1765 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Maybe he just doesn't agree with you?

[DPSSOC]

congokong wrote...
Mass Effect tends to leave plots vague when they don't make much sense. As I said in my OP, Liara gunning for the Shadow Broker instead of joining Shepard to take down the Collectors makes little sense. But since they knew Liara would become the Broker in LotSB they had to keep Liara on Illium. Therefore, Shepard just doesn't make an argument like what I said in my OP because Liara couldn't have a valid rebuttal.

The sad thing is they didn't need a valid rebuttal.  Insanely obsessive people don't need logical reasons for what they do.  Shepard could have made an argument for Liara to come aboard and Liara say something to the effect that what she's doing is more important, that the Shadow Broker has to pay, or anything else to clearly indicate that for whatever reason this is a compulsion, it is something she feels she must do.

This also makes her actions at the end of LotSB make more sense.  With the Shadow Broker dead she's adrift, she needs something to focus on and take up as much of her time (that is to say all of it) as hunting the Shadow Broker did.

congokong wrote...
The whole Shepard being on trial for either Arrival or Cerberus bothers me. Again, it's left very vague. Besides the plotholes you listed, I felt like Shepard was letting the galaxy down by surrendering to backroom politics while Liara and Garrus were doing everything in their power to stop the impending invasion.

 
I like to view this as Shepard assigning them a penance for doing sweet !@#$ all to get people prepared for the Reapers while he was dead for two years.  This interpretation falls apart when it becomes clear that no similar penance was placed on any of the other squad mates who did sweet !@#$ all  to get people prepared for the Reapers while he was dead for two years.

congokong wrote...
And after Shepard is released he/she salutes everything in blue as if there's no hard feelings about the Alliance tipping off the batarians about Shepard "acting alone" in Arrival or just arresting Shepard for working with Cerberus to take down the Collectors. Also, Liara seems to have no hatred for Hackett for his part in Shepard's detention and possible execution after all the trouble she went through to get Shepard back. It seemed if the reapers weren't going to kill Shepard again, political BS would.

Yeah that doesn't make a lot of sense.  Like I could see them looking past it given the circumstances but neither character is given the opportunity to express bitterness about the BS.

I'd say the most poorly written scene is the conversation with the Council in ME2.  The premise works, the idea that the Council don't want to believe the Reapers exist, or want to believe the threat has been dealt with, because the prospect is truly horrifying.  However nothing in this scene, not the dialogue, the acting, the animation, nothing, supports it.  It fails on any level to convey that the Council is in denial and leaves the only explanation for their attitude that they've completely forgotten the entirety of ME1.

[Chashan]

osbornep wrote...

Let me add this little-mentioned scene from ME1 to the list: It's the one between Saren and Benezia right after Eden Prime, where Saren says, "AAAAARRRGGHH!!!!! This human must be . . . eliminated." Pure camp, and given that the villain is supposed to have some kind of pathos (never successfully realized in my opinion), this scene was too much an exercise in over-the-top villainy.

I found it amusing, to be had. As was noted, of all the villains Mr Arterius still is the best of the lot. Mr Harper sadly was degraded to nothing more than a cheap knock-off copy of Arterius at the very end.

DeinonSlayer wrote...

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

Obadiah wrote...

My
vote for one of the worst scenes is the Rachni queen execution scene in
ME1. Shepard acts like such a righteous blowhard when he releases the
acid. I would have liked the option to execute the Rachni queen with
some dignity, to ask from some last words or something.

Of
course, I'd have also like an option to just turn the queen over to the
council. I mean, if you release the queen into Noveria, what does that
do? The queen is now stranded in the middle of a research facility in a
frozen mountain tundra, and her only option to get off planet is to
steal a ship - basically forcing her into criminal behavior (maybe there
is a shuttle at Peak 15 she can use to get off planet).

Anyway it's a questionably written resolution to a situation that suddenly gets revealed at the end of the Noveria mission.

