94 réponses à ce sujet

[themikefest]

Now I imagine Garrus coming to Luna and telling Shepard "See this devastation, Commander? Double that for Palaven"

I wouldn't want Garrus leading the Turians at all. I rather have Victus or Corinthus

[wright1978]

I blame the Alliance for locking up Shepard for 6 months. Idiots.

 

How would the game of played out if the Citadel was taken to Palaven or Thessia? How would the Turians or asari react to having a human lead the attack? Would people want a Turian or an asari leading the attack?

 

Yep, never got to properly express my shep's anger at the Alliance in ME3.

 

Shep is a unifying figure in the game, so i think him spearheading the attack as a Spectre would be deemed ok. I'd expect Victus to play the Hackett role in any such scenario though.

[Vazgen]

I wouldn't want Garrus leading the Turians at all. I rather have Victus or Corinthus

Garrus does not lead. He's similar to Shepard in that regard - errand boy trying to get the leaders to cooperate

[themikefest]

Garrus does not lead. He's similar to Shepard in that regard - errand boy trying to get the leaders to cooperate

If he was killed during the suicide mission, he can't do much of anything in ME3

[Han Shot First]

Now I imagine Garrus coming to Luna and telling Shepard "See this devastation, Commander? Double that for Palaven"

 

That at least would have been accurate. Earth may get hit first but because organized military resistance never collapses on Palaven, Palaven sees more damage and devastation. Of all the Council species I think the Turian homeworld sees the worst devastation. The view from Menae looks like much worse than what we saw as Shepard fled Earth. The only homeworld in the galaxy that potentially gets it worse is maybe Khar'Shan, just by virtue of widespread indoctrination and the Reapers having had longer to work with the processing ships.

 

In demanding fleets for Earth Shepard isn't just being an anthropocentric bag-of-d1cks, he also exaggerates the devastation done to Earth in order to get them. How'd he keep a straight face saying that line while a continent-sized inferno rages on Palaven?

[Vit246]

Nope. Don't blame them. Ashley Williams was right. Different species will usually look out for their own first before looking out for others. Its "human" nature.

[Linkenski]

I think prioritizing any one planet in a war against giant synthetic space-squids that 1-hit kill everything and obliterate everything on their path is single-minded and stupid, hence why so much stupidity emerged from the intro and onwards when Shep and co. keep going "Earth this and Earth that". The premise of ME3 should've been "stop the Reapers by any means", not "SAVE EARTH!" because in a "war" like this you don't win by retaking any homeworld. You retake the homeworld from one concentration of Reaper forces only to be stomped to death by the entire bulk force of the rest of the Reapers because logically as soon as the Reapers would've percieved Shepard and his armada as a threat they'd send every single Reaper towards it and then the fight would've been lost.

 

The conventional victory idea was always stupid IMO, so it's weird to see how the game sometimes seems to go with it, and other times the characters are actually sensical about it all being a delaying action to get the Crucible in there and do something... but there is just this wonkiness and odd flavor to ME3's plot because the Crucible causes a lot of confusion when everything about it is so vague and undefined... and while I HATE the ending, I like that Bioware were realistic enough to say "no conventional victory".

[Vit246]

NO NO NO. The conventional victory idea was always possible, but Bioware just failed to capitalize and expand on it on it. It was frakking hinted near the end of ME1.

The Reapers never had to fight a conventional war with a galaxy that was aware of and possibly prepared for them. At the beginning of every cycle, the Reapers always started with a surprise attack at the Citadel, killing the center of galactic government and taking control of the relay network and shutting it down. They always killed the galaxy's ability to fight back first. And then one by one, they slowly and methodically wipe out every planet and faction. Divide and conquer. 

 

After ME1, there was no reason for the following to not happen. The galaxy prepares by building up its military and weapons development under the excuse of preparing for war with the Geth that managed to attack the Citadel. And then when the Reapers come, heres how they do it: they all combine together and use their eezo cores to FTL their way out of dark space into the galaxy out of desperation, but theres a penalty for it. Some of them get destroyed by the process. And a lot of them get weakened enough from the usage of eezo. Which almost puts them on a level playing field. Thats how a conventional victory could've worked.

[God]

Conventional victory is and always was doomed to fail. IMO, as it should be.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Conventional victory is and always was doomed to fail. IMO, as it should be.

