419 réponses à ce sujet

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Well, regardless of how I played my Shepard across five years and three games, the chocies become:

Violate the genetic code of every living being in the galaxy.  And die
Let the Reapers take over the galaxy, under new management.  And die.
Kill the Reapers while kill slaughtering my own allies.  Including one who has been a stalwart ally for two of the three games (and die.  OR DID HE?  DUN DUN DUN!)
Make a moving speech about what I've been fighting for and watch the game laugh at you as rocks fall and everyone dies.

So no, none of these choices felt like I was playing "My character"  My character probably would have erten a bullet first.  I suppose I could simulate that by simply closing the game, but frankly that entire sequence made me too angry to think of it at the time.  

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.

The problem is EMS means everything.  And only creates one or two variations of each of the three endings.

Technically, DAO has four endings, but  the choices made in the game make it feel like numerous variations among them.  

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Well, regardless of how I played my Shepard across five years and three games, the chocies become:

--snip--


Technically, DAO has four endings, but  the choices made in the game make it feel like numerous variations among them.

DAO's final decision didn't offer enough variation to satisfy my personal tastes, so... does that make it bad?

For that matter, I can reduce it down to "three bad decisions" too...

-- You die.
-- Your companion dies.
-- Live... at the expense of your first born child (in the hands of a witch, of all things).

[Iakus]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

DAO's final decision didn't offer enough variation to satisfy my personal tastes, so... does that make it bad?

For that matter, I can reduce it down to "three bad decisions" too...

-- You die.
-- Your companion dies.
-- Live... at the expense of your first born child (in the hands of a witch, of all things).

Sure.  If you genuinely think that and aren't just attempting sarcasm to make a pont.

Personally, I like a) If the Warden lives, you clearly see the Warden living
if you sacrifice a companion, you at least have an option, based on an earlier choice.  And the companion goes to his death knowing full well what is about to happen, is okay with it, and actually volunteers for the duty.

Plus the choice of who rules Ferelden, who you choose as a companion, what sacrifice is made to slay the archdemon, all plays into the end providing a different, dare I say, unique feel to each ending.

[Dean_the_Young]

AlanC9 wrote...

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?

Nah, this was well before that. I don't like talking about it openly, but I've no problem PMing you if you're curious.

[Chashan]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

DAO's final decision didn't offer enough variation to satisfy my personal tastes, so... does that make it bad?

For that matter, I can reduce it down to "three bad decisions" too...

-- You die.
-- Your companion dies.
-- Live... at the expense of your first born child (in the hands of a witch, of all things).

Which could also just plain be a child, mind.

Notice that those remain at a personal level, and are followed up by a lengthy, playable when appropriate epilogue in the base-game. As well as the build-up iakus mentioned.

Dragon-slaying gets done regardless, without further in-depth ramifications for the setting's entire world which make a continuation problematic at the very least (what's going to be done with DA:O's Ritual of course remains to be seen, but still). Which was done in more than one case in ME3's finale. And begs the question whether that was at all needed when BW evidently does not have the intention to abandon the ME-franchise.

Having a DA:O-in-space scenario might not have been ideal either, but may have been more palatable for most and easier to manage for the purpose of continuity.

[Jorji Costava]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

DAO's final decision didn't offer enough variation to satisfy my personal tastes, so... does that make it bad?

For that matter, I can reduce it down to "three bad decisions" too...

-- You die.
-- Your companion dies.
-- Live... at the expense of your first born child (in the hands of a witch, of all things).

Well in fairness, there is a fourth choice, which is to live and let some dude who totally betrayed you and who you never really liked anyway die.

As far as conventional victory goes, this is one I've posted before, and I've never really been able to sell anyone on it, but here goes anyway: I just think there should have been way fewer Reapers than there actually ended up being. They bolster their forces by indoctrinating massive amounts of folks. Given the whole "war is hell" idea ME3 pushes, it would make sense that we're faced with the task of killing friends and comrades as opposed to fighting cannibals and such, the killing of which is really a consequence-free act, morally speaking.

Indoctrination as it stands was one of the more poorly implemented plot devices in the game IMO, so this might have been an opportunity to do something more interesting with it. The encounter with the indoctrinated Salarian STG on Virmire should have been a preview of worse things to come.

