109 réponses à ce sujet

[God]

It's as much "boastful positioning" as Sovereign's "darken the sky of every world"  which at the time had as much substance to it.

 

And while I agree a deus ex machina was, sadly required, it was mainly due to the complete waste of time ME2 was and Bioware building up the Reapers to godlike power in ME3.  To the point of removing weaknesses the Reapers previously had.

 

And the Paragon path (which was fully endorsed, as much as the Renegade path) was the route of "the ends don't always justify the means"  See the quote in my sig.  Yeah, I know Renegades got screwed due to some choices in the trilogy.  But ME3's end choice turns the Paragon path into an utter waste of three games.

 

As to a Star Forge, clearly Cerberus had one.  All we'd need to do is find and secure it.    But the point being.  There should have been other paths than Red, Green, and Blue.  (or get trolled by Starbrat)

 

I think a Reaper's word on the matter is a lot more believable than even Shepard's. I mean, he does have a billion years of conquest under his belt.

 

There really weren't any weaknesses the Reapers had. They were hilariously overpowered by the story. That said, you'd need a deus ex machina to beat them as they always were. One Reaper more or less tanked the combined firepower of several fleets in ME1. What the hell are you going to do against 20,000 (plus an unspecified but much larger number of smaller supporting Reapers that are still quite powerful on their own?) I think the problem lie with ME1 introducing the Reapers as overpowered from the get-go. That was the key problem.

 

I think ultimately, the game shouldn't have come down to terms of paragon or renegade, but yes, whether or not you were willing to do whatever it takes to win. Paragons and renegades alike aren't. Paragons are too idealistic and compassionate, renegades are too bloodthirsty. That's why I think it's irrelevant to leave it in terms of morality. I don't believe that Paragons are willing to have the end justify the means, and your quote is complete bunk IMO. Those not willing to pay the cost for the prize don't deserve it. While your assertion might be true for smaller scale issues, they're completely invalid when it comes to terms of genocide and extinction. Against the Reapers, there is no other means to victory, nor should there be.

 

On that note, I disagree vehemently with your point. I believe you should have to pay dearly for the future. Perhaps there should have been other paths to RVB. But, they should each have had consequences and costs that are just as mighty. Any less and you cheapen the franchise. You cheapen the story. You shouldn't be able to win without tremendous cost. And of you don't want to win that way, then you don't deserve to win at all.

 

The stakes are too high to play the moral game otherwise.

[NeonFlux117]

Interesting topic. For me, ME3 is the culmination of EA's greed and polices and the absence of Drew K. 

 

And you stir those things up and you get Mass Effect 3. It's not a bad game, nope. In fact it's a GREAT game. 

 

But it is a terrible Mass Effect game. 

 

I've said this before, and people don't get it. 

 

Cause I think you have to really like ME1 and ME2 and even BioWare games of yesteryears to really get what I mean by that. 

 

Mass Effect 3 was the victim of EA and personified everything wrong with "AAA" games, and still manged to be pretty stellar. Quite the accomplishment really. 

 

But it is undoubtedly the weakest in the series. 

 

But hey, The Multiplayer was great tho. 

[God]

Interesting topic. For me, ME3 is the culmination of EA's greed and polices and the absence of Drew K. 

 

And you stir those things up and you get Mass Effect 3. It's not a bad game, nope. In fact it's a GREAT game. 

 

But it is a terrible Mass Effect game. 

 

I've said this before, and people don't get it. 

 

Cause I think you have to really like ME1 and ME2 and even BioWare games of yesteryears to really get what I mean by that. 

 

Mass Effect 3 was the victim of EA and personified everything wrong with "AAA" games, and still manged to be pretty stellar. Quite the accomplishment really. 

 

But it is undoubtedly the weakest in the series. 

 

But hey, The Multiplayer was great tho. 

 

In all fairness, Drew Karpyshyn was, IMO, a rather inconsequential variable to whether the game would have been good or not. It's too much of an unknown to say whether he'd have been good or bad.

[Vazgen]

But it is undoubtedly the weakest in the series. 

I would not be so sure. At least, based on this poll, it isn't.

[NeonFlux117]

I would not be so sure. At least, based on this poll, it isn't.

 

Probably many of those people that voted in the poll are- 

 

A) New to the series, there first games were ME2 or  ME3. 

B. Play the series only on consoles

C) like First Person shooters and action games. 

