1814 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

iakus wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...
Requires? Nothing. Fiction is arbitrary. Indulged? Quite likely as a narrative/emotional tradeoff for resolution of the ambiguity of the Reapers's fate in the other endings.

Funny, since in EC Bioware went to laughable lengths (especially with Synthesis) to try and convince us everything is just PEACHY with the Reapers.

Shepard?  Still in rubble.

There's a lot the EC didn't show outside of immediate clarity and closure. 

And, seriouslly, you got "peachy" out of the non-Destroy slides---most notably in Control?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

You're really not following the thread. We were talking about CrutchCricket's alternative version of the Crucible that would lead to a conventional victory. I certainly agree that in ME3 as written the Reapers aren't having any particular trouble. But if the Reapers aren't going to have trouble, why are you bothering to talk about limitations on Reaper actions below? What version of ME3 are you talking about?

I thought the argument was if the galaxy ever did get to the point where they could potentially beat the Reapers conventuionally, they'd escalate to wipe out troublesome species.

THis makes no sense because:

A) If they could do that, they would have done it already.  For efficiency's sake if nothing else

Their mandate is to preserve organic life.  Escalation to that point violates this mandate unless tehy have some clause in it that states "Unless they're giving you a really, really hard time"

their mandate to to preserve organic life.

Destroying a dreadnought doesn't also destroy a crop of candidates?

Thousands as opposed to millions/billions?

For your Shep, anyway. Shame his head was so loose.

Please don't pretend I'm the only one who feels this way.  Enough do that this is pretty much guaranteed to haunt Bioware for years to come.  Nearly Headless Nick Shepard.

[AlanC9]

iakus wrote...

I thought the argument was if the galaxy ever did get to the point where they could potentially beat the Reapers conventuionally, they'd escalate to wipe out troublesome species.

In practice this reduces to the same thing as the alternate Crucible idea, which is just a way to get to conventional victory,  so it doesn't really matter.

THis makes no sense because:

A) If they could do that, they would have done it already.  For efficiency's sake if nothing else

Hmm... you know, you can actually make a case that the Reapers should have started ME3 by wrecking planets rather than bothering with trying to do the harvest. But are you saying that the Reapers physically can't escalate? Or is it mental? Or are we still talking about a fantasy version of ME3?

Their mandate is to preserve organic life.  Escalation to that point violates this mandate unless tehy have some clause in it that states "Unless they're giving you a really, really hard time"
.....

Thousands as opposed to millions/billions?

So there is a clause in the mandate that lets you kill instead of harvest. You just can't kill ... too many? How many is too many? What percentage of a species are they allowed to kill? Is this per day, per year, or for the entire war? If the Reapers kill too many turians, will they have to evacuate Palaven rather than risk killing more while they're doing the harvest?

By this logic the quarians would be invincible against the Reapers if they foolishly hadn't put their population back on Rannoch, since the Reapers couldn't destroy the quarian fleet without killing off the population. The Reapers would have to run away. Or would they just get caught in a logic loop and self-destruct?

Am I taking this idea too seriously?

Please don't pretend I'm the only one who feels this way.  Enough do that this is pretty much guaranteed to haunt Bioware for years to come.  Nearly Headless Nick Shepard.

Oh, sure. I'll be putting up with posts like yours for years.(Actually, I'm still betting that I'll be seeing you on the ME4 boards)

Modifié par AlanC9, 21 décembre 2013 - 07:13 .

[Dean_the_Young]

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

You're really not following the thread. We were talking about CrutchCricket's alternative version of the Crucible that would lead to a conventional victory. I certainly agree that in ME3 as written the Reapers aren't having any particular trouble. But if the Reapers aren't going to have trouble, why are you bothering to talk about limitations on Reaper actions below? What version of ME3 are you talking about?

I thought the argument was if the galaxy ever did get to the point where they could potentially beat the Reapers conventuionally, they'd escalate to wipe out troublesome species.

It was... in the context of an alternate version of the Crucible resolving canonical ME3 that would lead to conventional victory by be being a localized WMD and thus the Reapers would apparently retreat and adopt an insurgency naval war against the galaxy. because seiges and long-term stationary harvesting would be impossible.

THis makes no sense because:

A) If they could do that, they would have done it already.  For efficiency's sake if nothing else

Unless they'd like to harvest species as possible within a certain threshhold.

It would be a basic concept of prioritization of objectives. Objective A: prevent societies from advancing to the point of being able to produce suffiently advanced AI. Objective B: harvest said sufficient sections of societies to produce Reapers unless Objective B threatens the accomplishment of Objective A.


Prioritizing objectives when they become mutually exclusive is basic conflict resolution. Conventional war advocates just insist that the Reapers will throw away the larger goal for the smaller one.

Their mandate is to preserve organic life.  Escalation to that point violates this mandate unless tehy have some clause in it that states "Unless they're giving you a really, really hard time"

Their mandate is to preserve organic life from a potential future synthetic singularity, not any given cause of death. Their clause is 'at all costs,' which includes potential ascension candidate pools.

You're basically strawmanning the Reapers own stated goals and rationals at this point.