I think
I know where you are coming from. A lot of the 'big' decisions in Mass
Effect I think could have benefitted from a Maelon's data decision,
where multiple choices are introduced that lead to the same outcome but
change the tone. For example, the Rachni scene could have benefitted
from two options to kill the queen, one could be the current in game
Renegade option and the other could be something along the lines of,
"Sorry, I can't take that chance," and Shepard maybe looks regretful
while pulling the trigger. Same with letting here live. Keeping her in
the cage could be a neutral option.

This seems like a simple fix
for much of the bigger criticisms levied against some of the larger
choices. The Collector Base decision being one of them. Two destroy
options could have been introduced, the current one for people who play
like that and another more pragmatic option to Destroy the base because
no one can be trusted with it.

This, with another option for "keep the base and give it to someone-not-Cerberus."

My key problem with that scene rather is that the thing would not take its end with stoic acceptance. It itself suggested that, for all intents and purposes, the rachni's involvement in galactic affairs had its coda with the Rachni Wars.
There certainly is room for reasonable three- rather than two-way choices across the board, that is true.


Sections that do deserve to be called the worst written have already been mentioned: ME3's prologue up to the committee, the Crucible and the "decision chamber" involving the "Catalyst". With the latter even dwarving the painfully bad intro on Earth.

[congokong]

DPSSOC wrote...

congokong wrote...
Mass Effect tends to leave plots vague when they don't make much sense. As I said in my OP, Liara gunning for the Shadow Broker instead of joining Shepard to take down the Collectors makes little sense. But since they knew Liara would become the Broker in LotSB they had to keep Liara on Illium. Therefore, Shepard just doesn't make an argument like what I said in my OP because Liara couldn't have a valid rebuttal.

The sad thing is they didn't need a valid rebuttal.  Insanely obsessive people don't need logical reasons for what they do.  Shepard could have made an argument for Liara to come aboard and Liara say something to the effect that what she's doing is more important, that the Shadow Broker has to pay, or anything else to clearly indicate that for whatever reason this is a compulsion, it is something she feels she must do.

This also makes her actions at the end of LotSB make more sense.  With the Shadow Broker dead she's adrift, she needs something to focus on and take up as much of her time (that is to say all of it) as hunting the Shadow Broker did.

Her obsession is all the more reason why Shepard should try to make a case to get her to stop her hunt. Besides how illogical it was Shepard should also emphasize how unhealthy it is yet Shepard doesn't make much effort. I can see it after the LotSB DLC that Shepard decides to just give the intel on the broker's location rather than try to convince her to stop, but before LotSB was released this wasn't addressed at all. How could Shepard (especially one that romanced Liara) have this awkward conversation and then just leave her on Illium with her obession while ignoring the threat on Liara's life and go through the Omega 4 Relay without resolving anything?

The problem was that LotSB is essential to ME2 unlike the other DLCs to "fix" this. And yes, Liara needs to be useful.

Modifié par congokong, 09 février 2014 - 09:14 .

[Eromenos]

-Every scene with TIM

-Ronald Taylor side-mission in ME2; brain-numbing dialogue/monologues(think of the slow-talking emo denizens in UnderCity of original KOTOR), repressive writing designed to use roundabout ways to try titillating on the subject of "traditional" gender-specific rape

-Catalyst's squeaky high-handed monologues in EC

-Morinth...in ME2. The ME3 version seems on-point though

-Tali & Miranda's daddy issues eclipsing the Reaper threat. Even more unforgivable is when those "stories" were made to be part of immediate Reaper issues, as if that makes them legitimate.

-Blasto in Citadel DLC. The movie poster promotion was great, yet this thing was unbearable. Do irony. Don't do corny.

-Kelly Chambers

Modifié par Eromenos, 09 février 2014 - 10:47 .

[RangerSG]

Eromenos wrote...

-Every scene with TIM

-Ronald Taylor side-mission in ME2; brain-numbing dialogue/monologues(think of the slow-talking emo denizens in UnderCity of original KOTOR), repressive writing designed to use roundabout ways to try titillating on the subject of "traditional" gender-specific rape

-Catalyst's squeaky high-handed monologues in EC

-Morinth...in ME2. The ME3 version seems on-point though

-Tali & Miranda's daddy issues eclipsing the Reaper threat. Even more unforgivable is when those "stories" were made to be part of immediate Reaper issues, as if that makes them legitimate.