[CronoDragoon]

Reorte wrote...

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.

You don't really have a basis for that claim besides a vague appeal to logic the premises of which are unproven. Again, the Catalyst will never know when he's completely eradicated the plans. He could have destroyed copies on 15 planets and thought it finished. As long as that 16th copy is found, then the plans survive. The odds are stacked against the Reapers eliminating the plans, so long as you consider the concept of numerous copies. It's why censoring anything on the internet is doomed to failure.

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...
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) 

Yes, clearly the game in which you destroy multiple Reapers during the game and then can kill them all at the end portrays them as invincible. If you want to talk about the necessity of unconventional warfare, consider that ME1's strategy for beating the Reapers boiled down to preventing them from leaving dark space in the first place. This sends at least an equally strong message about the vastness of their power than anything that happens in ME3.

[Iakus]

CronoDragoon wrote...

iakus wrote...
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) 

Yes, clearly the game in which you destroy multiple Reapers during the game and then can kill them all at the end portrays them as invincible. If you want to talk about the necessity of unconventional warfare, consider that ME1's strategy for beating the Reapers boiled down to preventing them from leaving dark space in the first place. This sends at least an equally strong message about the vastness of their power than anything that happens in ME3.

I'm detecting sarcasm here, but I don't know why.

In ME1, the Reapers, yes including Sovereign, were shown to be very powerful, but not invincible.  They didn't simply curb-stomp the galaxy at will.  They were quite deliberate in carefully isolating sections of the galaxy and picking them off piecemeal.  They removed their central leadership, went through their files to learn everything they could about their enemies (remember, it wasn't just Ilos going dark that caused it to be overlooked.  The information on the base there was destroyed before the reapers took the CItadel).  Even mighty Sovereign was unwilling to try soloing the Citadel fleet, but had a fleet of geth along to help out.

Now in ME3, rather than being inspired by Cthulhu, they literally are space-Cthulhu.  Invincible monstrosities you could not hope to defeat no matter how much strength you marshalled.  Heck, the Reapers don't even need the Citadel, it's relay controls, it's intel on the races.  Keep your Council!  We'll take you all on at once!

[Jorji Costava]

Part of the problem here is that ME3 is constantly telling us about the invincibility of the Reapers, but never really showing us. Hackett keeps telling us, "We can't beat them conventionally" (in fact, he says this almost as many times as Anderson says, "I was born in London"), but we get mixed signals from the story. On the one hand, the Reapers are far more numerous and powerful than we are, but on the other, a large number of Krogan troops is supposed to make a huge difference to the war, and the Anderson-led resistance on Earth is still holding out months after the initial invasion. I suspect that the underlying problem here is that if they really showed us exactly how powerful the Reapers were supposed to be, there would simply be no way to win.

[Iakus]

 Hacket:  "We can't beat them conventioanlly

Shepard: "No kidding.  The last three Reapers I killed I had to get really creative!"

[CronoDragoon]

iakus wrote...

In ME1, the Reapers, yes including Sovereign, were shown to be very powerful, but not invincible.  They didn't simply curb-stomp the galaxy at will.  They were quite deliberate in carefully isolating sections of the galaxy and picking them off piecemeal.  They removed their central leadership, went through their files to learn everything they could about their enemies (remember, it wasn't just Ilos going dark that caused it to be overlooked.  The information on the base there was destroyed before the reapers took the CItadel).

Uh, they did this in ME3 as well, minus the Citadel part. Why the Reapers could no longer shut down the relay network from the Citadel is not explained in-game, but it was the hurried, unofficial response Patrick Weekes gave at PAX when a fan asked him about it: that somehow the ability had been sabotaged (by the Keepers or something. It's weird). The Reapers don't attack the Citadel because without the military might of each of the races the Citadel no longer means jack squat. Instead, they focus on the home planets of the races where their military might is most concentrated, and a surprise attack will do the most damage.

Even mighty Sovereign was unwilling to try soloing the Citadel fleet, but had a fleet of geth along to help out.