Destroying a dreadnought doesn't also destroy a crop of candidates?

Thousands as opposed to millions/billions?

Millions/billions to trillions/googleplex if the cycle collapses and a hostile AI rises?

(Because, you know, that's their concern.)

For your Shep, anyway. Shame his head was so loose.

Please don't pretend I'm the only one who feels this way.  Enough do that this is pretty much guaranteed to haunt Bioware for years to come.  Nearly Headless Nick Shepard.

Shame for them as well. I also feel pity for the many people who are convinced Refuse was a middle finger to them after the game used every authority figure and other tools to emphasize that conventional victory was flawed and the Crucible was the path to victory, but such injuries are self-inflicted.

It just goes to show, if you build it, people will run themselves into it and blame you regardless.

[KaiserShep]

BioWare's still laughing maniacally over Refuse. Hudson and Walters keep a vial suspended in a zero point chamber containing the saltiest tears from the bitterest fans.

[wolfhowwl]

KaiserShep wrote...

BioWare's still laughing maniacally over Refuse. Hudson and Walters keep a vial suspended in a zero point chamber containing the saltiest tears from the bitterest fans.

Hell some fans were so upset over the ending that they asked for an option to refuse even if it meant losing.

Bioware listened to their feedback!

Modifié par wolfhowwl, 21 décembre 2013 - 08:43 .

[Eterna]

KaiserShep wrote...

BioWare's still laughing maniacally over Refuse. Hudson and Walters keep a vial suspended in a zero point chamber containing the saltiest tears from the bitterest fans.

Or maybe fans wanted a Reaper win ending since before the game released and the EC presented an opportunity to include one?

Nah, Bioware just hates you. 

[KaiserShep]

Hard to tell if my comment was taken seriously or not. I suppose that's part of the fun.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 décembre 2013 - 09:04 .

[crimzontearz]

mostly because Shep_lives.bik is absolutely impossible to be misinterpreted on its own unless you're determined to do so. there's absolutely no ambiguity there.

if that is the case a simple forum post, clear, concise and official will cost absolutely nothing and net quite a few happy people

Yet the charade continues. Synthesis gets a clear shepard's death and a speech from EDI, Control gets Shepard's ascension to synthetic godhood and a Shepalyst speech. Destroy gets a speech from hacket (not even Shepard who according to you CLEARLY LIVES) and then a GASP and "maybe he lives mane he does not...TROLOLOLOL"

again, lovely

[crimzontearz]

This is why no one takes people here seriously. You honestly believe some internet rumor about how they locked themselves in a room away from the other writers. When any logical common sense dictates that Mac and Casey would directly report to the doctors. So if they did lock themselves in a room, the doctors would know about it. Think about it.

That's really all it takes to understand the ending. A little common sense.

Unfortunately, a lot of people here don't have any common sense. You can't buy common sense at a store. You have to learn it as a skill for everyday life.

Common sense would dictate many things that Bioware just failed at.

Like, pushing a game like DA2 out in 18 months, like the whole EMS fiasco after the public statements, like preventing senior devs to do imports at work AT ALL...like many other things, but hey you are right, we have no proof and Bioware would never say anything about it (because if they did people would then ask "so wait, that happened and one of those two was PROMOTED?????"

[Ieldra]

SR72 wrote...
This is why no one takes people here seriously. You honestly believe some internet rumor about how they locked themselves in a room away from the other writers. When any logical common sense dictates that Mac and Casey would directly report to the doctors. So if they did lock themselves in a room, the doctors would know about it. Think about it.

The statement that Mac Walters and Casey Hudson did the (original) endings on their own without input from other writers was posted by Patrick Weekes - or at least from a forum account known to belong to him. Some time later Chris Priestly said it was a falsification. Common sense would indicate there is some office politics and damage control in the latter statement, and Chris Priestly - well, this was the man who claimed that you can get 4000 EMS without MP in the original, pre-EC game. So he either didn't know better or he lied to my face (this was a personal encounter). Both possibilities don't inspire confidence.

I agree that Refuse was never intended as a slight to the fans, rather than giving players a roleplaying option and showing the plausible consequences - which was asked for after the original game came out - but as the ending sequence (everything after ShepardÄs collapse at the control panel) does indeed appear as thematically and narratively distinct from the rest of the game I find it very plausible that it may have been made by Casey Hudson and Mac Walters alone.

[crimzontearz]

^^ devs were told that there was enough EMS in SP to get the breath scene, some went as far as saying that maybe NG+ or a really awesome import was required (because they were not allowed to do either at work)

Of course asking to the person who designed the system lead to a flat "no" as an answer. Chris lihely did not know.

Of course an apology would have been nice

[AlanC9]

crimzontearz wrote...

Yet the charade continues. Synthesis gets a clear shepard's death and a speech from EDI, Control gets Shepard's ascension to synthetic godhood and a Shepalyst speech. Destroy gets a speech from hacket (not even Shepard who according to you CLEARLY LIVES) and then a GASP and "maybe he lives mane he does not...TROLOLOLOL"
 

He doesn't clearly live all the time in Destroy, only in very high EMS conditions.