-Blasto in Citadel DLC. The movie poster promotion was great, yet this thing was unbearable. Do irony. Don't do corny.

-Kelly Chambers

I'm not seeing how Tali's "Daddy issues" have anything to do with the Geth/Quarian War. And a pair of personal dialogues has little in comparison to Miranda's acting like the war doesn't exist to chase after Ori. Which only bothers me in truth because it's a redux of the ME2 quest, which feels like a weak excuse not to keep her involved.

Most of the ME2 characters are treated poorly though. So it's consistent. 

[Podge 90]

I think Shepard was poorly written in ME3, but not because of autodialogue or the usual criticisms.  I actually like the dream sequences, but they jar with the game because BW didn't go far enough in representing Shepard losing control.

Fighting the Reapers is a battle of the mind as much as it is a battle of dreadnoughts, and I think it would have been effective if it was actually shown to the audience that Shep was really starting to be ground down.  Hell, enough people say they aren't playing their Shepard anymore and instead are stuck with a character they don't want, so BW could have been brave and take away that player agency in a way that was actually used to portray the character in a different light.  Be creative and take away player control by showing Shepard him/herself losing it.

He can admit to Liara that he is frustrated and worried.  He can see old friends die; he can even be forced to pull the trigger on some of them.  Kai Leng can kill an influential and powerful councillor (if you take the 'right' path) right in front of his eyes and can then beat Shepard to the punch at Thessia to vital data, and then experiences, again first-hand, a planet being invaded by Reaper ships, all the while having Cerberus undermime the war effort by distracting focus from the Reapers.

Shepard has a helluva lot on his plate, and fine, have the option to play the heroic way, but perhaps the Renegade path could have been used in a way to really show Shepard being broken.

Modifié par Podge 90, 10 février 2014 - 10:09 .

[txgoldrush]

RangerSG wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

There is one event, that's in the narrative, that causes the Alliance to build the Crucible out of blind but not unfounded faith.

Liara did NOT get everything in Mars, Cerberus got Vendetta;s location.

Lets say that Liara did get Vendetta's location....then we would be going to Thessia, not Palaven and the Crucible thing would have been more figured out.

Nevermind it makes sense for the Alliance to put faith in what they thought to be a Prothean device....the Protheans were responsible for helping defeat the Reaper plot in ME1, Nevermind they have no other option.

Nevermind that Hackett foreshadowed what it does after the Citadel coup sequence.

[txgoldrush]

Podge 90 wrote...

I think Shepard was poorly written in ME3, but not because of autodialogue or the usual criticisms.  I actually like the dream sequences, but they jar with the game because BW didn't go far enough in representing Shepard losing control.

Fighting the Reapers is a battle of the mind as much as it is a battle of dreadnoughts, and I think it would have been effective if it was actually shown to the audience that Shep was really starting to be ground down.  Hell, enough people say they aren't playing their Shepard anymore and instead are stuck with a character they don't want, so BW could have been brave and take away that player agency in a way that was actually used to portray the character in a different light.  Be creative and take away player control by showing Shepard him/herself losing it.

He can admit to Liara that he is frustrated and worried.  He can see old friends die; he can even be forced to pull the trigger on some of them.  Kai Leng can kill an influential and powerful councillor (if you take the 'right' path) right in front of his eyes and can then beat Shepard to the punch at Thessia to vital data, and then experiences, again first-hand, a planet being invaded by Reaper ships, all the while having Cerberus undermime the war effort by distracting focus from the Reapers.

Shepard has a helluva lot on his plate, and fine, have the option to play the heroic way, but perhaps the Renegade path could have been used in a way to really show Shepard being broken.

You didn't get the Renegade Shepard.

Throughout the game, Renegade Shepard is shown to be more confident and better able to hide his or her feelings to get the job done.