 

 

Now, I love FPS and action games, but.... In no way would I ever say ME3 is better than ME1. The best in the series is ME2, and it's easily the best, then ME1 then ME3 I guess. But again, ME3 is a bad Mass Effect game. 

[Vazgen]

Probably many of those people that voted int the poll are- 

 

A) New to the series, there first games were ME2 or  ME3. 

B. Play the series only on consoles

C) like First Person shooters and action games. 

 

 

Now, I love FPS and action games, but.... In no way would I ever say ME3 is better than ME1. The best in the series is ME2, and it's easily the best, then ME1 then ME3 I guess. But again, ME3 is a bad Mass Effect game. 

That's your opinion. For me, ME2 is the best for difficulty and worst for the story. ME1 is best for the story and worst for gameplay. ME3 is second best for the story and best for gameplay (second best for difficulty). So yeah, I'd put ME3 on top of that list if only because I replayed it much more than ME1 or ME2.

To note, I play on PC, started from ME1, like FPS and action games as well as RPGs and adventure games.

[NeonFlux117]

ME3 is such an easy game, lol. YoU have to play with Spectre difficulty mod to make it challenging at all. ME1 is fantastic on PC. ME2 is probably the best single player experience I've ever had with a game. Gameplay wise, eh.. To be honest, none of them were like that great in terms of actual TPS, I mean Gears of War is a better TPS as was Vanquish. But Mass Effect 2 and 3 were solid and I will say that ME3 was a little more fluid and snappier than ME2 I guess. But I still prefer ME2's gameplay, cause it was actually difficult on insanity yet fair and I liked how the weapons and classes were balanced. 

 

Characters and dialogue writing is without a doubt the best in ME2. Some of the greatest video game characters of all time are in ME2. 

 

And dat Suicide Mission..... THE GREATEST ENDING TO A VIDEO GAME EVER. EVER. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

And you stir those things up and you get Mass Effect 3. It's not a bad game, nope. In fact it's a GREAT game. 

 

It's not really that great of a game (none of the ME games are). The game is not very polished. It's visuals and art direction isn't very well executed. And while it's TPS mechanics are arguably improved from it's predecessors there are many more competent shooters out there.

[NeonFlux117]

It's not really that great of a game (none of the ME games are). The game is not very polished. It's visuals and art direction isn't very well executed. And while it's TPS mechanics are arguably improved from it's predecessors there are many more competent shooters out there.

 

lol, I get what you were saying in the latter part of your thing here. But......

 

 

"none of the ME games are"

 

okay... What do you consider to be a great game??? 

[God]

Point of view, gentlemen.

 

Some think they're the greatest games ever.

 

Some think wonder what the big deal is.

 

Some think they're interesting and intriguing action-rpg stories.

 

Some think they're garbage power-fantasy dudebro tps shooters.

[NeonFlux117]

Oh I have no doubt that ME3 was a pure dude bro TPS herculean power trip fantasy. No doubt. 

 

*not to say there weren't incredibly well done dramatic moments in ME3 cause there were, but.... It's a pure TPS with some RPG elements.*

[themikefest]

ME3 is such an easy game, lol. YoU have to play with Spectre difficulty mod to make it challenging at all. 

You want to make the games challenging? Try this. Its a playthrough I did however long ago.

 

I had my femshep use a level one pistol, no points put into any powers. I did the same for the squadmates. They used a level one weapon, no points in powers and I did this on hardcore mode. To this day its the hardest playthrough I've done. I tried on insanity, but I was getting frustrated so I lowered the dificulty to hardcore

[Iakus]

I think a Reaper's word on the matter is a lot more believable than even Shepard's. I mean, he does have a billion years of conquest under his belt.

 

There really weren't any weaknesses the Reapers had. They were hilariously overpowered by the story. That said, you'd need a deus ex machina to beat them as they always were. One Reaper more or less tanked the combined firepower of several fleets in ME1. What the hell are you going to do against 20,000 (plus an unspecified but much larger number of smaller supporting Reapers that are still quite powerful on their own?) I think the problem lie with ME1 introducing the Reapers as overpowered from the get-go. That was the key problem.

 

I think ultimately, the game shouldn't have come down to terms of paragon or renegade, but yes, whether or not you were willing to do whatever it takes to win. Paragons and renegades alike aren't. Paragons are too idealistic and compassionate, renegades are too bloodthirsty. That's why I think it's irrelevant to leave it in terms of morality. I don't believe that Paragons are willing to have the end justify the means, and your quote is complete bunk IMO. Those not willing to pay the cost for the prize don't deserve it. While your assertion might be true for smaller scale issues, they're completely invalid when it comes to terms of genocide and extinction. Against the Reapers, there is no other means to victory, nor should there be.