[KaiserShep]

There wouldn't be much point to having two versions of the memorial scene at all. Of course, sudden clairvoyance is problematic, but still, it's there for a reason.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 décembre 2013 - 04:38 .

[crimzontearz]

Right, and not everyone lives in other endings but the slides are placed accordingly (for example) you are telling me a SINGLE slider or an unequivocal word of god post was too much to ask?

[crimzontearz]

There wouldn't be much point to having two versions of the memorial scene at all. Of course, sudden clairvoyance is problematic, but still, it's there for a reason.

Then why not come out and say it? Why the joke? Why the following charade?

[Iakus]

AlanC9 wrote...

He doesn't clearly live all the time in Destroy, only in very high EMS conditions.

Aside form the breath scene, Shepard's fate in Destroy plays out identically.  There is absolutely nothing to indicate why Destroy is fatal at 3099 EMS and survivable at 3100

[KaiserShep]

crimzontearz wrote...

There
wouldn't be much point to having two versions of the memorial scene at
all. Of course, sudden clairvoyance is problematic, but still, it's
there for a reason.

Then why not come out and say it? Why the joke? Why the following charade?

Isn't it obvious? To drive us all mad for all eternity.

iakus wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

He doesn't clearly live all the time in Destroy, only in very high EMS conditions.

Aside form the breath scene, Shepard's fate in Destroy plays out identically.  There is absolutely nothing to indicate why Destroy is fatal at 3099 EMS and survivable at 3100

The reason there's nothing to indicate why destroy is fatal at 3099 and survivable at 3100 is because this is a video game that determines certain outcomes based on points. This would be like me complaining that there's nothing to indicate why Shepard can't convince Jeong to stand down if I only have 11 charm points instead of 12, or 8 intimidate instead of the required 9. Just the same, depending on the number, the destroy wave is fatal to everyone else too. Why? Because the points dictate it. It really does not need to be any more complicated than that.

[crimzontearz]

Incorrect, the game shows you different speeches for the persuasion/intimidation paths

What he is saying is that there is no sign of HOW Shepard might have survived the 3100 EMS destroy as opposed to the fatal 3099

[KaiserShep]

It doesn't matter if the speeches are different. The point is that something must be leveled up accordingly for certain options to be available or for certain outcomes to happen. How Shepard survives 3100 but dies in 3099 does not matter any more than how the destroy wave vaporizes the earth below 2050, or saves it at 2650 and above.

Modifié par KaiserShep, 21 décembre 2013 - 05:23 .

[crimzontearz]

It does, the game TELLS you why (your crucible sucked **** the blast was not controlled). I am not arguing the arbitrary numerical value I am arguing the fact that the audience sees/kniws no difference to help believe that the 3100 scenario is any more survivable than the 3099 one

[BaladasDemnevanni]

KaiserShep wrote...

The reason there's nothing to indicate why destroy is fatal at 3099 and survivable at 3100 is because this is a video game that determines certain outcomes based on points. This would be like me complaining that there's nothing to indicate why Shepard can't convince Jeong to stand down if I only have 11 charm points instead of 12, or 8 intimidate instead of the required 9. Just the same, depending on the number, the destroy wave is fatal to everyone else too. Why? Because the points dictate it. It really does not need to be any more complicated than that.

This is a flawed analogy. There is a clear causative link between the charm/intimidate and their respective effects. It's measuring the persuasive abilities of the main character. Someone who has 11 charm points isn't "charming" enough to convince Saren to kill himself.

How does that work with EMS, which is a measure of galactic readiness? Does having a certain number of fleets gives the Crucible the ability to discriminate between Shepard specifically vs every other synthetic/partial synthetic?

A better comparison to what you're suggesting would be if having 12 charm points somehow gave Shepard the ability to survive the Destroy wave.

[JamesFaith]

crimzontearz wrote...

Right, and not everyone lives in other endings but the slides are placed accordingly (for example) you are telling me a SINGLE slider or an unequivocal word of god post was too much to ask?

Actualy yes.

You know, when there are players who want to be sure that Shepard survived, they are also other as me who want to be sure he is dead and will not return in some kind of sequel.

When breathing scene isn't ideal, it should work for both camps thanks to its ambiguity - Shepard/unknown soldier.

Your desired single slide or unequivocal word of god that Shepard survived/died would certainly harm one of these camp.

In this case ambiguity is better solution then selfish certainty.

[dreamgazer]

Word of God? About as close as you'll probably get.

One of the goals for the Extended Cut, as part of addressing player feedback, was to provide more time with the love interest, and more opportunity for players to say goodbye to them and provide additional moments of connection between them. We did this in several ways:
Shepard can now actually say goodbye to the love interest when they are split up at the conduit run.

When Shepard sees flashbacks of important characters during the final decision, the flashbacks are now variable based on your playthrough – so your love interest can appear as one of the flashbacks, providing another moment of reflection between Shepard and that character.

A memorial scene was added, partly to show a close bond between Shepard and the love interest. The scene is variable, and if Shepard has a love interest in a given playthrough, it will be that character who places Shepard’s name on the memorial wall.

You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together.