Its not about losing it, Shepard can't lose it. And he or she never does. And Shepard losing it more with Renegade goes against the philosophy of Renegade, favoring the practical over idealism. Its the idealists, the ones who want to save everyone, that are more likely to lose it.

However, Shepard facing loss is exactly why Shepard would evac his squad in the end.

Shepard is far better written in mE3 than he is in ME1 and ME2. Shepard is a more consistent character and that is a good thing.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 10 février 2014 - 11:43 .

[txgoldrush]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Everything that happened regarding that damn kid and everything after Anderson dies. Utter crap.

No, you just don't get it.

That damn kid actually embodies the main themes of the entire series. He fits the narrative thematically.

[RangerSG]

txgoldrush wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

There is one event, that's in the narrative, that causes the Alliance to build the Crucible out of blind but not unfounded faith.

Liara did NOT get everything in Mars, Cerberus got Vendetta;s location.

Lets say that Liara did get Vendetta's location....then we would be going to Thessia, not Palaven and the Crucible thing would have been more figured out.

Nevermind it makes sense for the Alliance to put faith in what they thought to be a Prothean device....the Protheans were responsible for helping defeat the Reaper plot in ME1, Nevermind they have no other option.

Nevermind that Hackett foreshadowed what it does after the Citadel coup sequence.

Thinking it was a Prothean Device doesn't mean an AI pulls the trigger. After all, it's clear the Protheans were even more anti-AI than the Citadel races are.

I didn't say Liara got everything in Mars. And I'm not saying they didn't need time to decode the information. What I'm noting is directly related to the Catalyst. Even if they needed the VI to tell them how it functions, that doesn't explain why a device built by organics in a war against AIs would resort to ANY Ai to pull the trigger on their weapon. Needing the Citadel makes sense, to the point that if they figured out the weapon uses the relay network, discerning that they needed the hub of said network was a logical conclusion. Sure, they still need Vendetta for the particulars. But there was no logical reason needing the Citadel required Starbrat.
 

[Podge 90]

txgoldrush wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

I think Shepard was poorly written in ME3, but not because of autodialogue or the usual criticisms.  I actually like the dream sequences, but they jar with the game because BW didn't go far enough in representing Shepard losing control.

Fighting the Reapers is a battle of the mind as much as it is a battle of dreadnoughts, and I think it would have been effective if it was actually shown to the audience that Shep was really starting to be ground down.  Hell, enough people say they aren't playing their Shepard anymore and instead are stuck with a character they don't want, so BW could have been brave and take away that player agency in a way that was actually used to portray the character in a different light.  Be creative and take away player control by showing Shepard him/herself losing it.

He can admit to Liara that he is frustrated and worried.  He can see old friends die; he can even be forced to pull the trigger on some of them.  Kai Leng can kill an influential and powerful councillor (if you take the 'right' path) right in front of his eyes and can then beat Shepard to the punch at Thessia to vital data, and then experiences, again first-hand, a planet being invaded by Reaper ships, all the while having Cerberus undermime the war effort by distracting focus from the Reapers.

Shepard has a helluva lot on his plate, and fine, have the option to play the heroic way, but perhaps the Renegade path could have been used in a way to really show Shepard being broken.

You didn't get the Renegade Shepard.

Throughout the game, Renegade Shepard is shown to be more confident and better able to hide his or her feelings to get the job done.

Its not about losing it, Shepard can't lose it. And he or she never does. And Shepard losing it more with Renegade goes against the philosophy of Renegade, favoring the practical over idealism. Its the idealists, the ones who want to save everyone, that are more likely to lose it.

However, Shepard facing loss is exactly why Shepard would evac his squad in the end.

Shepard is far better written in mE3 than he is in ME1 and ME2. Shepard is a more consistent character and that is a good thing.

Nothing you said actually has any relevance to my post.  Yes, I do know how Rengade is used, and I'm suggesting a different way to use it, which you fundamentally misunderstood.  You don't disagree with me, you just don't understand, you can't grasp, what I'm saying.

It's fine, it's a complex topic.

[DPSSOC]

RangerSG wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

There is one event, that's in the narrative, that causes the Alliance to build the Crucible out of blind but not unfounded faith.

