So it's a kind of doublethink, eh. Shepard doesn't believe the option's real, so he shoots the tube, and the player's OK with it because he wants Destroy anyway.
Convenient. It's a good thing shooting the tube doesn't trigger Synthesis, or you guys would need a different rationale.
As an ardent destroyer, I must admit that this would probably anger me at first. Later on however, I'd find it pretty amusing and say "Well played Bio, well played."
Even if he could, would he? His best option is still blowing up the Crucible.
One of the (very few) things I liked about ME3's ending other than the music was that it echoed Star Wars: Episode VI. Luke and the Emperor engaging in a philosophical battle while the Rebels engage in a last stand.
The setting of the conversation with the Catalyst was great, but unfortunately the conversation came off more as the Catalyst educating Shepard rather than the two engaging in a moral debate.
When the bratalyst described Destroy and said there were other options, I'd have preferred an answer somewhere along the lines of "talk fast, then - I'm moving." I didn't appreciate how autodialogue makes Shepard accept its theory that "the chaos will come back" and say there must be another way.Even if he could, would he? His best option is still blowing up the Crucible.
Even if he could, would he? His best option is still blowing up the Crucible.
Just to add another point I just realized about the above.
Well, not according to the Catalyst. Pretty sure not only does he himself admit that his solution won't work anymore, but he also mentions that "we", that is he and Shepard, need to find a new solution. Given that he is pretty resolute about that point, I think it would be prudent for him to at least have his machines called back, so Shepard at least can focus on an appropriate solution and not on the idea that every second he wastes talking someone he loves is getting murdered.
When the bratalyst described Destroy and said there were other options, I'd have preferred an answer somewhere along the lines of "talk fast, then - I'm moving." I didn't appreciate how autodialogue makes Shepard accept its theory that "the chaos will come back" and say there must be another way.
That's fair. I didn't actually read Shepard's lines that way. One of the things I took away from the series is that arguing with crazy AIs is not productive.
That's fair. I didn't actually read Shepard's lines that way. One of the things I took away from the series is that arguing with crazy AIs is not productive.
Hmm, a little off topic here, but when Iiara spoke of "mistake", what was she referring to? That Shepard was a mistake? Or the Crucible?
Either. Both. It's the same message you get fro standard "Refusal"
Basically it's the mistake of actually taking a stand against the Reapers and daring to reject Bioware's forced tragedy endings.
So it's a kind of doublethink, eh. Shepard doesn't believe the option's real, so he shoots the tube, and the player's OK with it because he wants Destroy anyway.
Convenient. It's a good thing shooting the tube doesn't trigger Synthesis, or you guys would need a different rationale.
That is not what doublethink is, doublethinking is when you recognizing something is the TRUTH, but at the same time ignoring it, twisting it. Shepard was SUSPICIOUS, but he could not confirm whether the Catalyst is tricking him.
I do realize in all options we make a heap of faith, but in destroy, the leap of faith required is the smallest. Shepard does not lose grasp of reality, of reapers' track record, he is playing on the safe side by entrusting less to the reapers and more to other parties. In control, you have to hope the reapers cease to be a threat AND that you could actually control them; in synthesis, you have to hope the reapers cease to be a threat AND that the transformation is seamless, but in destroy, you only have to hope the reapers cease to pose a threat
A different rationale, yes, but not one necessarily helping the Catalyst's credibility.
Doublethink for the player, I meant. Shepard believes something that the player knows to be false. But yeah, that's being kind of loose with the concept.That is not what doublethink is, doublethinking is when you recognizing something is the TRUTH, but at the same time ignoring it, twisting it. Shepard was SUSPICIOUS, but he could not confirm whether the Catalyst is tricking him.
Either. Both. It's the same message you get fro standard "Refusal"
Basically it's the mistake of actually taking a stand against the Reapers and daring to reject Bioware's forced tragedy endings.
And the natural consequence of the endings as written. Basically, Bioware had the audacity to write how the actual scenario would play out.
And the natural consequence of the endings as written. Basically, Bioware had the audacity to write how the actual scenario would play out.
Yeah, what was I thinking? It's clear reality should ensue now after everything that's happened in the series thus far.
That was sarcasm.
Yeah, what was I thinking? It's clear reality should ensue now after everything that's happened in the series thus far.
That was sarcasm.
Well, you know, when every authority figure in the game constantly reminds the player that conventional victory is impossible and as written Shepard never argues against it? Yeah, that's your own fault. Also add on top that Shepard, who does not believe conventional victory is possible, throws all his resources to establish a stalling force in order to deploy a magic device whose function he did not understand.
Basically, if there was a time for conventional victory to work in the narrative. It was before Priority: Earth. If Shepard actually thought conventional victory would work, he should never have thrown all his resources at the final battle. By the time the Crucible is identified as being useless, you've wasted a good part of your strength. So without changing ME1 2 or most of 3, tell me again how you thought conventional victory would succeed?
Edit: To be clear, we're also omitting the ability of the Reapers to shut down the relay network whenever they choose, which for whatever reason Bioware forgot about.
Shepard killed three Reapers while on foot.
Nothing's impossible.
Shepard killed three Reapers while on foot.
Nothing's impossible.
Shepard employed extremely unconventional tactics to kill 3 Reapers, where numbers and resources were entirely in his favor. And still almost died in the process. Now do that on 200+ Reapers at the same time. With all your forces decimated. Without a relay network. And with your own protagonist's acceptance that conventional victory is impossible, hence why he deployed the Crucible in the first place.
