1483 réponses à ce sujet

[Jukaga]

 

Javik himself says the Protheans lost because they were blockaded from backing up other fleets and their strategies were homogenized in military strategy. They couldn't access the relay network and had just won a hugely destructive war that he calls the "Metacon War." The modern galaxy has none of these disadvantages. 

 

Especially considering that the Reapers suddenly forgot basic Mass Relay Warfare 101 and didn't picket the Relays, allowing the Galactic races free reign to co-ordinate and mass their fleets together.

[Reorte]

All the more reason to have her as a source of friction with the alliance crew and a point of solace for Shep's less happy to be thrust back into the bosom of the alliance. Ther'd be a certain irony to find her in a similar position to how jack felt in me2.

Good point.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I think the problem is the whole concept of the crucible itself. It transforms the might of the galaxy's fleets into UPS, a simple delivery system. The point was to gather together the people of the galaxy to fight the Reapers, or at least it should've been. It became focused so much on that, and "we can't beat the Reapers conventionally" was said so many times without any actual backup in the plot itself that it was clear that the writers just used it as an excuse. The most foreshadowing or any thing in the story to the goddamn catalyst events was Garrus's ruthless calculus.

Why would they build the crucible anyway? Nobody knew what it would do. The plans were incomplete. No intelligent leader would tie up so many resources in such an unknown. 
 

Javik himself says the Protheans lost because they were blockaded from backing up other fleets and their strategies were homogenized in military strategy. They couldn't access the relay network and had just won a hugely destructive war that he calls the "Metacon War." The modern galaxy has none of these disadvantages. 

 

 

The first time playing through I thought the big twist at the ending would be that the Crucible was an elaborate trap of sorts built by the Reapers. Given that more than half of the game is built gathering forces for a conventional type of warfare while the Crucible is almost entirely ignored up until Thessia after it's introduction. That would have explained why next to nothing is known about it and how it was so conveniently found.

[Massa FX]

When did I talked about liking or not?

You opposed fun and art : "Hopefully well get back to the "fun" entertaining game experience instead of the "art" experience in the next ME installment." You gave a pejorative meaning of art : "deflated balloon with the r,g,b "art". But you actually failed at understanding why Bioware talked about artistic integrity and why some people like me think or have shown that Mass Effect is art. If the ending was what people were expecting it couldn't be art because it would have written against its own writing. The potential of the game has been revealed by the ending, and the writers have made a great job doing their story instead of another Hollywood story (which are more and more stupid). Some people have understood the game, but there are more who did not.

And, behind your post and Julia's one there is a very dangerous ideology. I know you didn't do it intentionally though.

This type of response is a typical one from the pro-ending group.

So maybe you can explain what I fail to understand. Maybe you'll be the first to adequately explain what the devs were trying to convey to players.

I'm at work now but rest assured I'm following this thread in eager anticipation of your tutorial since you understand.

Take your time. I can wait.

Ps: I'm so glad you are here to explain things.

[AlanC9]

I think the problem is the whole concept of the crucible itself. It transforms the might of the galaxy's fleets into UPS, a simple delivery system. The point was to gather together the people of the galaxy to fight the Reapers, or at least it should've been. It became focused so much on that, and "we can't beat the Reapers conventionally" was said so many times without any actual backup in the plot itself that it was clear that the writers just used it as an excuse. The most foreshadowing or any thing in the story to the goddamn catalyst events was Garrus's ruthless calculus.

Why would they build the crucible anyway? Nobody knew what it would do. The plans were incomplete. No intelligent leader would tie up so many resources in such an unknown. 
 

Javik himself says the Protheans lost because they were blockaded from backing up other fleets and their strategies were homogenized in military strategy. They couldn't access the relay network and had just won a hugely destructive war that he calls the "Metacon War." The modern galaxy has none of these disadvantages. 

 

You want the in-universe explanation, or the game-design explanation?

 

Game design: ME is about being an infantry combatant, not a fleet commander. Bio never considered a conventional victory for the same reason Wing Commander 3  ends with Blair dropping the T-bomb rather than with a conventional victory.

 

In-universe: the Protheans had better tech, controlled more of the galaxy, and had larger fleets. If you thought organics had enough ships to fight the armada we see at the end of ME2, you were kidding yourself.

 

As for wasting resources on the Crucible, I don't see how it's "intelligent" to accept certain defeat rather than try something with some probability of success, no matter how small.