 

On that note, I disagree vehemently with your point. I believe you should have to pay dearly for the future. Perhaps there should have been other paths to RVB. But, they should each have had consequences and costs that are just as mighty. Any less and you cheapen the franchise. You cheapen the story. You shouldn't be able to win without tremendous cost. And of you don't want to win that way, then you don't deserve to win at all.

 

The stakes are too high to play the moral game otherwise.

 

Sure the Reapers have a lot of experience, but at the moment, Soveriegn was alone, and utterly dependent on Saren and the geth to get things done.  At this point, threats ring a bit hollow.

 

And sure one Reaper was taking on the combined firepower of at least part of Fifth Fleet (I don't think the geth just went away after the ward arms were opened) But he would have fallen eventually.  Add to that ships are now armed with thanix weapons, which should in part negate the strength of Reaper kinetic barriers, the fact that Reapers were no longer subject to "sock puppet feedback" and there are so freaking many of them made the fact that we didn't get a "critical mission failure" as soon as the Reapers hit Earth pretty laughable.

 

None of that was shown in ME1.  That was all on ME3.  There could as easily have been 200 as 20,000 before.  With exploitable weaknesses which would make their "divide and conquer" strategy actually make sense.

 

And while yes, there should be consequences to your chosen path to victory, forcing a choice between genocide, slavery, and eugenics is completely unfun.  That cheapened the franchise "No matter how much of a difference you make, it doesn't make any difference"  

 

Surviving isn't winning.  It's just existing.  Animals survive.  Bacteria survives.  I wanted the galaxy to do more than that.

[Alamar2078]

I'm going to stir the pot but I contend that in terms of advancing the plot of the series as a whole that ME2 could be argued to be the weakest game of the three.  In isolation ME2 may be the most fun game of the series but I much prefer ME1 when it comes to the RPG experience and its individual contribution to the trilogy as a whole. 

[Iakus]

I'm going to stir the pot but I contend that in terms of advancing the plot of the series as a whole that ME2 could be argued to be the weakest game of the three.  In isolation ME2 may be the most fun game of the series but I much prefer ME1 when it comes to the RPG experience and its individual contribution to the trilogy as a whole. 

Agreed.  ME2 felt more like a DLC pack than the middle of a story

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm going to stir the pot but I contend that in terms of advancing the plot of the series as a whole that ME2 could be argued to be the weakest game of the three.  In isolation ME2 may be the most fun game of the series but I much prefer ME1 when it comes to the RPG experience and its individual contribution to the trilogy as a whole. 

 

Yes. ME2 really is a glorified side adventure. I think we can also blame it for introducing Cerberus (or I guess reintroducing), making the overall series much more anthropocentric, and the deification of Shepard.

[God]

Sure the Reapers have a lot of experience, but at the moment, Soveriegn was alone, and utterly dependent on Saren and the geth to get things done.  At this point, threats ring a bit hollow.

 

And sure one Reaper was taking on the combined firepower of at least part of Fifth Fleet (I don't think the geth just went away after the ward arms were opened) But he would have fallen eventually.  Add to that ships are now armed with thanix weapons, which should in part negate the strength of Reaper kinetic barriers, the fact that Reapers were no longer subject to "sock puppet feedback" and there are so freaking many of them made the fact that we didn't get a "critical mission failure" as soon as the Reapers hit Earth pretty laughable.

 

None of that was shown in ME1.  That was all on ME3.  There could as easily have been 200 as 20,000 before.  With exploitable weaknesses which would make their "divide and conquer" strategy actually make sense.

 

And while yes, there should be consequences to your chosen path to victory, forcing a choice between genocide, slavery, and eugenics is completely unfun.  That cheapened the franchise "No matter how much of a difference you make, it doesn't make any difference"  

 

Surviving isn't winning.  It's just existing.  Animals survive.  Bacteria survives.  I wanted the galaxy to do more than that.

 

Hehe, no. It needed pawns yes, but it wasn't helplessly dependent on them. At that moment, it was telling you what was going to happen (as it had done thousands of times before), and was also speeding towards you with intent to annihilate. All it really needed was bullet sponges like the Geth, and a fool to control to make sure that no one was ready for it. And it very nearly worked. There was a lot more to it than 'a hollow threat'.