Anyone who isn't brain dead recognizes conventional victory isn't possible, at least by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst's chamber. We don't need more Ewoks, as per Episode VI.
Shepard employed extremely unconventional tactics to kill 3 Reapers, where numbers and resources were entirely in his favor. And still almost died in the process. Now do that on 200+ Reapers at the same time. With all your forces decimated. Without a relay network. And with your own protagonist's acceptance that conventional victory is impossible, hence why he deployed the Crucible in the first place.
Anyone who isn't brain dead recognizes conventional victory isn't possible, at least by the time Shepard reaches the Catalyst's chamber. We don't need more Ewoks, as per Episode VI.
"This impossibility is totally possible"
"But clearly this impossibility is totally impossible"
And of course, bringing up Ewoks to shore up an argument is always effective 
1) "This impossibility is totally possible"
"But clearly this impossibility is totally impossible"
2) And of course, bringing up Ewoks to shore up an argument is always effective
1) Shutting off my brain is something I do when watching the Expendables. Does Bioware like to soak up the "action hero bits"? Sure, you'll find that in any story, Christopher Nolan films included. It's one thing to incorporate rule of cool into your story, in small doses. It's another to resolve your central conflict through rule of cool, power of super hero awesomeness.
I reiterate: if you thought there was any chance of victory based on the serious elements of the story (and not based on sporadic rule of cool), your point fails. Nolan's Batman Trilogy handles this well. Lord of the Rings handled this well. Your solution does not handle this well.
2) When your ideas have the writing quality of Ewoks, it tends to be a good comparison. The best part of Episode VI's ending was (conveniently) everything not tied to the Ewoks' magic victory.
Conventional victory would cheapen the entire thing. If they already made the Reapers so ubah-powerful (as showcased in 1 Reaper vs. entire fleet in ME1), then it would be a mistake to retroactively downgrade them to be 'beatable' in conventional fight. And it would put human race on even higher pedestal, as if it wasn't big of a problem in enough (in both ME and other space operas/sci-fi). Having the solution to defeat the Reapers be a product of multiple races across the millenias AND using the Reapers' own tools softens the trope.
Conventional victory would cheapen the entire thing. If they already made the Reapers so ubah-powerful (as showcased in 1 Reaper vs. entire fleet in ME1), then it would be a mistake to retroactively downgrade them to be 'beatable' in conventional fight. And it would put human race on even higher pedestal, as if it wasn't big of a problem in enough (in both ME and other space operas/sci-fi). Having the Crucible be a product of multiple races across the millenias softens the trope.
1) Shutting off my brain is something I do when watching the Expendables. Does Bioware like to soak up the "action hero bits"? Sure, you'll find that in any story, Christopher Nolan films included. It's one thing to incorporate rule of cool into your story, in small doses. It's another to resolve your central conflict through rule of cool, power of super hero awesomeness.
I reiterate: if you thought there was any chance of victory based on the serious elements of the story (and not based on sporadic rule of cool), your point fails.
2) When your ideas have the writing quality of Ewoks, it tends to be a good comparison. The best part of Episode VI's ending was (conveniently) everything not tied to the Ewoks' magic victory.
1) Rule of Cool and superhero awesomeness became Mass Effect standard the moment Shepard got resurrected with SCIENCE! (if not sooner)
2) You have a spare copy of the script I wrote? I seem to have misplaced mine...
Shepard killed three Reapers while on foot.
Nothing's impossible.
You mean like Controllan or pacifying the Reapers?? 
1) Rule of Cool and superhero awesomeness became Mass Effect standard the moment Shepard got resurrected with SCIENCE! (if not sooner)
2) You have a spare copy of the script I wrote? I seem to have misplaced mine...
1) And it was regarded as one of the major mishaps of ME2, not a model to follow by any stretch. ME3 wouldn't be improved by brain dead conventional victory any more than LotR would be improved by a montage of Aragorn, Gimli, and Legolas cutting down every last orc in Morder to "win" the war.
2) Why do I need an extra copy? Your script is basically ME1, ME2, ME3 completely as written, only after Shepard's defiant speech we get a victory screen.
It's not that hard to imagine. Point being: with ME3, as written your desire for conventional victory as per the extended cut is completely idiotic. Now, if we're taking rewrites of the series into account? Yeah, I could believe conventional victory is possible. But that wasn't stipulated in your post, only that Bioware was foolish for not making conventional victory possible in the EC.
Yep, I've always thought similarly, Isaac. (That... is you, right?)
Definitely not Angelina Jolie 
Conventional victory would cheapen the entire thing. If they already made the Reapers so ubah-powerful (as showcased in 1 Reaper vs. entire fleet in ME1), then it would be a mistake to retroactively downgrade them to be 'beatable' in conventional fight. And it would put human race on even higher pedestal, as if it wasn't big of a problem in enough (in both ME and other space operas/sci-fi). Having the solution to defeat the Reapers be a product of multiple races across the millenias AND using the Reapers' own tools softens the trope.
The funny thing about that is why didn't they all fire at the backside of the reaper? It was latched on the tower so it wasn't going anywhere. It couldn't fire behind it. So why not have the ships behind the thing? And if they did that its possible the reaper could've been destroyed without Shepard fighting robosaren.
I believe Bioware did that to show us how powerful they are. I also believe they showed a weakness as well, their backside. In the trilogy how many times did you see anyone fire at the backside? The only one/thing that had any common sense is Kalros who attacked the destroyer from behind. Too bad we couldn't have Kalros lead the fleets. That would've been a sight to see.
Retour en haut