Guest_xray16_*
Wow. So, the no-win scenario... people are just like that so get used to it...?.
you're telling me we should expect that or conform to it?
SAM's fired at airliners are fine, because we should expect barbarians to behave like barbarians, and we need to be prepared to destroy the odd village to prevent it happening again? That is HORRIFIC logic. What's happened to people's moral compass. Is it suddenly unfashionable?
I think you're exagerating with the "steamroll" term. But I do think you're right that they misread the audience. The changes wrought by the Crucible are simply too big, too extreme, too questionable. And yet are unavoidable thanks to "pick a color or the galaxy dies"
Good thing they introduced the ideas of "Destroy will likely have repercussions" and "Controlling the Reapers is an option" early in ME3, then.
Again, ME1, the first game of this trilogy, touches on the idea of genocide having positive merits and not committing genocide having possible repercussions.
It can happen.
Wow. So, the no-win scenario... people are just like that so get used to it...?.
you're telling me we should expect that or conform to it?
There isn't a no-win scenario, unless you refuse to use the Crucible.
The Reapers were never going to be defeated conventionally/militarily, though. That was never in the cards.
Unfortunatly what we did get strained credibility just as much.There isn't a no-win scenario, unless you refuse to use the Crucible.
The Reapers were never going to be defeated conventionally/militarily, though. That was never in the cards.
Unfortunatly what we did get strained credibility just as much.
I disagree. The universe supports the application of both Destroy and Control fairly easily, whereas it actively reinforces that the Reapers can't be defeated solely by conventional means from the very first game (you can't even defeat one Reaper without Vigil's DEM datafile and an unexplained magical link with hopper Saren).
Good thing they introduced the ideas of "Destroy will likely have repercussions" and "Controlling the Reapers is an option" early in ME3, then.
Except the repercussions for either are too great to make "winning" feel like anything more than a hollow victory for all too many people.
That little detail gets brushed aside a lot.
Guest_xray16_*
There isn't a no-win scenario, unless you refuse to use the Crucible.
The Reapers were never going to be defeated conventionally/militarily, though. That was never in the cards.
Sorry? Why were the reapers NEVER going to be defeated?
I agree, not conventioanlly, given the setup (tanks and guns shooting at them, not gonna work).
But you're telling me there's NO solution possible at all?
Heck - in Freespace2 a star was detonated to destroy the (supposedly unstoppable) Shivan advance. The final player choice being to get back to earth or stay in the region and fight (an unresolved cliffhanger perhaps? Or maybe the end of the film "Black Hawk Down" - I'm going back in to save who I can).
Unfortunatly what we did get strained credibility just as much.
Except the repercussions for either are too great to make "winning" feel like anything more than a hollow victory for all too many people.
Sorry? Why were the reapers NEVER going to be defeated?
I agree, not conventioanlly, given the setup (tanks and guns shooting at them, not gonna work).
But you're telling me there's NO solution possible at all?
Sorry? Why were the reapers NEVER going to be defeated?
I agree, not conventioanlly, given the setup (tanks and guns shooting at them, not gonna work).
But you're telling me there's NO solution possible at all?
Heck - in Freespace2 a star was detonated to destroy the (supposedly unstoppable) Shivan advance. The final player choice being to get back to earth or stay in the region and fight (an unresolved cliffhanger perhaps? Or maybe the end of the film "Black Hawk Down" - I'm going back in to save who I can).
Never be defeated without the Crucible? Because Bioware made them overpowered and too numerous. When Leviathans created the AI and gave it control of their fleet they were dead. Otherwise they would have had the best chance of winning, but alas they were the first harvested by their own creation. Stupid cuttlefish.
The reason why we had a chance was the reapers decided to come in the long way, and once in they had so many they decided to have some fun this time.
And as for the reason why the two km tall reapers could walk on planet surfaces on four pointy legs without a problem? Because Godzilla.
I didn't see any redeeming features in the reapers other than the fact they gave us the mass relays, the Citadel, technological advancements, faster than light travel, mass effect fields. But in the end, what have the reapers ever done for us? Nothing!
Guest_xray16_*
It's a tough victory, yes, with repercussions. But still a victory.
Define victory please - genocide of allies? I didn't see any other "victory" scenario.
I'd hazard a guess that the Protheans weren't the only advanced civilization to crack the keeper mystery. Billions of years of civilizations, remember?
Well IIRC the keepers were largely irrelevant beyond ME1 as any kind of interactive story device. By the end of ME3 who cares about the big green grasshoppers with backpacks? There weren't any keepers roaming around the final chamber. There wasn't a keeper you could reprogram and get to help you. Where was "Keeper 20" from the ShadowBrokers surveilance tapes? Probably cleaning a floor somewhere with a giant blood-mop for the meat-grinder chamber at the end. Because it wasn't significant in any other way that I saw. Unless there was a bug that meant I didn't see it.
It's sci-fi - there's no other way out you can think of? That's it, we're doomed? Not even a hint in the canon that could've
been expanded to something? Not even using what we learned about dark matter effecting Haestrom, to lure them into a trap and detonate a star?
