195 réponses à ce sujet

[spirosz]

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

How?

More of a "Why?" 

Fan rage really, plus I can probably guess they wouldn't be able to write a coherent story based off of Synthesis.  

[Br3admax]

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

It definitely fits into the overall ME theme of making complete and total sense. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Robosexual wrote...

Destroy? Removing synthetics from a sci-fi game?

God no.

You don't need synthetic life to have a sci-fi game.

Synthetics as the Catalyst defines them are hardly necessary to existence in the galaxy. We'd get by just fine without them.

[dreamgazer]

caldas wrote...

I donn't know even why we need the crucible in the first place.
The citadel is the center of reaper's control, ok, let's go there with a nuke and destroy it.

Violently destroying the hub of all relay activity isn't exactly the wisest of decisions, even assuming that just nuking the Citadel would fix the problem (the Reapers would certainly have prepared for such a primitive idea). 

Arriving there you find TIM and he shows you another way, rebooting the machines.
There, you can now have the same choices.

This makes no sense. Why, exactly, are the eons-old, technologically-complex Reapers just able to be rebooted as if I'm reformatting my jump drive? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

How?

More of a "Why?" 

Fan rage really, plus I can probably guess they wouldn't be able to write a coherent story based off of Synthesis.  

Writing a coherent story period seems to be beyond the capability of the ME3 writing team. And I'm not holding any hopes for the ME4 team either.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

How?

More of a "Why?" 

Fan rage really, plus I can probably guess they wouldn't be able to write a coherent story based off of Synthesis.  

Considering the fact that BioWare wouldn't have a game without the presence of humanity, it'd be Synthesis.

[Br3admax]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

How?

More of a "Why?" 

Fan rage really, plus I can probably guess they wouldn't be able to write a coherent story based off of Synthesis.  

Writing a coherent story period seems to be beyond the capability of the ME3 writing team. And I'm not holding any hopes for the ME4 team either.

I think ME3 turned out the way it did because Mass Effect in general wasn't written as a coherent story to begin with.

Modifié par Br3ad, 28 janvier 2014 - 03:50 .

[ATiBotka]

Harbinger.

[dreamgazer]

Br3ad wrote...

I think ME3 turned out the way it did because Mass Effect in general wasn't written as a coherent story.

The second Shepard dies at the beginning of ME2 and is resurrected as a Cerberus pawn, thus rebooting the universe and fast-forwarding time, should have been an indicator.   "Ah yes, Reapers" didn't help whatsoever. 

Coherence and cohesiveness went out the window much earlier than ME3. 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

[quote]dreamgazer wrote...

[quote]caldas wrote...

I donn't know even why we need the crucible in the first place.
The citadel is the center of reaper's control, ok, let's go there with a nuke and destroy it.[/quote]

Violently destroying the hub of all relay activity isn't exactly the wisest of decisions, even assuming that just nuking the Citadel would fix the problem (the Reapers would certainly have prepared for such a primitive idea).[/quote]

The Reapers have been shown to operate independently of the Citadel from the beginning. Nuking the Citadel would do nothing productive.

Granted, if the Citadel being nuked did solve the problem, I don't understand how it wouldn't be a wise decision.

[quote]Arriving there you find TIM and he shows you another way, rebooting the machines.
There, you can now have the same choices.[/quote]

This makes no sense. Why, exactly, are the eons-old, technologically-complex Reapers just able to be rebooted as if I'm reformatting my jump drive? [/quote]

Well, to be honest... It never happened before. The Reapers ensured that. I think it would be deliciously anti-climactic if it could work. I mean, who thought shooting a pipe somehow activated the Crucible? And carrying the keys to the galactic apocalypse on my 64 gig flash drive? Awesome.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Br3ad wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

I'd rather they canonize Synthesis or Refuse, personally.

How?

More of a "Why?" 

Fan rage really, plus I can probably guess they wouldn't be able to write a coherent story based off of Synthesis.  

Writing a coherent story period seems to be beyond the capability of the ME3 writing team. And I'm not holding any hopes for the ME4 team either.

I think ME3 turned out the way it did because Mass Effect in general wasn't written as a coherent story to begin with.

IMO, that is a problem, but there's enough coherence in the story to actually make something salvageable if you nix the synthetic uprising/singularity theme of the ending and rework the Reaper motivation. IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else.

[marcelo caldas]

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

[spirosz]

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

[marcelo caldas]

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

Joel, just no.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

But, imo, they were most prominent -and most pervasive- in ME3.

[dreamgazer]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

The Reapers have been shown to operate independently of the Citadel from the beginning. Nuking the Citadel would do nothing productive.