Liara did NOT get everything in Mars, Cerberus got Vendetta;s location.

Lets say that Liara did get Vendetta's location....then we would be going to Thessia, not Palaven and the Crucible thing would have been more figured out.

Nevermind it makes sense for the Alliance to put faith in what they thought to be a Prothean device....the Protheans were responsible for helping defeat the Reaper plot in ME1, Nevermind they have no other option.

Nevermind that Hackett foreshadowed what it does after the Citadel coup sequence.

Thinking it was a Prothean Device doesn't mean an AI pulls the trigger. After all, it's clear the Protheans were even more anti-AI than the Citadel races are.

I didn't say Liara got everything in Mars. And I'm not saying they didn't need time to decode the information. What I'm noting is directly related to the Catalyst. Even if they needed the VI to tell them how it functions, that doesn't explain why a device built by organics in a war against AIs would resort to ANY Ai to pull the trigger on their weapon. Needing the Citadel makes sense, to the point that if they figured out the weapon uses the relay network, discerning that they needed the hub of said network was a logical conclusion. Sure, they still need Vendetta for the particulars. But there was no logical reason needing the Citadel required Starbrat.

This was actually one thing that really let me down in ME3 and was actually made worse with the Extended Cut.  I was always suspicious of the Crucible because it was enforced in ME1 how unprecedented what the Protheans had managed was.  It made it seem like no other species had ever managed to survive until they left and then work to thwart the next cycle.

Then we have another thing the Protheans left behind.  This is just making the Reapers look incompetent, how did they not scour the galaxy for every copy of the plans for the superweapon we know the Protheans built but never finished.  And the info wasn't hidden either, it wasn't on some world the Protheans intentionally deleted all mention of the moment the Reapers struck like Ilos, it was with the Mars cache, a cache the Reapers probably intentionally left, did they not bother to check it?  The moment in the game when we find out the Protheans didn't build the Crucible but built it based on the previous cycles design I drew the conclusion that this was something the Reapers had come up with.  It was the only explanation that made sense to me, how could the Reapers encounter the same weapon in multiple cycles and not clue in.

So I figured it was something the Reapers left behind each cycle so that if any race did manage to mount resistance they would pour all their resources into creating a weapon the Reapers knew they couldn't finish because they'd intentionally left out a key part.  Then we meet the Catalyst and it seems like a confirmation, this was something the Reapers had designed as a means of letting them know when it was necessary to change tactics.  So we're given the 3 options; Control which brings new insight into coming up with a solution (cause this was the best they could do), Synthesis which is the only permanent solution they can conceive at the time, or Destroying them because they and their solution have clearly failed.

It would have been such a great way to end the series (IMO) if they'd just gone with it.  Instead we get the EC and no it was just some past race and they just never quite seem to find all the copies of the plans.

[ImaginaryMatter]

DPSSOC wrote...

This was actually one thing that really let me down in ME3 and was actually made worse with the Extended Cut.  I was always suspicious of the Crucible because it was enforced in ME1 how unprecedented what the Protheans had managed was.  It made it seem like no other species had ever managed to survive until they left and then work to thwart the next cycle.

Then we have another thing the Protheans left behind.  This is just making the Reapers look incompetent, how did they not scour the galaxy for every copy of the plans for the superweapon we know the Protheans built but never finished.  And the info wasn't hidden either, it wasn't on some world the Protheans intentionally deleted all mention of the moment the Reapers struck like Ilos, it was with the Mars cache, a cache the Reapers probably intentionally left, did they not bother to check it?  The moment in the game when we find out the Protheans didn't build the Crucible but built it based on the previous cycles design I drew the conclusion that this was something the Reapers had come up with.  It was the only explanation that made sense to me, how could the Reapers encounter the same weapon in multiple cycles and not clue in.

