384 réponses à ce sujet

[Cobalt2113]

David7204 wrote...

These conventional victory ideas all suck.

It's not so much that they suck, it's just that they're boring.

It's like going "Hey, instead of doing something interesting, how about we just shoot at the reapers until they blow up? Maybe strap Arnold Schwarzenegger to the front of a cruiser and he can take them out with his minigun. Whatever, at least this way we won't have to use our imagination."

Modifié par Cobalt2113, 26 novembre 2013 - 02:51 .

[David7204]

No, they suck. They suck hard.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

No, they suck. They suck hard.

In your opinion.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

Cobalt2113 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

These conventional victory ideas all suck.

It's not so much that they suck, it's just that they're boring.

It's like going "Hey, instead of doing something interesting, how about we just shoot at the reapers until they blow up? Maybe strap Arnold Schwarzenegger to the front of a cruiser and he can take them out with his minigun. Whatever, at least this way we won't have to use our imagination."

I think that's a good way to put it.

Aside from having to manufacture some contrived level which requires a ground team (for whatever reason), conventional victory doesn't bring with it anything risk-taking.

Granted, the Crucible as written is a very weak plot device, but I could have gotten behind the unconventional solution, provided that the writers made it interesting enough and provided some backstory to give it context. As written, the Crucible's function is pretty critical (ending the Reaper war), without having a correspondingly critical level of exposition.

[AlanC9]

The other problem with conventional victories is that they tend to take a long time to play out after the issue's decided, unless some sort of political solution is possible.

[David7204]

That's no doubt a significant hurdle, along with other challenges rarely or, so far as I can tell, never addressed on the BSN.

[Jorji Costava]

BaladasDemnevanni wrote...

Aside from having to manufacture some contrived level which requires a ground team (for whatever reason), conventional victory doesn't bring with it anything risk-taking.

Granted, the Crucible as written is a very weak plot device, but I could have gotten behind the unconventional solution, provided that the writers made it interesting enough and provided some backstory to give it context. As written, the Crucible's function is pretty critical (ending the Reaper war), without having a correspondingly critical level of exposition.

The way I see it, there were only ever bad options, given how the Reapers had been written to that point. Because the Reapers were nigh-invincible individually and because there were so darn many of the things, an unconventional victory would have to involve a plot device, like, "The Reapers have an exhaust port that leads directly to their main reactor" or some such. Not great.

If you wanted to make this plot device not seem incredibly ad hoc, you'd probably want to tie it to the Reapers' goals and plans somehow (which is precisely what the ending tried to do). The problem is that the destruction of all intelligent life every 50,000 years is kind of a dumb thing for an advanced race to want; it's pretty hard to retroactively come up with some kind of rationale for why that plan makes sense, particularly if it isn't going to be along the lines of "They just do it out of pure self-interest."

None of this is to say that conventional victory doesn't have problems either; maybe the writers just wrote themselves into a corner that there was no getting out of.

AlanC9 wrote...

The other problem with conventional victories is that they tend to take a long time to play out after the issue's decided, unless some sort of political solution is possible.

I think this kind of thing could be handwaived without a huge amount of fuss. Not too many people cared about how the rest of the Empire was dealt with after the Death Star was destroyed in Return of the Jedi, or what happened to the rest of the Ur-Quan after the Sa-Matra was destroyed in Star Control II. Perhaps you could use one major victory at the end (say, the destruction of Harbinger or some such) as a way of signifying overall victory in the war.

[David7204]

There's certainly only going to be bad options if you walk into it like that.

[themikefest]

David7204 wrote...

No, they suck. They suck hard.

Why do they suck David7204? Is it because you didn't think of it yourself first?

You always have something negative to post about what ideas or thoughts people post here without coming back with a good rebuttal.

Remember they are only ideas and thoughts. Nothing is set in stone. I have read a lot of ideas on this site posted by different folks and I have to say some  are really good.

[David7204]

Really? What 'really good' ideas are those?

[KaiserShep]

As if someone is going to sift through all of the old threads to find them, only to have all of them fall woefully short of your "standards".

Modifié par KaiserShep, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:29 .

[MassivelyEffective0730]

David7204 wrote...

Really? What 'really good' ideas are those?

Do you define good objectively? Of course you do.

You have all the power, don't you David?

[themikefest]

David7204 wrote...

Really? What 'really good' ideas are those?

Does it matter to you?
 
You will do what you always do. Just say they're stupid/idiotic/silly/suck without giving a resonable explanation

[Nole]

Bullies.

[David7204]

I'd be happy to give an explanation for whoever asks.

Take these ideas, for instance. They suck primary because they have nothing to do with Shepard. And that's stupid. The Reapers are defeated because someone else builds a bajillion Thanix guns. Because someone else builds a bajillion nukes. Because someone else builds a bajillion lasers. And that is incredibly poor writing. Why are we even bothering to tell a story about Shepard if it turns out Shepard has nothing to do with the resolution of the central conflict?

Of course, that's only the primary fault. There are about a half dozen others.

Modifié par David7204, 26 novembre 2013 - 03:35 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

No, they suck. They suck hard.

Do better, then.  And do it in the confines of ME3 alone. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I think it has been established that Shepard (one person) vs a fleet of sentient warships is not something that's going to be won without a heavy DEM or Superweapon. Otherwise, conventional victory lying solely on Shepard's shoulders is impossible. And it would be a contrived asspull of plot armored glory if it was possible.

No, the conventional victory ideas surpass Shepard. They take Shepard's idea and turn it into one united galaxy. But no, that's bad, because Shepard isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting!

You're not technically defining why anything is poor writing, just that it is. Are we to take your word for it? That you 'know' good writing? I've seen so much that counts to the contrary. Really David, who are you to define what is truly good and what isn't?

[AlanC9]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

I think it has been established that Shepard (one person) vs a fleet of sentient warships is not something that's going to be won without a heavy DEM or Superweapon. Otherwise, conventional victory lying solely on Shepard's shoulders is impossible. And it would be a contrived asspull of plot armored glory if it was possible.

No, the conventional victory ideas surpass Shepard. They take Shepard's idea and turn it into one united galaxy. But no, that's bad, because Shepard isn't the one doing all the heavy lifting!

I think you've lurched uncontrollably into the truth here. CV was never considered by Bio because the game was always going to be about Shepard winning the war personally.

It's the same logic we see in Wing Commander 3. It's not an accident that the Confed fleet and the Behemoth superweapon both fail. They fail so Blair can win the war by dropping the T-Bomb.

[Deathsaurer]

AlanC9 wrote...

I think you've lurched uncontrollably into the truth here. CV was never considered by Bio because the game was always going to be about Shepard winning the war personally.

That wasn't obvious? It could have been done if they hadn't made the Reapers giant robots from the word go which boxed them into a corner. You can see it all the way back in ME1. Shepard stopped Sovereign via plot contrivance. You simply can't have a conventional victory without marginalizing the player character.

[David7204]

Complete nonsense.

[KaiserShep]

Insightful as always.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

J. Reezy wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

we need him for logical deconstructions and that certain charm he brings

But he hates tattoos! All his arguments should be invalid.

What did I say about loob bickers?

[Darks1d3]

KaiserShep wrote...

Insightful as always.

Atleast his response was somewhat original. I don't think I've seen him use that response before.

Usually it's "that's just silly" or "this is stupid".

Modifié par Darks1d3, 26 novembre 2013 - 04:55 .

[dreamgazer]

David7204 wrote...

Complete nonsense.

Elaborate, professor.