 

He would have fallen eventually... maybe, against a larger fleet (with more time). There was neither. The only reason that Sovereign didn't roflstomp the fleet was because: 1) they disengaged due to tremendous losses 2) Shepard just happened to have a computer spike that let him temporarily override Sovereign's control to the station, and 3) was focused more on killing Shepard via the Saren husk than actually engaging the fleet to the point that Saren's sudden destruction stunned the Reaper so to speak. Otherwise, Sovereign would have activated the Citadel relay well before its shields were disabled. And on the point of thanix: If they're such a 'game changer', how come they never changed the game? How come they all failed against the Reapers. Your point on them is irrelevant. 

 

On this note, you're starting the argument of 'the Reapers were too strong!' and trying to justify it as a possibility of the story. Of course it was a possibility! Just about everything could have been a possibility! That's what the whole issue is. You think they're too strong for your ideal of beating them (probably having a pyrrhic victory that would still be a moral one without having to sacrifice 'who you are'.) My extremely negative and dismissive thoughts on that philosophy and ideology aside, you're essentially trying to argue that the game should have had a different concept than it did. Well, as I said, you could argue that about just about anything. You're jumping on the boat and thinking its going to sail you somewhere, and that it shouldn't have sailed somewhere else for someone else. It's not going to be taking you anywhere anytime soon. Nor should it.

 

Why should it have to be fun for you? More specifically, why should the narrative or story cater to your need to have a victory that isn't 'hard' in the ways you think is hard. The fact you feel this way imo validates one of the few things I feel ME3's ending went right on. It has no need to be hopeful. Sometimes, victory and survival really does come with a bitter cost. And if you're like me at all, you pick up and carry on. Your idea of wanting people to do more than survive is hard to quantify. All there is is survival and existence. That's exactly what you're trying to do, but you're trying to paint it as something else. Some abstract concept of higher purpose that doesn't exist. Anything beyond 'just surviving and existing' doesn't exist. It's senseless. You're trying to moralize where it doesn't need it. Live or die. To me, the choice is clear. I'm not dying if I can help it, and I'm not letting everyone else burn for my own misgivings over what's right or not. If I have to cut off an arm to live (in this case the Geth), than that arm comes off. Sure, I'll miss it, but I won't forget what the price of not cutting that arm would have been. Speaking frankly, I think you have your priorities screwed up.

 

As for making a difference; you did. You stopped the Reapers. That's a pretty big difference right there. Maybe not to the moral lessons of yours, but you did make the galaxy a better place for those still alive.

[Alamar2078]

In ME1 it wasn't necessarily easy to tell if Sovereign was "monologging" like some bad guy from a comic book or if it was just relaying basic truths as it knew them.  As written it would be hard enough to fight off 200 Reaper capital ships let alone the thousands / tens of thousands of capital ships they had.  So in ME1 it was still feasible to get Vigil's data on the mass relays & conduit ; study Sovereign's wreckage to upgrade shields and weapons ; perhaps the "psychic shock" that Sovereign experienced at the end of ME1 could have been exploited.

 

While the Reapers were around for millions [billions?] of years this could very well have been the first cycle with access to this level of information since the Leviathans were caught off guard.  Throw in things like the Reaper IFF and the Collector base and now you may have full access to how the relays work ; information on structure & weaknesses of the Reapers ; etc.

 

While I 100% agree beating the Reapers with "brute force" would have been unsatisfying I would have liked an option to wage an asymmetric war against them and see if we can exploit some weakness they have.

 

Example:  Depending on EMS levels maybe you can trick the Reapers into using a Mass Relay whose twin is sitting just outside the event horizon of a black hole or deep within the gravity well of a neutron star or whatever.  The gotcha is maybe you have to send a large portion of your fleet [like all the Quarian AND Geth fleet through the relay as bait to get the Reapers to follow??   Maybe you find out about the catalyst earlier than otherwise and now you don't have to necessarily beat the Reapers but instead destroy the Citadel instead??  What happens if Tali is your LI at this point?   I think that there are makings for sacrifice and bittersweet endings esp. if you don't lure every Reaper everywhere into the trap .... just an acceptably large number given the sacrifice you just made.

 

There could have been ways out that wouldn't have required as big of a DEM as we got in ME3.  I could probably live with a single Vigil sized DEM but would prefer to keep others out of the equation.