So I figured it was something the Reapers left behind each cycle so that if any race did manage to mount resistance they would pour all their resources into creating a weapon the Reapers knew they couldn't finish because they'd intentionally left out a key part.  Then we meet the Catalyst and it seems like a confirmation, this was something the Reapers had designed as a means of letting them know when it was necessary to change tactics.  So we're given the 3 options; Control which brings new insight into coming up with a solution (cause this was the best they could do), Synthesis which is the only permanent solution they can conceive at the time, or Destroying them because they and their solution have clearly failed.

It would have been such a great way to end the series (IMO) if they'd just gone with it.  Instead we get the EC and no it was just some past race and they just never quite seem to find all the copies of the plans.

The first time playing the game I thought the Crucible would ultimately end up being a trap of sorts, mostly based on the notion that for some reason no one had any clue what they were actually building and the conveniet way in which it was found.

[txgoldrush]

Podge 90 wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Podge 90 wrote...

I think Shepard was poorly written in ME3, but not because of autodialogue or the usual criticisms.  I actually like the dream sequences, but they jar with the game because BW didn't go far enough in representing Shepard losing control.

Fighting the Reapers is a battle of the mind as much as it is a battle of dreadnoughts, and I think it would have been effective if it was actually shown to the audience that Shep was really starting to be ground down.  Hell, enough people say they aren't playing their Shepard anymore and instead are stuck with a character they don't want, so BW could have been brave and take away that player agency in a way that was actually used to portray the character in a different light.  Be creative and take away player control by showing Shepard him/herself losing it.

He can admit to Liara that he is frustrated and worried.  He can see old friends die; he can even be forced to pull the trigger on some of them.  Kai Leng can kill an influential and powerful councillor (if you take the 'right' path) right in front of his eyes and can then beat Shepard to the punch at Thessia to vital data, and then experiences, again first-hand, a planet being invaded by Reaper ships, all the while having Cerberus undermime the war effort by distracting focus from the Reapers.

Shepard has a helluva lot on his plate, and fine, have the option to play the heroic way, but perhaps the Renegade path could have been used in a way to really show Shepard being broken.

You didn't get the Renegade Shepard.

Throughout the game, Renegade Shepard is shown to be more confident and better able to hide his or her feelings to get the job done.

Its not about losing it, Shepard can't lose it. And he or she never does. And Shepard losing it more with Renegade goes against the philosophy of Renegade, favoring the practical over idealism. Its the idealists, the ones who want to save everyone, that are more likely to lose it.

However, Shepard facing loss is exactly why Shepard would evac his squad in the end.

Shepard is far better written in mE3 than he is in ME1 and ME2. Shepard is a more consistent character and that is a good thing.

Nothing you said actually has any relevance to my post.  Yes, I do know how Rengade is used, and I'm suggesting a different way to use it, which you fundamentally misunderstood.  You don't disagree with me, you just don't understand, you can't grasp, what I'm saying.

It's fine, it's a complex topic.

No I didn't misunderstand.

I just told you that they way you want Renegade implemented goes against the very philosophy of what Renegade is. You are asking for a contradiction here.

[txgoldrush]

DPSSOC wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

There is one event, that's in the narrative, that causes the Alliance to build the Crucible out of blind but not unfounded faith.

Liara did NOT get everything in Mars, Cerberus got Vendetta;s location.

Lets say that Liara did get Vendetta's location....then we would be going to Thessia, not Palaven and the Crucible thing would have been more figured out.

Nevermind it makes sense for the Alliance to put faith in what they thought to be a Prothean device....the Protheans were responsible for helping defeat the Reaper plot in ME1, Nevermind they have no other option.

Nevermind that Hackett foreshadowed what it does after the Citadel coup sequence.

Thinking it was a Prothean Device doesn't mean an AI pulls the trigger. After all, it's clear the Protheans were even more anti-AI than the Citadel races are.

I didn't say Liara got everything in Mars. And I'm not saying they didn't need time to decode the information. What I'm noting is directly related to the Catalyst. Even if they needed the VI to tell them how it functions, that doesn't explain why a device built by organics in a war against AIs would resort to ANY Ai to pull the trigger on their weapon. Needing the Citadel makes sense, to the point that if they figured out the weapon uses the relay network, discerning that they needed the hub of said network was a logical conclusion. Sure, they still need Vendetta for the particulars. But there was no logical reason needing the Citadel required Starbrat.

