454 réponses à ce sujet

[fhs33721]

Anyone else notice that the Crucible looks rather wand-like?

And it's also pretty big. I suppose the Protheans wanted to compensate something with it's design.

[Iakus]

If it actually worked, it certainly would be, yes. The Reapers aren't very effective 'unbeatable' antagonists if we know exactly how to beat them before they even arrive. 

 

"We must take a hard road, a road unforseen.  There lies our hope, if hope it be.  To walk into peril-to Mordor.  We must send the Ring to the Fire."

Elrond, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring"

[ImaginaryMatter]

It looks like that and it looks like giant mic and other things.

 

I wonder if Shepard can sing?

[MassivelyEffective0730]

"We must take a hard road, a road unforseen.  There lies our hope, if hope it be.  To walk into peril-to Mordor.  We must send the Ring to the Fire."

Elrond, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring"

 

Don't bother, he got mad last time someone brought that up. Or the horcruxes from Harry Potter. Or the nuke in Pacific Rim. Hell, there's a lot of these that worked beautifully, but they're 'wrong' since he doesn't like that style of storytelling. 

[TTTX]

If it actually worked, it certainly would be, yes. The Reapers aren't very effective 'unbeatable' antagonists if we know exactly how to beat them before they even arrive. 

Technically we already know how to beat them because of the ending of ME1 where Sovereign lost his shields, without shields they are easy kills.

 

Basically if the characters found a way to affect the shields of Reapers and then it's bye bye Reapers.

[CronoDragoon]

You can know how to defeat the enemy, with the question being how you're going to accomplish getting to that moment where you can defeat them. That's where the tension of LotR comes in. What David wants to say is that if the Fellowship had succeeded in getting Frodo to Mordor and they just carved their way up to Mount Doom, that'd be bad storytelling. There needs to be twists and turns along the way where things go wrong, but that doesn't mean introducing the means to defeat the enemy early is always bad.

[themikefest]

I wonder if Shepard can sing?

Can it be worse than his/her dancing?

[fhs33721]

Knowing how we can defeat them doesn't mean we will be able to defeat them. Sovereign's destruction already showed that Reapers can be destroyed even using conventional means, it's only a matter of numbers. They're powerful and numerous. A plan is not a guarantee of victory.

 

Sovereign basically showed that we can't beat a Reaper without him doing something spectacularly stupid (like say: Assuming direct control over a dead turian in order to battle Shepard personally.). What did he even do that for. He was effectively kicking the alliances assess until his Saren-husk died and he somehow just shut down afterwards. And people try to tell me ME1 had the least ridicioulus writing.

 

And 'unbeatable' antagonists are narratively uninteresting, if not game-breaking. Why is this an issue? Why have an opponent if you can't beat them without an asspull? 

Not necessarily. There can be narratives with "unbeatable" opponents that are entertaining and interesting. I personally even found the Mass Effect Reaper plot entertaining on a Hollywood-blockbuster-level of quality. As for games, I haven't seen much were the antagonist wasn't defeated by some sort of asspull.

[TTTX]

"We must take a hard road, a road unforseen.  There lies our hope, if hope it be.  To walk into peril-to Mordor.  We must send the Ring to the Fire."

Elrond, Lord of the Rings, The Fellowship of the Ring"

In other words just because we know how to defeat the enemy doesn't mean it's going to be easy.

 

I wonder if Shepard can sing?

probably as much Shepard can dance. 

[Iakus]

Technically we already know how to beat them because of the ending of ME1 where Sovereign lost his shields, without shields they are easy kills.

 

Basically if the characters found a way to affect the shields of Reapers and then it's bye bye Reapers.

 

Like better disruptor torpedos.

 

Directed energy weapons such as occulus beams and to a lesser extent thanix

 

Bigger overload charges.

 

Attacking Reapers on the ground, where their kinetic barriers are weaker.

[naddaya]

Can it be worse than his/her dancing?

 

If it is, the Banshees shrieks would sound pleasant in comparison.