 

Either way it's way way too late for that now.  Shep dieing in ME2 and ME2's lack of substantially moving forward with ways to unite the galaxy ; fight the Reapers ; come up with plans ; etc. was wasted.  By the time the Reapers got here in ME3 it should have been "Critical Mission Fail" or DEM-to-the-rescue.  I don't really see many alternatives.

[Iakus]

Hehe, no. It needed pawns yes, but it wasn't helplessly dependent on them. At that moment, it was telling you what was going to happen (as it had done thousands of times before), and was also speeding towards you with intent to annihilate. All it really needed was bullet sponges like the Geth, and a fool to control to make sure that no one was ready for it. And it very nearly worked. There was a lot more to it than 'a hollow threat'.

 

And without these pawns, how was it going to open the dark space relay?  If it's so powerful, why does it need bullet sponges?

 

The Reapers are not invincible.  Arrogance =/= power

 

 

He would have fallen eventually... maybe, against a larger fleet (with more time). There was neither. The only reason that Sovereign didn't roflstomp the fleet was because: 1) they disengaged due to tremendous losses 2) Shepard just happened to have a computer spike that let him temporarily override Sovereign's control to the station, and 3) was focused more on killing Shepard via the Saren husk than actually engaging the fleet to the point that Saren's sudden destruction stunned the Reaper so to speak. Otherwise, Sovereign would have activated the Citadel relay well before its shields were disabled. And on the point of thanix: If they're such a 'game changer', how come they never changed the game? How come they all failed against the Reapers. Your point on them is irrelevant.

 

 

Twitter-canon says Sovereign would have fallen eventually under 5th Fleet's barrage.  But they would have taken heavier losses than they did. 

 

Also:  1) Fifth Fleet did not retreat.  Hackett specifically tells them not to.  2) Yes, Shepard's spike temporarilly locks Sovereign out of the Citadel's systems.  That it was temporary is the main reason they're in such a hurry to destroy Sovereign.  3) As I said, teh feedback-stun was a weakness that was conveniently removed in ME3.

 

 

On this note, you're starting the argument of 'the Reapers were too strong!' and trying to justify it as a possibility of the story. Of course it was a possibility! Just about everything could have been a possibility! That's what the whole issue is. You think they're too strong for your ideal of beating them (probably having a pyrrhic victory that would still be a moral one without having to sacrifice 'who you are'.) My extremely negative and dismissive thoughts on that philosophy and ideology aside, you're essentially trying to argue that the game should have had a different concept than it did. Well, as I said, you could argue that about just about anything. You're jumping on the boat and thinking its going to sail you somewhere, and that it shouldn't have sailed somewhere else for someone else. It's not going to be taking you anywhere anytime soon. Nor should it.

 

My argument is that Bioware forced the "bittersweet" outcome regardless of whether it makes sense or not.  They stacked the deck beyond all reason, beyond anything we've seen in the first two games.  Nothing in the first two games gave any indication that such is inevitable.  So if Bioware could change the game's concept on a whim, why couldn't they have allowed for other concepts?  Especially concepts they held as viable in ME1 and ME2?

 

And I don't care if you hold such concepts in contempt.  Others don't.  And they played this game too

 

Why should it have to be fun for you? More specifically, why should the narrative or story cater to your need to have a victory that isn't 'hard' in the ways you think is hard. The fact you feel this way imo validates one of the few things I feel ME3's ending went right on. It has no need to be hopeful. Sometimes, victory and survival really does come with a bitter cost. And if you're like me at all, you pick up and carry on. Your idea of wanting people to do more than survive is hard to quantify. All there is is survival and existence. That's exactly what you're trying to do, but you're trying to paint it as something else. Some abstract concept of higher purpose that doesn't exist. Anything beyond 'just surviving and existing' doesn't exist. It's senseless. You're trying to moralize where it doesn't need it. Live or die. To me, the choice is clear. I'm not dying if I can help it, and I'm not letting everyone else burn for my own misgivings over what's right or not. If I have to cut off an arm to live (in this case the Geth), than that arm comes off. Sure, I'll miss it, but I won't forget what the price of not cutting that arm would have been. Speaking frankly, I think you have your priorities screwed up.