 

I think some sort of conventional victory is a completely valid conclusion, or at least as valid as any other type of ending. ME3 is a game that very much wants to be like it's contemporaries in Halo and Gears of War. It's an grand space adventure complete with epic battles with ships and troops. The plot largely revolves around the gathering of such conventional forces and the EMS system itself really creates the expectation for such a finale. Except for some non-Reaper setbacks it is a mechanic that implies the galaxy is only really getting stronger as Shepard goes around uniting the forces that are doing okay apart; it's a measure for the most part that only goes up. Couple in other aspects that include the Multiplayer and the mechanics don't really reflect a sense of loss, instead promoting the opposite.

 

Even the story seems somewhat conflicted at parts. Yes, characters talk about loss but most of these conversations are largely divorced from the central plot (at least until Thessia, where the story then shifts to dealing largely with Cerberus). Governments remain largely intact, infrastructure seems to largely remain intact, and apart from Earth every battle seems like it can last indefinitely. Nothing, at least to me, seems desperate; the Crucible is supposed to be the one last hope but it gets built off screen while Shepard and friends thoroughly trump everything outside of cutscenes. ME1 left the impression that a fleet of Sovereign's would wreck the current cycle as thoroughly Vigil describes the extinction of the Protheans. The two game journey though seems to have tired out the Reapers. Now they struggle with guerrilla tactics, ground troops, and smuggled nukes. It's a process that doesn't seem like it would result in a net gain for the Reapers. Even Javik at one point says the Protheans had the technological advantage to beat the Reapers. And again the story at parts feels like it's leading elsewhere. Despite Hackett's grim warnings that it's ultimately a losing effort it never feels, or plays, or even really shows that to be the case.

 

It's not something I expected... well, maybe a little, as ME2 is also about impossible odds that Shepard shouldn't win but does. I do think there is this struggle between ME3 being a tale about loss against overwhelming odds and a player empowering shooter. And for the most part the later feels like it's so much stronger and that really lends itself to a conventional victory ending to me. The Reapers just aren't the eldritch beings they once were.

[fhs33721]

Conventional victory would have been stupid. No matter how much the galaxy prepared for their arrival the Reapers would sitll be infinitely more powerful. The Reapers have been around for millions, probably billions of years. Wahtever advancement in technology the galaxy can achieve until they come would be trivial to them.

Just think about it. The Reapers built the mass relay and if you destroy a mass relay the resulting explosion will wipe out an entire system. As a logical result Reapers are able to build technology that can wipe out entire star systems. They could still use that even if everything else they try fails. How are you going to a*spull conventional victory against that?

It would be as unrealistic as a pack of australopithecus afarensis sucessfully defeating a team of professional soldiers from today.

As much hate as the ending gets I for once liked it (after EC. Before I also thought it was aweful). The vastly superior bad guys actually stay vastly superior until the end and the hero doesn't win by blowing enough stuff up or by beating  something that s/he should have no chance in hell of beating in the first place. S/he only wins because the bad guys let her/him since they come to realize their solution is flawed.

It was something new for once and a nice break from endings like the one in DAI. "Look at me, I have the power of a god. I can lift this entire temple up in the air and make it float without breaking a sweat. But killing four mortal people that attack me? Well, that sh*t is impossible even with all my godlike power."

Not that anything is wrong wit endings like that but. I like them well enough but they do make me roll my eyes in amusemet sometimes.

[Memnon]

A conventional victory not being possible was a failure of the writers ... I mean, we are in their story, for crying out loud. What was the decision process here

 

ME 1: Create an immortal, invincible race of cyborgs

ME 2: Buy time, thinking of a way out by making an action shooter and retconning Protheans

ME 3: Yea, I give up ... pick a color, call it art

[fhs33721]

A conventional victory not being possible was a failure of the writers ... I mean, we are in their story, for crying out loud. What was the decision process here

 

ME 1: Create an immortal, invincible race of cyborgs

ME 2: Buy time, thinking of a way out by making an action shooter and retconning Protheans

ME 3: Yea, I give up ... pick a color, call it art

And if the main antagonist wasn't an invicible, ridiciously over the top powerful menace people would complain that the story isn't epic enough as they did in DA2. There is really no winning in writing a video game plot.

Your options are the following:

1)You have an extremely powerful villain and somehow beat them with some sort of contrived plot device or you a*spull conventional victory defying all logic and then the players will call your story contrived and full of plot holes and want more realism.

2) You make exremely powerful villains and give your player realism and the villains win. Which will result in hate mail and death threats raining in to the developers.