Define victory please - genocide of allies? I didn't see any other "victory" scenario.
Good thing they introduced the ideas of "Destroy will likely have repercussions" and "Controlling the Reapers is an option" early in ME3, then.
I didn't really feel that they introduced "Destroy will likely have repercussions" early in ME3. "We don't know exactly what this is going to do", yes, and of course all of TIM's ramblings (which never actually make a good case against Destroy), but other than that...
That said, I wasn't particularly surprised that Destroy was less than perfect, but that's because I wasn't expecting to have my cake and eat it too...
Define victory please - genocide of allies? I didn't see any other "victory" scenario.
Alternatively, self-sacrifice, no genocide of allies, and keep the Reapers under control yourself.
It's sci-fi - there's no other way out you can think of? That's it, we're doomed? Not even a hint in the canon that could've
been expanded to something? Not even using what we learned about dark matter effecting Haestrom, to lure them into a trap and detonate a star?
I didn't really feel that they introduced "Destroy will likely have repercussions" early in ME3. "We don't know exactly what this is going to do", yes, and of course all of TIM's ramblings (which never actually make a good case against Destroy), but other than that...
Guest_xray16_*
This one, yes. The one that requires collateral damage much like ME1's ending.
ME1s ending isn't anywhere near the same conceputal scale as ME3s
I'm not sure I understand the comparison you're drawing. Which of ME3's choices are you comparing to?
Destroy?
If so that's more like saying "everyone with a particular skin pigment in the galaxy will be killed". Do you still feel comfortbale with that collateral damage assessment? Because I don't.
It's a tough victory, yes, with repercussions. But still a victory.
Similar to ME1's ending, only against ALL the advanced, mile-high Cthulhu who have controlled the galaxy for billions of years.
Nope. ME1's victory involves the deaths in the thousands, mainly people who die fighting the Reapers.
ME3's Destroy ending exterminates entire species. All synthetics everywhere die. Even those who had nothing to do with the war. And they die by Shepard's hand, not by the Reapers'...tentacles.
That's a HUGE difference.
If so that's more like saying "everyone with a particular skin pigment in the galaxy will be killed". Do you still feel comfortbale with that collateral damage assessment? Because I don't.
Yeah, it gives Destroy really unpleasant implications. I'm really surprised no one on the team noticed it.
Define victory please - genocide of allies? I didn't see any other "victory" scenario.
Guest_xray16_*
A trap? The billion-year-old Reapers? ALL OF THEM? That's an ... amusing idea.
Who said all of them were here. Who also said all of them being destroyed was required to make them retreat based on losses?
Given star-brat was running them I'm not convinced they were that smart anyway. Like most bullies they came accross for the bulk of the series as big, strong and stupid. Especially with the ability of the player to dispatch their ground troops so easily. In the two ME3 playthorughs I could be bothered with I ahnialated them on the ground in London (they're not taking my town). Why were they winning again? Oh yes, because ME3.
Allegedly, they mostly went to earth. Blow up SOL and you'd take out a lot of them. That would've been a moral choice for the manic depressives in the fanbase. I think I would've wanted an evac mission first though :-)
Guest_xray16_*
Destroying the enemy at the expense of one species as opposed to losing all of them can be construed as a victory, especially if it's your own among the survivors. Of course, this assumes that the race you'd sacrifice wasn't already dead before you got to that point, in which case it's only one character that buys it. Maybe there's others out there that you don't know about, but they don't matter.
Scorched Earth is acceptable?
So, you're the player and there's an H5N1 outbreak in New York. The solution dreamt up in Geneva is that we need to prevent it spreading beyond the US borders, howver the people of the US don't like that idea and are struggling to escape. So to save the planet, you nuke the US. Youve destroyed the H5N1 outbreak threatening the planet, at the expense of the US, saving the French, Brits (thanks by the way), Germans, Africans, Russians etc.. basically everyone else. Still OK?
Guest_xray16_*
It wouldn't be so bad if the price of victory made sense and wasn't arbitrarily pulled out of someone's backside just to stop it all being too nice and clean. If Destroy had meant "This thing will interfere with nearby Reapers and we'll be able to take them down as a result, it'll still be hard and the war will still drag on for some time, lots more people dying as a result" then fine. Offer Control as a way of avoiding that, but make it clear that you're running a risk of it going belly up in the future and dooming everyone. You've even got a good choice that way. The whole thing is still somewhat contrived and implausible but not as much; it's never going to be otherwise when you're stuck with "Oh look, we just happened to find exactly what we needed just in time when we had no chance at all before that."
I think you hit it there for me with "It wouldn't be so bad if the price of victory made sense" That's probably where I fell off the bus. Because it all descended into nonsensical gibberish as far as I'm concerned. Yeah - my character is giving up their life... because... er, hologram says so? And the promise that afterwards it'll all be alright.. Er, excuse me - why do I believe them again?
BTW, not sure I've seen you around the Dahan Gateway, but I'll keep an eye out for a fellow pilot- fly straight and watch for the priates. :-)
Retour en haut