 

 

It should be fun for me because it's a game.  And it shouldn't just be fun for me specifically, it should be fun for you too.  And anyone else who played and enjoyed the trilogy.  They shoul dhave cast the net as wide as possible to encompass as many stories as they could.  You want to play an amoral SHepard who will climb over a mountain of corpses to get the job done, go for it!  The game allows for it.  Want to play a more cautious SHepard who focuses on integrity and playing by the rules?  Well, the game allowed for that too, up until the end.  Then came the trolling...

 

You're starting to sound like someone I used to argue about this a lot with.

 

 

As for making a difference; you did. You stopped the Reapers. That's a pretty big difference right there. Maybe not to the moral lessons of yours, but you did make the galaxy a better place for those still alive.

 

Utopia Justifies the Means, eh?

[Iakus]

Of course, I agree completely. I always found it ridiculous to think that refusal victory is possible. It's not. Period. The Reapers are way too advanced and they cannot be defeated without some sort of deus ex machina.

Synthesis isn't possible either.  Yet it is...

[Iakus]

In ME1 it wasn't necessarily easy to tell if Sovereign was "monologging" like some bad guy from a comic book or if it was just relaying basic truths as it knew them.  As written it would be hard enough to fight off 200 Reaper capital ships let alone the thousands / tens of thousands of capital ships they had.  So in ME1 it was still feasible to get Vigil's data on the mass relays & conduit ; study Sovereign's wreckage to upgrade shields and weapons ; perhaps the "psychic shock" that Sovereign experienced at the end of ME1 could have been exploited.

 

While the Reapers were around for millions [billions?] of years this could very well have been the first cycle with access to this level of information since the Leviathans were caught off guard.  Throw in things like the Reaper IFF and the Collector base and now you may have full access to how the relays work ; information on structure & weaknesses of the Reapers ; etc.

 

While I 100% agree beating the Reapers with "brute force" would have been unsatisfying I would have liked an option to wage an asymmetric war against them and see if we can exploit some weakness they have.

 

Example:  Depending on EMS levels maybe you can trick the Reapers into using a Mass Relay whose twin is sitting just outside the event horizon of a black hole or deep within the gravity well of a neutron star or whatever.  The gotcha is maybe you have to send a large portion of your fleet [like all the Quarian AND Geth fleet through the relay as bait to get the Reapers to follow??   Maybe you find out about the catalyst earlier than otherwise and now you don't have to necessarily beat the Reapers but instead destroy the Citadel instead??  What happens if Tali is your LI at this point?   I think that there are makings for sacrifice and bittersweet endings esp. if you don't lure every Reaper everywhere into the trap .... just an acceptably large number given the sacrifice you just made.

 

There could have been ways out that wouldn't have required as big of a DEM as we got in ME3.  I could probably live with a single Vigil sized DEM but would prefer to keep others out of the equation.

 

Either way it's way way too late for that now.  Shep dieing in ME2 and ME2's lack of substantially moving forward with ways to unite the galaxy ; fight the Reapers ; come up with plans ; etc. was wasted.  By the time the Reapers got here in ME3 it should have been "Critical Mission Fail" or DEM-to-the-rescue.  I don't really see many alternatives.

"Asymetric war"

 

You mean, like using "unconventional means"?  <_<

 

And yes, a couple hundred Reapers would still have been nigh-impossible to fight off, but it would have made things look less like a curb-stomp battle (where The Crucible gets built more through Reaper incompetance than ingenuity on the galaxy's part).  Every Reaper killed would have measurably weakened them, and feel more like a regular victory.  In ME3, it really doesn't matter that you managed to kill a destroyer with a giant worm.  There's like 100,000 more where it came from, and that's just a little Reaper.

[God]

And without these pawns, how was it going to open the dark space relay?  If it's so powerful, why does it need bullet sponges?

 

The Reapers are not invincible.  Arrogance =/= power

 

 

Twitter-canon says Sovereign would have fallen eventually under 5th Fleet's barrage.  But they would have taken heavier losses than they did. 

 

Also:  1) Fifth Fleet did not retreat.  Hackett specifically tells them not to.  2) Yes, Shepard's spike temporarilly locks Sovereign out of the Citadel's systems.  That it was temporary is the main reason they're in such a hurry to destroy Sovereign.  3) As I said, teh feedback-stun was a weakness that was conveniently removed in ME3.

 

 

My argument is that Bioware forced the "bittersweet" outcome regardless of whether it makes sense or not.  They stacked the deck beyond all reason, beyond anything we've seen in the first two games.  Nothing in the first two games gave any indication that such is inevitable.  So if Bioware could change the game's concept on a whim, why couldn't they have allowed for other concepts?  Especially concepts they held as viable in ME1 and ME2?