3) You make an believable realistic villain that isn't on godlike powerlevel. Fan reaction: "Meh, this isn't epic at all. Such a story failure."

Someone will always complain about the story and wether it was a writing failure or not is purely subjective.

 

edited because I wrote objective instead of subjective. I admit that I am dumb 

[Daemul]

And if the main antagonist wasn't an invicible, ridiciously over the top powerful menace people would complain that the story isn't epic enough as they did in DA2. There is really no winning in writing a video game plot.

Your options are the following:

1)You have an extremely powerful villain and somehow beat them with some sort of contrived plot device or you a*spull conventional victory defying all logic and then the players will call your story contrived and full of plot holes and want more realism.

2) You make exremely powerful villains and give your player realism and the villains win. Which will result in hate mail and death threats raining in to the developers.

3) You make an believable realistic villain that isn't on godlike powerlevel. Fan reaction: "Meh, this isn't epic at all. Such a story failure."

Someone will always complain about the story and wether it was a writing failure or not is purely objective.

 

 

This is what I've been saying. If people TRULY wanted a coherent ending for Mass Effect with no plot holes, like so many of them claimed they wanted, then option 2 would have been the only way to end the trilogy. But then you have many of those same people trotting out bulls*** like conventional victory, and my eyes start rolling so far back into my head. 

 

People need to make up their damn minds, do they want a coherent ending, with no plot holes, no contrivances, and is true to what type of enemies we're up against. or do they want some contrived victory, with holes the size of sun, contrivances galore, and completely nerfed Reapers? Mass Effect 3's ending gave us the latter with the bulls*** that is the crucible. 

 

We could just go with option 3, but people would still complain like they did with DA2. *bleep* it, I would have just gone with option 2 and watched the world burn. 

[God]

Honestly, I think the ending to ME3 gave us an alternative to the two views you've presented.

 

Is it contrived? Of course. Does it sacrifice some of the Reapers impunity while maintaining their likelihood of success? Yes.

 

Granted, people wanted to have their Paragon Shepard's triumph over gods. So yeah, they wanted incompatible things.

[ImaginaryMatter]

Conventional victory would have been stupid. No matter how much the galaxy prepared for their arrival the Reapers would sitll be infinitely more powerful. The Reapers have been around for millions, probably billions of years. Wahtever advancement in technology the galaxy can achieve until they come would be trivial to them.

Just think about it. The Reapers built the mass relay and if you destroy a mass relay the resulting explosion will wipe out an entire system. As a logical result Reapers are able to build technology that can wipe out entire star systems. They could still use that even if everything else they try fails. How are you going to a*spull conventional victory against that?

It would be as unrealistic as a pack of australopithecus afarensis sucessfully defeating a team of professional soldiers from today.

As much hate as the ending gets I for once liked it (after EC. Before I also thought it was aweful). The vastly superior bad guys actually stay vastly superior until the end and the hero doesn't win by blowing enough stuff up or by beating  something that s/he should have no chance in hell of beating in the first place. S/he only wins because the bad guys let her/him since they come to realize their solution is flawed.

It was something new for once and a nice break from endings like the one in DAI. "Look at me, I have the power of a god. I can lift this entire temple up in the air and make it float without breaking a sweat. But killing four mortal people that attack me? Well, that sh*t is impossible even with all my godlike power."

Not that anything is wrong wit endings like that but. I like them well enough but they do make me roll my eyes in amusemet sometimes.

 

The Crucible and the Catalyst letting Shepard decide is equally contrived and over indulgent. It's just the other side of the same coin.

 

My main point though is that it's a little disingenuous to base a game largely around conventional fighting and in some ways glorifying it, while asserting that such a thing can't be done. This is more a criticism of ME3's game design rather than a story objection. I only mention the story because it facilitates the EMS system and multiplayer, while occasionally having some strange blips.

[Vortex13]

The Crucible and the Catalyst letting Shepard decide is equally contrived and over indulgent. It's just the other side of the same coin.

 

My main point though is that it's a little disingenuous to base a game largely around conventional fighting and in some ways glorifying it, while asserting that such a thing can't be done. This is more a criticism of ME3's game design rather than a story objection. I only mention the story because it facilitates the EMS system and multiplayer, while occasionally having some strange blips.

 

 

Well the narrative is rather inconstant with Reaper power levels. On one hand you have the Reaper vulnerabilities and weaknesses codex entry, as well as numerous mentions of major Reaper defeats; the most telling one being when a turian fleet takes on and destroys an entire Sovereign-class Reaper battle group without losing a ship. 