This was actually one thing that really let me down in ME3 and was actually made worse with the Extended Cut.  I was always suspicious of the Crucible because it was enforced in ME1 how unprecedented what the Protheans had managed was.  It made it seem like no other species had ever managed to survive until they left and then work to thwart the next cycle.

Then we have another thing the Protheans left behind.  This is just making the Reapers look incompetent, how did they not scour the galaxy for every copy of the plans for the superweapon we know the Protheans built but never finished.  And the info wasn't hidden either, it wasn't on some world the Protheans intentionally deleted all mention of the moment the Reapers struck like Ilos, it was with the Mars cache, a cache the Reapers probably intentionally left, did they not bother to check it?  The moment in the game when we find out the Protheans didn't build the Crucible but built it based on the previous cycles design I drew the conclusion that this was something the Reapers had come up with.  It was the only explanation that made sense to me, how could the Reapers encounter the same weapon in multiple cycles and not clue in.

So I figured it was something the Reapers left behind each cycle so that if any race did manage to mount resistance they would pour all their resources into creating a weapon the Reapers knew they couldn't finish because they'd intentionally left out a key part.  Then we meet the Catalyst and it seems like a confirmation, this was something the Reapers had designed as a means of letting them know when it was necessary to change tactics.  So we're given the 3 options; Control which brings new insight into coming up with a solution (cause this was the best they could do), Synthesis which is the only permanent solution they can conceive at the time, or Destroying them because they and their solution have clearly failed.

It would have been such a great way to end the series (IMO) if they'd just gone with it.  Instead we get the EC and no it was just some past race and they just never quite seem to find all the copies of the plans.

Its in the narrative, the Reapers are not infallible. EDI explains this. If they are so almighty and all knowing, why did they not completely destroy their creators?
.
The reapers downfall was that they do not truly understand organic life....THAT is what Bioware went with.

Modifié par txgoldrush, 11 février 2014 - 07:04 .

[txgoldrush]

RangerSG wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

RangerSG wrote...

fr33stylez wrote...

I think that they should've just kept the story of the Crucible simple. "We have the plans, we know what it does, it was eft here by X, we need time to build it."

The whole "we're not sure what it does but we can build it and no one ever knew what it did but added to its design" was hogwash and unnecessary. no need to over-complicate the superweapon.

Agreed. Superweapons aren't that unusual a plot device in military sci-fi. Needing one to defeat the Reapers is believable. Having it use the Relay network is no less so. That a weapon based on exploiting the relays needs the Citadel to fire is not a vast leap of logic, given the Citadel's status as hub of the network. 

So what was their 'not to know'? It was an unnecessary drama. Logical extrapolation should have told them everything Vendetta did. 

There is one event, that's in the narrative, that causes the Alliance to build the Crucible out of blind but not unfounded faith.

Liara did NOT get everything in Mars, Cerberus got Vendetta;s location.

Lets say that Liara did get Vendetta's location....then we would be going to Thessia, not Palaven and the Crucible thing would have been more figured out.

Nevermind it makes sense for the Alliance to put faith in what they thought to be a Prothean device....the Protheans were responsible for helping defeat the Reaper plot in ME1, Nevermind they have no other option.

Nevermind that Hackett foreshadowed what it does after the Citadel coup sequence.

Thinking it was a Prothean Device doesn't mean an AI pulls the trigger. After all, it's clear the Protheans were even more anti-AI than the Citadel races are.

I didn't say Liara got everything in Mars. And I'm not saying they didn't need time to decode the information. What I'm noting is directly related to the Catalyst. Even if they needed the VI to tell them how it functions, that doesn't explain why a device built by organics in a war against AIs would resort to ANY Ai to pull the trigger on their weapon. Needing the Citadel makes sense, to the point that if they figured out the weapon uses the relay network, discerning that they needed the hub of said network was a logical conclusion. Sure, they still need Vendetta for the particulars. But there was no logical reason needing the Citadel required Starbrat.
 