Granted, if the Citadel being nuked did solve the problem, I don't understand how it wouldn't be a wise decision.

Agreed.

Considering what happened to the Alpha Relay, I don't want to think about what happens when you brute-force destroy the hub, though.

Well, to be honest... It never happened before. The Reapers ensured that. I think it would be deliciously anti-climactic if it could work. I mean, who thought shooting a pipe somehow activated the Crucible? And carrying the keys to the galactic apocalypse on my 64 gig flash drive? Awesome.

Neither presentation would be ideal, but I'm more willing to buy that the Crucible could be activated by popping an ignition device than a couple of keystrokes would reformat the ageless organic-synthetic hybrid death machines.

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

I can't entirely agree with this, given the amount of narrative baggage and failings ME2 dumped on the third game.

The problems lie with the entire series as a whole, if you're going to place blame. 

[Br3admax]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

But, imo, they were most prominent -and most pervasive- in ME3.

Even if I agreed with this, which I don't, that's build up. Overtime, it's always going to become more obvious, especially in a rushed trilogy ending game where all the problems, with their own problems, have to be solved right then and there. 

[spirosz]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

But, imo, they were most prominent -and most pervasive- in ME3.

Fair enough, but they weren't just there because of being there - they were built from what was built up in the previous two games.  

[MassivelyEffective0730]

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

caldas wrote...

"IMO, the problems lie with ME3 above all else"

Agreed

It can't - the flaws were present since ME1.  

But, imo, they were most prominent -and most pervasive- in ME3.

Fair enough, but they weren't just there because of being there - they were built from what was built up in the previous two games.  

Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).

Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 28 janvier 2014 - 04:19 .

[mopotter]

AlanC9 wrote...

I almost want them to canonize Synthesis just so I can watch the nerdrage.

I've seen a couple of fan fiction stories where I can see the idea as being interesting, sort of.  

Was the change immediate for everyone or will it happen over a period of time to those not near a relay or whatever it was the spread the thing.  And if so, will anyone fight the change or try to stop it.

or, since I don't know enough about genetics to understand what will happen to future generations, will nature makes adjustments along the way and years later will some be born who are "different" and how that would affect the status quo.

If they use destroy will they eventually decide to attempt a visit through dark space to make sure all reapers have been destroyed.

I'm interested in what they come up with.  





 

[spirosz]

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).

Which ones? 

[MassivelyEffective0730]

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).

Which ones? 

The overall premise of the ending (and main "theme" of the franchise), the generally weaker level number and design (subjective, I will admit), the auto-dialogue, the lack of interactivity and player agency for Shepard, the stricter and more absolute morality system dichotomy with two philosophies that more or less overlap a lot, the priority given to certain characters (a blue one in particular) and the enforced importance not only to the plot, but the personal level with Shepard (I suppose this goes parallel with the lack of agency for the players to not only define their Shepard in ME3, but how their Shepard defines relationships with other characters).

[marcelo caldas]

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).

Which ones? 

If I may:

1 - The Crucible
2 - The whole "I created machines to kill organics so they won't be killed by machines" thing
3 - Starbrat
4 - Autodialog
5 - Not fighitng reapers all game long

[Br3admax]

caldas wrote...

spirosz wrote...

MassivelyEffective0730 wrote...

Yes, for some of them (and some would say many), but the ones that I found to be (by far) the most problematic were the ones exclusive to ME3 (and introduced in such).

Which ones? 

If I may:

1 - The Crucible

Talked about in LotSB.

2 - The whole "I created machines to kill organics so they won't be killed by machines" thing

Hardly a shining moment of dumbassery. "...a human Reaper."

3 - Starbrat

See above.

4 - Autodialog

Happened in ME2. A lot more than people want to admit, and this has nothing to do with the story.

5 - Not fighitng reapers all game long

How many times did you fight the Collecters,Solve-My-Daddy-Issues Shepard?

[mopotter]

dreamgazer wrote...

Br3ad wrote...

I think ME3 turned out the way it did because Mass Effect in general wasn't written as a coherent story.

The second Shepard dies at the beginning of ME2 and is resurrected as a Cerberus pawn, thus rebooting the universe and fast-forwarding time, should have been an indicator.   "Ah yes, Reapers" didn't help whatsoever. 

Coherence and cohesiveness went out the window much earlier than ME3. 

Yes, yes it did.

Though I did enjoy ME2.  If Shepard hadn't been in it, if it had been a totally separate story and not a "series" I would have enjoyed each one on it's own.  As a series, not so much.