[TheOneTrueBioticGod]

You want the in-universe explanation, or the game-design explanation?

 

Game design: ME is about being an infantry combatant, not a fleet commander. Bio never considered a conventional victory for the same reason Wing Commander 3  ends with Blair dropping the T-bomb rather than with a conventional victory.

 

In-universe: the Protheans had better tech, controlled more of the galaxy, and had larger fleets. If you thought organics had enough ships to fight the armada we see at the end of ME2, you were kidding yourself.

 

As for wasting resources on the Crucible, I don't see how it's "intelligent" to accept certain defeat rather than try something with some probability of success, no matter how small.

Someone on the forum a while back crunched the numbers. 

Here: http://social.biowar...ndex/12076415/1

[AlanC9]

I saw that thread. It only works if you grant a preposterous cruiser/dreadnought ratio. If the ratio is anything like any RW navy that's ever existed, the thread falls apart. I'm still not sure how he cooked those numbers up.

[3DandBeyond]

You can't hear me but I'm screaming now.  Screaming in my head since I'm at work but, still screaming.  

 

How many endings did they have total,  Seven, possibly more depending on your esm.  So at least seven endings and with all those  endings, some people still complain that those of us who wanted, just one, just one out of at least seven endings where there was hope for Shepards future.  

 

The writers did a very good job on a lot of things.  They did not do a good job in making ONE out of SEVEN endings the kind that makes the other endings worth playing.  They gave us a burnt body and said here, you decide if someone found your Shepard and we will let  your LI or friend smile and not put up Shepards plaque.  That is pure spite or laziness, or just someone who after years of writing about Shepard was sick of it.   

Exactly.  What is satisfying in that?  It's so artistic, so thoughtful, so intellectual, I could barf.  It's lazy.  It says, "here you go, we couldn't write an ending, so you guess what happens.  Aren't we smart?"  In a game that featured a range of choices that led to a range of outcomes, the writers decided that the final choice shouldn't have a full range of outcomes.  Many have said that they didn't want to make one be the canon ending the one that everyone would want.  Well, how about just making one that everyone could pick even if they thought the idea of making a choice was stupid?

 

In my opinion, they just ended up making a bunch of nonsense so that a whole lot of people actually had no choice.  Instead of worrying about making an ending choice too many people would want, they should have worried about a mass of fans that found none of them appealing.  The idea is that if you set up people to believe that every outcome has alternatives and at least one of them is happy (happier) then the outcome of the whole thing will also carry with it the expectation that one outcome will be happy, unequivocally happy.  Not Shepard lying in a pile of rubble with friends and LI off to see what they could find.  That means one ending that allows the player to observe all of the friends and Shepard seeing that each the other is alive.  It wasn't just about them finding the torso and seeing that Shepard lives, but also about Shepard seeing that they did.  Oh, and EDI and the geth.  Give me a break.

[mopotter]

How come you don't have"hope" there?

Because, Shepard doesn't have a little gps thing that will let searchers know where the body is laying.  Because I saw what the body looked like, at least the 2nd time, first time I couldn't even see it mixed in with all the debris.  But mostly, because I don't see Hope in a charred body.  I see a body that won't survive the infection, loss of blood and all the other things that happen to burns. And this time there isn't anyone to build a new body.  

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

When did I talked about liking or not?

 

You opposed fun and art : "Hopefully well get back to the "fun" entertaining game experience instead of the "art" experience in the next ME installment." You gave a pejorative meaning of art : "deflated balloon with the r,g,b "art". But you actually failed at understanding why Bioware talked about artistic integrity and why some people like me think or have shown that Mass Effect is art. If the ending was what people were expecting it couldn't be art because it would have written against its own writing. The potential of the game has been revealed by the ending, and the writers have made a great job doing their story instead of another Hollywood story (which are more and more stupid). Some people have understood the game, but there are more who did not.

 

And, behind your post and Julia's one there is a very dangerous ideology. I know you didn't do it intentionally though.

 

So I'm dangerous, now. I like being dangerous.

 

But you're not getting it. You can have all the potential in the world in a story for a particular ending, but if you don't write the story for it that ending isn't going to work. In the case of ME3 the RGB ending didn't work. It was a static ending to an action story. The ending was like lousy sex. The action was building to a climax then nothing. Someone comes in and explains everything. 

 

You can have an ending where everything is explained in certain types of stories. They just don't work in an action story like Mass Effect 3.