 

And I don't care if you hold such concepts in contempt.  Others don't.  And they played this game too

 

 

It should be fun for me because it's a game.  And it shouldn't just be fun for me specifically, it should be fun for you too.  And anyone else who played and enjoyed the trilogy.  They shoul dhave cast the net as wide as possible to encompass as many stories as they could.  You want to play an amoral SHepard who will climb over a mountain of corpses to get the job done, go for it!  The game allows for it.  Want to play a more cautious SHepard who focuses on integrity and playing by the rules?  Well, the game allowed for that too, up until the end.  Then came the trolling...

 

You're starting to sound like someone I used to argue about this a lot with.

 

 

Utopia Justifies the Means, eh?

 

It wasn't. That said, in the end, it didn't really matter much did it? The Reapers would be coming anyway. I never claimed that Sovereign was invincible. You did.

I said it was durable enough to tank a fleets combined firepower for an extended amount of time, to a point where it single-handedly forced said fleet to disengage.

And the Reapers are invincible, at least conventionally. One Reaper takes an entire fleet to destroy. And there are thousands of them. While singularly, they can be destroyed, altogether, your chance of victory is 0.

 

Oh twitter canon. Of course Sovereign would have eventually fallen. But don't you think that it undercuts Shepard's ability to make a difference by removing him and having the same outcome with more losses? Wouldn't it have been better if say, without Shepard, there was a game over switch since Sovereign activated the relay before being destroyed? And I never said the fleet retreated. I said they disengaged (which they clearly did). Otherwise, everything else you said doesn't hold much bearing on this. You're giving facts that aren't in contention here now. Just that you don't like them, which sucks for you.

 

I don't think there ever would have or could have been anything but bittersweet. In fact, as I said, the game depicts this. So yeah, I have the developers on my side over you on this. As for why the concepts couldn't have worked (yours specifically)? Because then it gets into pure cheese that ruins story tension. Everything else is a device used to create a specific atmosphere. Yours breaks that atmosphere and tension. Yours is, quite really, breaking of the story in a way worse than what we got. Such concepts you see weren't meaningless if you don't let them be. Why give your Shepard such a hard time? Why not blame the Reapers for their failings? 

 

And the developers one again agreed with me. They made the game. Their word is what is the authority here. To be cliche'd, if you don't care about the concepts that ended up mattering, you can go play something else. Or move on. It's been 3 years now. It's not going to change. Tell that to the others that played the game too. 

 

Just because it's a game doesn't mean it should be fun or easy. That sentiment is just against the idea that games can be a media on par with literature or movies or other esteemed mediums. I found its drama and difficult, existential meaning to be quite intriguing, if presented in a flawed manner. I like the ending not having an easy answer. But it's also so divorced from the background that it's easy to set aside what 'integrity' and 'rules' got me there. The game has changed. You're playing a different game with different rules. Adapt. That's all I can say. There isn't or doesn't have to be some ultimate payoff for being a hero. Just do the job and go back to your game if it bothers you so much. If that doesn't work, I advise moving on to something that does make you feel good.

 

I'm sure I do sound like a guy. For certain reasons, I'd rather not get into it here. Suffice to say though, I've also been away doing my job, and performing it in the 'amoral' way you describe, and getting results too. At the end of the month, I'll be back to my job, and doing it the 'amoral' way, and continuing to get results.

 

Results justify the means. If you get better results, why not use the harsher means? It's better for the long run, the big picture. Yours works for smaller things and certain contexts. Certainly not galactic genocide though. Abstractions like integrity and rules don't win these kinds of wars. 

[God]

"Asymetric war"

 

You mean, like using "unconventional means"? 

 

And yes, a couple hundred Reapers would still have been nigh-impossible to fight off, but it would have made things look less like a curb-stomp battle (where The Crucible gets built more through Reaper incompetance than ingenuity on the galaxy's part).  Every Reaper killed would have measurably weakened them, and feel more like a regular victory.  In ME3, it really doesn't matter that you managed to kill a destroyer with a giant worm.  There's like 100,000 more where it came from, and that's just a little Reaper.

 

That's the way the rock rolled. 

 

You have one option to survive and live and prosper. Why should everyone else die for your integrity after all?

[Iakus]

It wasn't. That said, in the end, it didn't really matter much did it? The Reapers would be coming anyway. I never claimed that Sovereign was invincible. You did.