So one Reaper and a fleet of geth would have prevailed over the Alliance Fifth Fleet and the Citadel's forces were it not for Shepard defeating Saren. That's the flipside to your Sovereign example.

Now in ME3, rather than being inspired by Cthulhu, they literally are space-Cthulhu.  Invincible monstrosities you could not hope to defeat no matter how much strength you marshalled.  Heck, the Reapers don't even need the Citadel, it's relay controls, it's intel on the races.  Keep your Council!  We'll take you all on at once!

Except they aren't invincible as demonstrated throughout the game. They are an overwhelming force by which any sort of conventional tactics are useless on a macro level, sure. Been the case the whole series since Sovereign's speech.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:14 .

[teh DRUMPf!!]

iakus wrote...

Sure.  If you genuinely think that and aren't just attempting sarcasm to make a pont.

It didn't ruin things for me, but no, I didn't much like that decision or its outcomes.

Plus the choice of who rules Ferelden, who you choose as a companion, what sacrifice is made to slay the archdemon, all plays into the end providing a different, dare I say, unique feel to each ending.

I could say the same of ME3 (post-EC, mind you). Who accompanies you to the beam-run changes a few scenes, what decision is made to stop the Reapers has a big impact with very different implications, then you see projected outcomes of previous decisions like: the genophage, Rannoch, Rachni (situational), fate of squadmates, etc...

Admittedly, Shepard having to butcher off his arms and legs for Destroy may have been a bit much.

Then again, it provides good comic relief for an outcome that has nothing else going for it.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

osbornep wrote...

Well in fairness, there is a fourth choice, which is to live and let some dude who totally betrayed you and who you never really liked anyway die.

I'm referring to my own canon run, ofc. If you're telling me I should have saved Alistair to take the fall instead of Loghain or to do the ritual, well, that's like telling a Destroyer to kill the geth on Rannoch. Metagame solutions are not solutions.

Modifié par HYR 2.0, 03 octobre 2013 - 04:18 .

[KaiserShep]

Shepard is only a quadruple amputee if one's headcanon demands it.

[CronoDragoon]

Loghain is a hobag.

[Jorji Costava]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

I'm referring to my own canon run, ofc. If you're telling me I should have saved Alistair to take the fall instead of Loghain or to do the ritual, well, that's like telling a Destroyer to kill the geth on Rannoch. Metagame solutions are not solutions.

Fair enough. I actually don't have 'canon' playthroughs. The canon run is whichever one I'm doing at the moment. When I start a new one, I usually delete my old saves, just to add to the sense that there's no going back, and that I'm somehow 'fully committed' (for lack of a better term) to that particular run. You can't go "Well, things aren't going too great on this run, so I better go back to my other ones."

CronoDragoon wrote...

Loghain is a hobag.

I believe the technical term for that is "poo head."

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Loghain was the best character of DAO and puts Mass Effect's attempted morally-ambiguous figures (Saren, TIM) to shame.


So he lives.

[Erez Kristal]

iakus wrote...



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 [

but isnt that what we were doing? collecting collectors technology & geth tech.
+ taking the thanix canons& edi on a field test.

Modifié par erezike, 03 octobre 2013 - 02:03 .

[Arcian]

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.

Stuff it, David, you know nothing about game design.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

iakus wrote...

Well, regardless of how I played my Shepard across five years and three games, the chocies become:

Violate the genetic code of every living being in the galaxy.  And die
Let the Reapers take over the galaxy, under new management.  And die.
Kill the Reapers while kill slaughtering my own allies.  Including one who has been a stalwart ally for two of the three games (and die.  OR DID HE?  DUN DUN DUN!)
Make a moving speech about what I've been fighting for and watch the game laugh at you as rocks fall and everyone dies.

So no, none of these choices felt like I was playing "My character"  My character probably would have erten a bullet first.  I suppose I could simulate that by simply closing the game, but frankly that entire sequence made me too angry to think of it at the time.  

Still, I can't say I blame Bioware for ignoring those Shepards who would do as you describe. They've never really been willing to indulge the "take your ball and go home" Shepards. I can't say my character ever had the ability to do as you describe when prevented with a ****ty choice throughout the trilogy.