[naddaya]

Sovereign basically showed that we can't beat a Reaper without him doing something spectacularly stupid (like say: Assuming direct control over a dead turian in order to battle Shepard personally.). What did he even do that for. He was effectively kicking the alliances assess until his Saren-husk died and he somehow just shut down afterwards. And people try to tell me ME1 had the least ridicioulus writing.

 

It showed that raw firepower can destroy a Reaper if its kinetic barriers are down. They're not made of some impenetrable material.

[Iakus]

In other words just because we know how to defeat the enemy doesn't mean it's going to be easy.

Exactly!

[Bob from Accounting]

All this ardent defense of a solution introduced in ME 2 is convincing me of is that I'm exactly right. That people are mad ME 2 didn't give them their magic wand and decide that every major element of ME 2 is therefore bad because of it.

 

When the antagonist is explicitly and meticulously foreshadowed as a titantic threat who has beaten galactic scale civilizations for millions of years, yes, revealing the solution to beating them before they even arrive sounds like, at best, mediocre storytelling. All of that foreshadowing comes crashing down.

[TTTX]

Like better disruptor torpedos.

 

Directed energy weapons such as occulus beams and to a lesser extent thanix

 

Bigger overload charges.

 

Attacking Reapers on the ground, where their kinetic barriers are weaker.

Pretty much yeah.

[Iakus]

All this ardent defense of a solution introduced in ME 2 is convincing me of is that I'm exactly right. That people are mad ME 2 didn't give them their magic wand and decide that every major element of ME 2 is therefore bad because of it.

 

When the antagonist is explicitly and meticulously foreshadowed as a titantic threat who has beaten galactic scale civilizations for millions of years, yes, revealing the solution to beating them before they even arrive sounds like, at best, mediocre storytelling. All of that foreshadowing comes crashing down.

 

So you don't like LOTR, then?

[TTTX]

All this ardent defense of a solution introduced in ME 2 is convincing me of is that I'm exactly right. That people are mad ME 2 didn't give them their magic wand and decide that every major element of ME 2 is therefore bad because of it.

 

When the antagonist is explicitly and meticulously foreshadowed as a titantic threat who has beaten galactic scale civilizations for millions of years, yes, revealing the solution to beating them before they even arrive sounds like, at best, mediocre storytelling. All of that foreshadowing comes crashing down.

You do realize there is a big difference between knowing how to defeat an enemy and actually get it done.

 

Just look how much crap Frodo, Sam and everyone else had to go through just in order defeat the enemy in LoTR and they knew since the first book how to defeat the enemy.

[Bob from Accounting]

Yes. I do realize that. And it doesn't matter a lick. When foreshadowing is set down, it needs to be validated.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

All this ardent defense of a solution introduced in ME 2 is convincing me of is that I'm exactly right. That people are mad ME 2 didn't give them their magic wand and decide that every major element of ME 2 is therefore bad because of it.

 

When the antagonist is explicitly and meticulously foreshadowed as a titantic threat who has beaten galactic scale civilizations for millions of years, yes, revealing the solution to beating them before they even arrive sounds like, at best, mediocre storytelling. All of that foreshadowing comes crashing down.

 

Not really. A legendary lost superweapon doesn't dispense with how dangerous or fatal the Reapers are. They're no less deadly for it. And it doesn't have to be an easy solution to achieve. No one is saying that finding the only chance for beating the Reapers in ME2 means that ME3 is going to be a cakewalk. It's very easy to establish the possibility of having a lost Prothean superweapon that was never completed at the end of ME2, then going on to ME3 and finding out more about it and building it, and deploying it in the climax.

 

It's poor narrative understanding or grasp to immediately conform to an ideal that only the last game should involve a possible solution to the threat to pine up for shock value. It's cheap drama. 

 

And it's just plain idiocy to completely denounce anyone else for holding a separate opinion on the grounds that you don't think its heroic enough.