I said it was durable enough to tank a fleets combined firepower for an extended amount of time, to a point where it single-handedly forced said fleet to disengage.

And the Reapers are invincible, at least conventionally. One Reaper takes an entire fleet to destroy. And there are thousands of them. While singularly, they can be destroyed, altogether, your chance of victory is 0.

 

Again, no it didn't

 

"Sovereign is too strong! We have to pull back!"

"Negative.  This is our only chance!"

 

And the Reapers are only as "invincible" as the writers arbitrarilly decided them to be.  Sadly, they were made so invincible they had to be made totally incompetant at waging a war so the galaxy could have any kind of chance to build their deus ex machina

 

 

Oh twitter canon. Of course Sovereign would have eventually fallen. But don't you think that it undercuts Shepard's ability to make a difference by removing him and having the same outcome with more losses? Wouldn't it have been better if say, without Shepard, there was a game over switch since Sovereign activated the relay before being destroyed? And I never said the fleet retreated. I said they disengaged (which they clearly did). Otherwise, everything else you said doesn't hold much bearing on this. You're giving facts that aren't in contention here now. Just that you don't like them, which sucks for you.

 

Meh, pretty much everything Shepard ever did in the trilogy was undercut.  What's one more thing at this point?

 

 

I don't think there ever would have or could have been anything but bittersweet. In fact, as I said, the game depicts this. So yeah, I have the developers on my side over you on this. As for why the concepts couldn't have worked (yours specifically)? Because then it gets into pure cheese that ruins story tension. Everything else is a device used to create a specific atmosphere. Yours breaks that atmosphere and tension. Yours is, quite really, breaking of the story in a way worse than what we got. Such concepts you see weren't meaningless if you don't let them be. Why give your Shepard such a hard time? Why not blame the Reapers for their failings?

And when you import a Shepard who has saved everyone he possibly can, builds up a huge EMS score, Unifies the galaxy only to be trolled "Trolol.  Nope" by a ghostly Starbrat, that doesn't break the atmosphere?

 

It may not be the story you are telling.  And there's nothing wrong with that.  But it's the story I am telling.  One that had been in the works for five years.

 

Just because it's a game doesn't mean it should be fun or easy. That sentiment is just against the idea that games can be a media on par with literature or movies or other esteemed mediums. I found its drama and difficult, existential meaning to be quite intriguing, if presented in a flawed manner. I like the ending not having an easy answer. But it's also so divorced from the background that it's easy to set aside what 'integrity' and 'rules' got me there. The game has changed. You're playing a different game with different rules. Adapt. That's all I can say. There isn't or doesn't have to be some ultimate payoff for being a hero. Just do the job and go back to your game if it bothers you so much. If that doesn't work, I advise moving on to something that does make you feel good.

 

Sure it doesn't have to be easy.  Heck, it this case it shouldn't be easy.  But it does need to be fun.  Otherwise there's no point in buying a game.  If I want tragedy, doom and gloom, I've got RL.

 

ME3: Dramatic and existential?       It was trite, heavy handed angst.  Heck DAI was a better examination on faith than ME3's "sacrifice" theme.  Mordin's was the only spot where it was done at all well.

 

DAO had a "not easy" answer.  ME3 was trolling, plain and simple.  Shepard was beaten to death with a plot hammer.  There was no :"integrity" and the only "rule" was DM Fiat.  You don't change the rules in the final minutes of the final entry of a trilogy.

 

And it really worries me that Bioware thinks this is okay.  Because they used to be the developers I would go to for game I enjoy.  Too many others wallow in angst and "dark and edgy" themes. 

 

I'm sure I do sound like a guy. For certain reasons, I'd rather not get into it here. Suffice to say though, I've also been away doing my job, and performing it in the 'amoral' way you describe, and getting results too. At the end of the month, I'll be back to my job, and doing it the 'amoral' way, and continuing to get results.

 

Yeah, suddenly my understanding of you is far more massive.  But your arguments are no more effective.

 

 

Results justify the means. If you get better results, why not use the harsher means? It's better for the long run, the big picture. Yours works for smaller things and certain contexts. Certainly not galactic genocide though. Abstractions like integrity and rules don't win these kinds of wars.

 

News Flash:  Some people like playing paladins.  And the Mass Effect trilogy allowed it as a viable method, and even encouraged it.  Too bad they got screwed in the end by the Art.