You are not getting it. The AI does not pull the trigger. Shepard did.

And evidence shows that Vendetta was WRONG about the nature of the Catalyst. He did NOT know there was an AI on the Citadel. Vendetta thought the Catalyst was the citadel itself, because it amplifies dark energy emissions.

From the evidence shown in the narrative, no one knew there was an AI on the Citadel.

[ImaginaryMatter]

txgoldrush wrote...

Its in the narrative, the Reapers are not infallible. EDI explains this. If they are so almighty and all knowing, why did they not completely destroy their creators?
.
The reapers downfall was that they do not truly understand organic life....THAT is what Bioware went with.

How did not understanding Organic lead to the Reapers downfall? Is it really even a downfall since the Catalyst lets you win? It seems like the Reapers lost because they made a number of stupid errors, most of them likely being unintentional.

[txgoldrush]

ImaginaryMatter wrote...

txgoldrush wrote...

Its in the narrative, the Reapers are not infallible. EDI explains this. If they are so almighty and all knowing, why did they not completely destroy their creators?
.
The reapers downfall was that they do not truly understand organic life....THAT is what Bioware went with.

How did not understanding Organic lead to the Reapers downfall? Is it really even a downfall since the Catalyst lets you win? It seems like the Reapers lost because they made a number of stupid errors, most of them likely being unintentional.

When explaining the Crucible, when Shepard asks why didn't they stop it....the Catalyst says

"clearly organics are more resourceful than we realized"

Their error is that they underestimated organics ability to outwit them.

[Podge 90]

txgoldrush wrote..
No I didn't misunderstand.

I just told you that they way you want Renegade implemented goes against the very philosophy of what Renegade is. You are asking for a contradiction here.

No, you're just not grasping it.   For some reason, you are going off on a completely irrelevant tangent.  That suggests to me you just don't understand.  If I read between the lines of your posts, I can see that you actually wholeheartedly agree with my suggestions, it's just at the T-junction of understanding, you went left, instead of right.

Like I said it's a tough topic to get your head around, but it just requires a little thought on your behalf.  I'd say we are on the same page, but you're just a chapter behind.

[fchopin]

I was not happy with the conversation between Shepard and Legion when Legion says he had reaper implants and Shepard was holding his head as if he was upset.
The scene should have been done different imo.

[DPSSOC]

txgoldrush wrote...
Its in the narrative, the Reapers are not infallible. EDI explains this. If they are so almighty and all knowing, why did they not completely destroy their creators?

No the Reapers are not infallible, that's why we have the plot of ME1, but in order for the Crucible to work they need to be flat out stupid.  Ilos worked because there was a plausible explanation for why the Reapers didn't find it, and that is what allowed the Protheans to alter the Citadel.

Now imagine Sovereign had won ME1 and the Reapers plan had gone on schedule, any reasonably intelligent entity is going to fix what was done to the Citadel so they don't have to go through this again, and take steps to prevent it from happening again.  How silly would the plot have been if we found out that dozens of previous cycles had done the exact same thing as the Protheans?  How quickly does the threat posed by the Reapers vanish?

ME3 is, at the very least, the 3rd time the Reapers have encountered the exact same weapon, and again any reasonably intelligent entity would have taken precautions after the second.  That the Crucible exists is plausible, but the only explanation for it being passed through multiple cycles is that the Reaper are completely incompetent.
.

txgoldrush wrote...
The reapers downfall was that they do not truly understand organic life....THAT is what Bioware went with.

And the story is poorer for it (IMO).

[Isaidlunch]

Talking to Jacob on the Citadel if you romanced him, especially when he talks about becoming a father. It was uncomfortable enough even on the friend path and the cheating drama turns it into gold.

"Brynn wants to name it after you."

"Really..."

Modifié par Kazanth, 11 février 2014 - 12:40 .

[George Costanza]

Why do the Reapers disguise the fact that the Citadel is a mass relay that paves the way for their return, and subsequently not return when Sovereign fails, when there's a mass relay next to the Citadel anyway?

Modifié par George Costanza, 11 février 2014 - 01:05 .