[naddaya]

All this ardent defense of a solution introduced in ME 2 is convincing me of is that I'm exactly right. That people are mad ME 2 didn't give them their magic wand and decide that every major element of ME 2 is therefore bad because of it.

 

When the antagonist is explicitly and meticulously foreshadowed as a titantic threat who has beaten galactic scale civilizations for millions of years, yes, revealing the solution to beating them before they even arrive sounds like, at best, mediocre storytelling. All of that foreshadowing comes crashing down.

 

How is the crucible not a magic-wand exactly? And why complaining about other aspects mean we're pissed off at this problem and not said other aspects? Jeez, logic is lost on you.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

Yes. I do realize that. And it doesn't matter a lick. When foreshadowing is set down, it needs to be validated.

 

Narrative red herrings aside, how does the foreshadowing of the possibility of a superweapon interfere with the knowledge of the Reapers coming at all? It's not foreshadowing so much as it is plain knowing what the plot is going to be. It's very blunt with telling you who and what the enemies of the series are going to be. And if they're absolutely invincible, why have them as the enemy?

[fhs33721]

It showed that raw firepower can destroy a Reaper if its kinetic barriers are down. They're not made of some impenetrable material.

It did yes. But the entire reason why it's cinetic barriers were down was downright stupid in the first place. If Sovereign hadn't acted like a complete fool, by engaging in an pointless boss battle with Shepard the trilogy might have been a lot shorter (and not in the favor of organics.). Also Saren-husk being destroyed magiclly turning off his Shields and apparently rendering him unable to continue shooting his lasers or even gripping to the citadel is a rather big asspull itself and it isn't even explained why that happens.

[Bob from Accounting]

How is the crucible not a magic-wand exactly? And why complaining about other aspects mean we're pissed off at this problem and not said other aspects? Jeez, logic is lost on you.

 

It is a magic wand. I don't like it one bit.

 

As for your second question, might I suggest you look up 'Projection' on Wikipedia or something. It's quite like the people who seem to think Liara is a lesser companion in gameplay because they don't like her character.

[MassivelyEffective0730]

It is a magic wand. I don't like it one bit.

 

As for your second question, might I suggest you look up 'Projection' on Wikipedia or something. It's quite like the people who seem to think Liara is a lesser companion in gameplay because they don't like her character.

 

It'd be less of a magic wand if it was introduced in ME2. If you think the Crucible is bad no matter how they spin it, well then maybe it goes back to the Reapers.

 

You need a magic wand to beat them. It was a pretty bad idea for BW to make them so hilariously overpowered. 

[naddaya]

It is a magic wand. I don't like it one bit.

 

As for your second question, might I suggest you look up 'Projection' on Wikipedia or something. It's quite like the people who seem to think Liara is a lesser companion in gameplay because they don't like her character.

 

I know what it is. And it's unreasonable. I complain about Lazarus because I don't like Lazarus, not because I'm pissed about the lack of a war plan. I complain about Shepard's poor explanation for helping Cerberus straight away because I don't like that issue. That doesn't mean I don't dislike the lack of a plan either. I dislike a great deal of things. But they're separate issues.

 

 

It did yes. But the entire reason why it's cinetic barriers were down was downright stupid in the first place. If Sovereign hadn't acted like a complete fool, by engaging in an pointless boss battle with Shepard the trilogy might have been a lot shorter (and not in the favor of organics.). Also Saren-husk being destroyed magiclly turning off his Shields and apparently rendering him unable to continue shooting his lasers or even gripping to the citadel is a rather big asspull itself and it isn't even explained why that happens.

 

As another user pointed out earlier, it shows that if you disable their barriers they can be defeated. Finding out how to disable them is the issue. Geth technology might help at that. Or else. It's already something to know that.

 

Controlling Saren might have tired Sovereign out, seeing how he wasn't completely indoctrinated still. We didn't know how much energy a reaper devotes to controlling indoctrinated subjects at that point. The only real plot-hole during the battle of the citadel was how Joker managed to get the Normandy there in time from Ilos.