[shepskisaac]

Because, Shepard doesn't have a little gps thing that will let searchers know where the body is laying.  Because I saw what the body looked like, at least the 2nd time, first time I couldn't even see it mixed in with all the debris.  But mostly, because I don't see Hope in a charred body.  I see a body that won't survive the infection, loss of blood and all the other things that happen to burns. And this time there isn't anyone to build a new body.  

Lazarus project was approximately 100 times of a bigger scientific nonsense than Shep surviving ME3.

[Bob from Accounting]

I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why exactly such a thing is 'scientific nonsense.'

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why exactly such a thing is 'scientific nonsense.'

 

First, I think we should hear an explanation of how it isn't.

[shepskisaac]

I'd be interested to hear an explanation of why exactly such a thing is 'scientific nonsense.'

In corner #1: Shep's body in a punctured suit exposed to space vacuum for a long time

In corner #2: Shep's injured body in Citadel rubbles in breathable area

 

Which one has greater chance of survival & recovery in any form?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Lazarus project was approximately 100 times of a bigger scientific nonsense than Shep surviving ME3.

 

They both fall into the realm of complete artistic-license of science/make-believe 'screw the rules of physics and biology, I'm doing what I want because I'm the writer' zone. 

 

In fact, they're pretty much the same thing. Ship blows up Shepard gets spaced. Citadel blows up Shepard gets spaced. The first time, he somehow isn't a dust trail of subatomic particles or jello stain on the ice, the second time he somehow lives through being blasted by a Reaper (I have a theory on what actually happened, but it will only ever be a theory), being exposed to the vacuum of space, and surviving a burning hulk of space metal all around you.

 

Oh, the powers of narrative asspulls.

[Bob from Accounting]

In corner #1: Shep's body in a punctured suit exposed to space vacuum for a long time

In corner #2: Shep's injured body in Citadel rubbles in breathable area

 

Which one has greater chance of survival & recovery in any form?

Do you have an explanation of how a vacuum affects the body and why such damage is fundamentally irreversible regardless of technology?

[Iakus]

Lazarus project was approximately 100 times of a bigger scientific nonsense than Shep surviving ME3.

 

They're both utter nonsense showing how the Mass Effect story was driven not by coherent narrative but by writer fiat.

 

Which is why I'm going to be much more cautious about future Mass Effect products. I am not about to get kicked again.

[shepskisaac]

Do you have an explanation of how a vacuum affects the body and why such damage is fundamentally irreversible regardless of technology?

http://en.wikipedia..../Space_exposure

[angol fear]

The primary purpose of a game is to be fun.  If it's "artistic" as well, that's a bonus.

 

The reason why some of us are using "art" as a perjorative term is that Bioware seems to value being artistic over being entertaining.  Not a good long-term business strategy for a video game company. 

 

And ME3 could have had a different ending and still be artistic.  ME3 was open to any number of possible outcomes, from apacolyptically tragic to a triumphant Shepard striding across the battlefield like a bad@$$.  Bioware simply chose not to provide much variety.  They were so tunnel-visioned on tragedy they ignored what a large number of fans wanted.  Even after the backlash.

 

I think it's you who didn't understand the game, and all the myriad varieties it had the potential for.

You didn't read what I wrote.

I didn't understand the game? The potential you talk about is just several endings, good and bad endings, exactly what the developers didn't want because it goes against their own work, the idea of the ending. Maybe understanding the game means under-stand the game to see its own writing instead of ignoring what is written and basing criticism on expectations.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Do you have an explanation of how a vacuum affects the body and why such damage is fundamentally irreversible regardless of technology?

 

Do you have an explanation for how death is reversible?

[Bob from Accounting]

I did not ask for a Wikipedia link. I asked for an explanation.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

http://en.wikipedia..../Space_exposure

 

Watch him discount it since it's Wikipedia. And/Or attempt to change it.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

I did not ask for a Wikipedia link. I asked for an explanation.

 

Well, said wiki link has your explanation. 

 

If that doesn't count for you though:

 

http://physics.stack...-no-space-craft

 

http://imagine.gsfc....ers/970603.html

 

http://www.todayifou...ongterm-damage/

[Bob from Accounting]

If you have an understanding of the topic, you should be perfectly able to give me an explanation yourself instead of relying on links to Wikipedia.

 

And if you don't understand the topic...well...you'd be very silly to be posting such things with no understanding, wouldn't you?

[shepskisaac]

Space radiation + no oxygen + extreme temperature would result in cell and DNA destruction.