 

 

Then you have other times; all of them cutscenes; where the Reaper's have GodMode enabled. From the Reapers taking the firepower of the combined galactic fleet quite literally in the face and not even flinching. And than you have the Rannoch destroyer class Reaper; a smaller, weaker class of Reaper; taking repeated impacts from the Quarian fleet and shrugging them off. Bear in mind that these attacks from the Quarian fleet are the equivalent of kinetic impacters (or Rods from God) centered directly on its prow. At the very least the destroyer and Shepard should have been vaporized in the blast, and at most Rannoch should have been rendered uninhabitable for another 300 years.

[Memnon]

And if the main antagonist wasn't an invicible, ridiciously over the top powerful menace people would complain that the story isn't epic enough as they did in DA2. There is really no winning in writing a video game plot.

Your options are the following:

1)You have an extremely powerful villain and somehow beat them with some sort of contrived plot device or you a*spull conventional victory defying all logic and then the players will call your story contrived and full of plot holes and want more realism.

2) You make exremely powerful villains and give your player realism and the villains win. Which will result in hate mail and death threats raining in to the developers.

3) You make an believable realistic villain that isn't on godlike powerlevel. Fan reaction: "Meh, this isn't epic at all. Such a story failure."

Someone will always complain about the story and wether it was a writing failure or not is purely objective.

 

I can't speak for others, but my issue with DA2 was not the main antagonist, it was the repetitive environments, the jarring change of combat and control, and the lack of starting character options when compared to DA:O.

 

I don't recall being dissatisfied with defeating Sarevok of Baldur's Gate 1, Irenicus of Baldur's Gate 2, the Archdemon, Darth Malak ... these were all great games that I (and many others) loved. I don't understand the line of thinking that states we have to have an enemy that is invincible in order for it to be a fun, engaging story

[fhs33721]

I can't speak for others, but my issue with DA2 was not the main antagonist, it was the repetitive environments, the jarring change of combat and control, and the lack of starting character options when compared to DA:O.

 

I don't recall being dissatisfied with defeating Sarevok of Baldur's Gate 1, Irenicus of Baldur's Gate 2, the Archdemon, Darth Malak ... these were all great games that I (and many others) loved. I don't understand the line of thinking that states we have to have an enemy that is invincible in order for it to be a fun, engaging story

I wasn't refering to people who dislike DA2 in general but only to those that hate the story itself of it (there are enough of them who hate the story). The gameplay issues you raise are quite valid in my opinion since I was also annoyed at the reused enviroments.

 

Also I don't know anything about Baldurs gate (never played any of these games), but the archdemon really? It's an literal old god that wants to destroy the world, has an infinite army at its disposal, has the ability to poison and enthrall most living beings with their corruption, has the form of a huge dragon that can summon whirlwinds of corruption and can respawn itself indefinitely until a very specific person of which only thee currently exist in the game kills it. It's basically nigh invincible

Also Malak is a Dark lord of the Sith that also has an infinite army and is powered by the dark energy of the star forge. While not entirely invincible he is still way over everyone but the player character who prevails.... for reasons I guess. Proably had a spare star forge in his pocket or something. But you are right that he at least isn't on a godlike level.

[Memnon]

BIoware games certainly are formulaic - in fact, I remember seeing a graphic which put all of their games on a grid comparing the similarities, e.g. how everyone starts from humble origins, then something tragic happens which sends you on your path, etc. I really don't mind the formula, I guess this is where you get into personal preference. When you play a CRPG, you usually start out weak and low level which means humble origins, amnesia, etc. As you gain levels, skills, power, you visit exotic locales, fight exotic beasts, etc. Bioware games tend to be of the epic variety, in which the villain is out to destroy the world/galaxy, and you are the only one who can save it. I maintain the formula is fine as long as it is fun - Bioware games are fun.

 

With Bioware games, I've always felt immersed in the story - I remember the first time I launched Mass Effect 1, the music and introduction of the opening scene hooked me. I didn't question the scientific viability of element zero or biotics, they developed the framework and I went with it. Same with Dragon Age - I didn't really question why dwarves didn't dream or why they're immune to lyrium, they established the framework and I was in the story. This is why when I talk about the ending to ME3, I usually focus on the writing - it took me out of that "suspension of disbelief zone," if you will. The writing seemed rushed and lackluster. I would rather be immersed in a fun, engaging trope then to be jolted out of the immersion of the game in the name of art and nuance ...