builds up over time and I just gotta vent.

And I've been called a socipathic fascist monster. However, I feel no reason to carry that into threads where it isn't a topic. I also don't feel a need to vent about it to unrelated people on a regular basis when challenged about an issue I am disgruntled about.

But hey, maybe it does apply here. I'll admit between my twelve hour shifts I haven't remembered what others in this thread have accussed you of in this thread. Has anyone called you an entitled, stupid crybaby or worse?

(And no, I don't particularly feel 'victim complex' is any of those.)

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...
 
Although perhaps ME2 should have simply BEEN about finding this superweapon.

That would at least have made a lot more sense from an overall story structure.

[Vortex13]

Reorte wrote...

The odd bit of technology slipping through from one cycle to the next is just about believable, they really slipped up badly saying that the Crucible plans had passed down many and that the Reapers had somehow not realised they'd survived. I'd have much preferred that the big advantage we had was the defeat of Sovereign though, being able to study a defeated Reaper being this cycle's unique advantage (thanks to the Protheans, via a somewhat more interesting route than "superweapon plans").

That is one of the big things I dislike about the Crucible's injection into the plot. 

I could buy that a Super Weapon was needed to defeat the Reapers, I could even buy knowledge and actions from previous cycles assiting the current one; ME 1 and the Conduit.

But to have every single cycle work on the plans, AND have said plans survive DESPITE the Reapers knowing of their existance? Yeah that is too much, the Catalyst even says that it was aware of the Crubicle plans several cycles ago, and we are sure that, at the very least, the Reapers saw the same plans AGAIN during the Prothean cylce. 

So if I am the Reaper overlord, and I see a device that is capable of destorying all Reapers in one cycle, and then seeing the EXACT SAME set of plans in the next several cycles, I would have post ponded the Cycles; we're Reapers, we're imortal; until I had found and utterly erdaticated all traces of the one thing that could wipe all of us out.  I can see where the writers wanted to go with having the Crucible being worked on by all the previous cycles, but really, all it does is make the Reapers look stupid and/or incompetent. 

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...


The Reapers didn't have to be so overpowered that the DM has to "let" us beat them if we submit to the blood magic ritual. 

Basically our game became thier game.  Our Shepards became their Shepards.

Our Shepards became their Shepards? Nonsense. Control over our PC does not imply control over the choices that PC faces; we control what our character does when faced with those choices, but not the choices themselves.

As for the rest, if "it's our game" means that we should be able to control the story itself rather than just our own character's actions within it, then yes, it isn't our game. The question is whether that kind of control is something that Bio ever promised you. I'm not in a good position to judge what they promised. I didn't think Bio meant that we'd control the story, but if I had thought that I would have been disappointed rather than pleased, since control over the story is something I want no part of. So maybe I missed Bio promising this out of wishful thinking. But I don't generally pay too much attention to marketing in the first place. Anyway, whatever they promised, it's clear that they never had any intention of delivering that kind of control.

I think you're right to be a bit worried about DA:I. I don't think Bio believes the gamer/developer relationship works the way you want it to work. It's not all that likely that Bio will put you in the same bad place they put you in with ME3, but I think it's obvious that Bio doesn't really give a damn about making the occasional player feel bad about his choices, and if you keep playing Bio games you will be taking that risk.

Modifié par AlanC9, 02 octobre 2013 - 07:07 .

[AlanC9]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
And I've been called a socipathic fascist monster. 

How'd you get tagged with that, anyway? Did you stick up for Control?

[CronoDragoon]

Vortex13 wrote...
But to have every single cycle work on the plans, AND have said plans survive DESPITE the Reapers knowing of their existance? Yeah that is too much, the Catalyst even says that it was aware of the Crubicle plans several cycles ago, and we are sure that, at the very least, the Reapers saw the same plans AGAIN during the Prothean cylce.

I don't really understand how the plans surviving for a few cycles after the Catalyst learns of their existence is so impossible to believe. How would the Catalyst ever really know he eradicated the plans? He can't. (This is also, btw, why "synthetics wiping out organics" is way way way harder than the Leviathans/Catalyst made it sound)

[Vortex13]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...
But to have every single cycle work on the plans, AND have said plans survive DESPITE the Reapers knowing of their existance? Yeah that is too much, the Catalyst even says that it was aware of the Crubicle plans several cycles ago, and we are sure that, at the very least, the Reapers saw the same plans AGAIN during the Prothean cylce.

I don't really understand how the plans surviving for a few cycles after the Catalyst learns of their existence is so impossible to believe. How would the Catalyst ever really know he eradicated the plans? He can't. (This is also, btw, why "synthetics wiping out organics" is way way way harder than the Leviathans/Catalyst made it sound)

Its not so hard to believe as it just further nueters the Reapers in general. 

Its obvious that the cylces with the plans would leave the Crucible blueprints on or near worlds that were 'ripe' for the following harvest, so if these imense beings; with the patience of eons; see the plans for a Reaper killer device the smart and logical thing to do would have been to call the next cycle a bust and harvest the 'under developed' species just to be sure.

The way the Catlyst puts it (which I guess would be more a fault of the ending's presentation) makes it seem like he saw the plans for several cycles and went 'Oh that's nice.' 

[CronoDragoon]

Vortex13 wrote...

The way the Catlyst puts it (which I guess would be more a fault of the ending's presentation) makes it seem like he saw the plans for several cycles and went 'Oh that's nice.' 

I see. He does say he learned of its existence several cycles ago, but thought it since eradicated. Vague wording to be sure, but one I had interpreted as, "I've been trying to destroy it every cycle since I found out about it, and thought I destroyed it during the Prothean cycle."

[Vortex13]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...

The way the Catlyst puts it (which I guess would be more a fault of the ending's presentation) makes it seem like he saw the plans for several cycles and went 'Oh that's nice.' 

I see. He does say he learned of its existence several cycles ago, but thought it since eradicated. Vague wording to be sure, but one I had interpreted as, "I've been trying to destroy it every cycle since I found out about it, and thought I destroyed it during the Prothean cycle."

True. But the idea that a series of plans surviving unscathed for over a billion years is the biggest contrivence of the series; well almost. 

*Just so happen to find a race that has survived for billions of years and has a complete recounting of how the Reapers came to be and why they do what they do is bigger IMO.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

It would require a completely different ME1 as well. THAT was the game that most hyped the Reapers, lest we forget. No amount of new technology short of the discovery of a superweapon or collection of them is going to be enough to defeat that which is infinitely our greater with limitless numbers. Although perhaps ME2 should have simply BEEN about finding this superweapon.

Not really.  The Reapers were portrayed as powerful, but not invincible.  They relied on decapitating the galactic government and taking over the relays so they can pick off the individual systems while they were isolated.  Not the actions of an indestructible force of nature like they were portrayed in ME3 (where they never even bothered to attack the Citadel until it's identity as the Catalyst was revealed) 

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

Our Shepards became their Shepards? Nonsense. Control over our PC does not imply control over the choices that PC faces; we control what our character does when faced with those choices, but not the choices themselves.

Not nonsense.  If you were being ushered in a direction you wanted to go in anyway, that's your good fortune. 

THe problem is in other things than the ending of course.

As for the rest, if "it's our game" means that we should be able to control the story itself rather than just our own character's actions within it, then yes, it isn't our game. The question is whether that kind of control is something that Bio ever promised you. I'm not in a good position to judge what they promised. I didn't think Bio meant that we'd control the story, but if I had thought that I would have been disappointed rather than pleased, since control over the story is something I want no part of. So maybe I missed Bio promising this out of wishful thinking. But I don't generally pay too much attention to marketing in the first place. Anyway, whatever they promised, it's clear that they never had any intention of delivering that kind of control.

It's our game" should mean that the ending should reflect our choices.  Control is probably the closest we get to that.  But overall the ending chocies and outcomes are based strictly on EMS scores, which can come from anywhere and any choice.

I think you're right to be a bit worried about DA:I. I don't think Bio believes the gamer/developer relationship works the way you want it to work. It's not all that likely that Bio will put you in the same bad place they put you in with ME3, but I think it's obvious that Bio doesn't really give a damn about making the occasional player feel bad about his choices, and if you keep playing Bio games you will be taking that risk.

My big hope is that this is the team that came up with DAO which makes ME3's ending look like a sad joke. (with or without the Dark Ritual)

[TheN7Penguin]

Maybe the Reapers didn't know how it worked either. Maybe they thought of it as a myth and Shepard's cycle confirmed its existence to them.
Or maybe the Reaper network functions in the same way as the Geth. Maybe they truly are immortal in a sense that they're still awaiting for a body in the depths of space, silently indoctrinating people to begin a counter-attack.

I still think there's a Reaper alive after the fight with the Thresher Maw. Somewhere underground maybe.

As for how the crucible could have slipped by the Reapers, it is a large galaxy. Finding the plans for the crucible would be like finding a needle in a haystack. And I'm sure the Protheans will have been clever enough to protect the plans from that sort of thing.

[Reorte]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Vortex13 wrote...
But to have every single cycle work on the plans, AND have said plans survive DESPITE the Reapers knowing of their existance? Yeah that is too much, the Catalyst even says that it was aware of the Crubicle plans several cycles ago, and we are sure that, at the very least, the Reapers saw the same plans AGAIN during the Prothean cylce.

I don't really understand how the plans surviving for a few cycles after the Catalyst learns of their existence is so impossible to believe. How would the Catalyst ever really know he eradicated the plans? He can't. (This is also, btw, why "synthetics wiping out organics" is way way way harder than the Leviathans/Catalyst made it sound)

If the Reapers don't find them then it's very unlikely that the next cycle will, particularly if they know that they should be really, really careful to make sure that they're not found. It's not as if the Reapers don't have the time to be thorough.

[Astartes Marine]

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.

I'd like to point out that my favorite sci-fi series of all time has some really tragic moments of fighting against impossible odds with no chance of victory...and yet it still could bring a tear to my eye for the courage and bravery portrayed.

The Earth Mimbari War for example.

Victory is not required for tales of bravery and uhm...heroism...I don't know if David quite grasps that concept yet.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Our Shepards became their Shepards? Nonsense. Control over our PC does not imply control over the choices that PC faces; we control what our character does when faced with those choices, but not the choices themselves.

Not nonsense.  If you were being ushered in a direction you wanted to go in anyway, that's your good fortune. 

So if you disagree with the choices your character is faced with, it's not your character anymore? Really? Or is this just your rhetoric getting carried away again?

It's our game" should mean that the ending should reflect our choices.  Control is probably the closest we get to that.  But overall the ending chocies and outcomes are based strictly on EMS scores, which can come from anywhere and any choice.

So the problem with the endings is that EMS is too important? I don't see the issue.

Edit. I'm not sure the premise makes much sense either, but I don't have any principled way to measure how different endins are from each other. Note that if EMS really does make endings distinct, then ME3 actually has six endings.

Modifié par AlanC9, 03 octobre 2013 - 12:56 .