304 réponses à ce sujet

[Pasquale1234]

I asked the question about the other major races because I hope that ME;NG is FAR less human centric and that the stage for that campaign is set within another culture. I would rather humanity played a bit part role than become a top player in the rebuilding of the Galaxy. The only human storyline I would think fitting is that the damage to Earth the Reaper Invasion and from being the backdrop of the final battle caused the planet to be virtually uninhabitable.

Earth (and other homeworlds as well) could be really ripe for a Fallout sort of game - which I might find pretty interesting, but it isn't what ME is about.

[Han Shot First]

I asked the question about the other major races because I hope that ME;NG is FAR less human centric and that the stage for that campaign is set within another culture. I would rather humanity played a bit part role than become a top player in the rebuilding of the Galaxy. The only human storyline I would think fitting is that the damage to Earth the Reaper Invasion and from being the backdrop of the final battle caused the planet to be virtually uninhabitable.

 

The humans at this point are a major player. I'm with you 100% on the series needing to tone down the humans are special trope in any sequels, but on the other hand I think it would be a bit jarring to have humanity regress to a minor player in a sequel. ME3 ended with humanity as one of only four races with a Council seat, and with the fourth largest fleet in Council space. At the very least they should be in the same position going forward into any sequel, particularly considering the role of the Alliance in defeating the Reapers. 

[Vazgen]

The humans at this point are a major player. I'm with you 100% on the series needing to tone down the humans are special trope in any sequels, but I on the other hand I think it would be a bit jarring to have humanity regress to a minor player in a sequel. ME3 ended with humanity was one only four races with a Council seat, and with the fourth largest fleet in Council space. At the very least they should be in the same position going forward into any sequel, particularly considering the role of the Alliance in defeating the Reapers.

Role of the Alliance in defeating the Reapers is not so one-sided as one might think. Destroy - destruction of mass relay network, Control - Reapers are still present, Synthesis - rewriting the genetic code of every organic. All these are done by the Alliance. I can see how people might start to think negative of them, especially after enough time passes after the war. If the game is set far enough into future, I think decrease of humanity's influence can be quite natural. 

[ImaginaryMatter]

The way I understand it, when people argue for a conventional victory, they are stating that they'd rather the plot involved the Reapers being defeated without the use of the superweapon.

 

Of course that wouldn't have worked for a couple reasons. The first is that it wouldn't make sense from a lore perspective considering the rather vast technological gulf between the Reapers and the Council & Terminus fleets, and it wouldn't work because it would leave the protagonist a bystander for a victory won by Admiral Hackett.

 

I think the arguments in favor of a conventional victory are mostly just residual anger over the disappointing finale of Mass Effect 3. Some were so disappointed that they reject the idea of the Crucible altogether.

 

Personally I think there was nothing wrong with the concept of the Crucible, just that's it's function was poorly written. It is an example of a good idea that was poorly executed.

 

If we're arguing about a lore perspective and contrivance a super weapon doesn't make much sense either -- you're going to hit that iceberg either way. From a game design perspective though I think conventional victory is the way to go. I find it disingenuous that the game constantly tells you that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally while being such a contemporary TPS in multiple aspects, bases the plot around exactly that, implementing the EMS system, and setting up the story to facilitate a stalemate for the multiplayer (where most of what you do involves beating, pushing back, and destroying the Reapers in entire droves).

 

Story wise I think as soon as the game introduced the idea that the galaxy could stand and fight, and not get completely rolled over while actually doing a pretty decent job at fighting the Reapers (like seriously, how is this whole cycle business a net gain for the Catalyst?), CV becomes a legitimate option. You're right in that from a lore sense there is chance that a conventional victory is impossible, yet there is no reason why the current cycle should be fighting the Reapers as well as they do in ME3. It was ME3 that made me a CVer. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that so much of this game lends it's self towards a conventional fight and not have it pay off.

 

As for the player and Shepard, I don't think being a bystander in the final final fight is necessarily bad. The player has other ways of interacting with a game than through shooting dudes and clicking dialogue spokes. For example, Shepard contributes heavily towards EMS, which is essentially the fleet; much like the arrival of the Victory fleet I think there is some satisfaction to be had in watching ship combat unfold in a fleet you helped built. I think the game would end in a satisfying way if Shepard has a final confrontation with Harbinger or whoever, then watches with the rest of the squadmates (who really should be the focus of this series) as the cycle wins their improbable victory in some spectacular cutscene.

 

At the very least it would make me happy.

[wolfhowwl]

When they were planning ME3. While we can blame ME2 for putting the plot on a treadmill for an entire game, ME3 still had conceptual problems of its own where the game went out of its way to shoot itself in the foot.

 

1. Having the Reaper fleet invade at the beginning of the game

 

Besides begging the question of why the Reapers don't just take the Citadel, this decision also forced ME3 to do what ME2 didn't and develop a way to defeat them while the Reapers are simultaneously rampaging through the galaxy. This also ties into the rather clumsy and poor handing of the Crucible as well. The game introduces it at the beginning and then plows into its war plot.

 

You could still fight Reaper agents without immediately resorting to a massive galactic war and the consequences that will have for the game. The arrival of the Reapers also deserved more build-up from a story perspective and more than a tutorial/intro level on the gameplay side.

 

2. Prioritizing resolving background conflicts in the setting while leaving the primary conflict with the Reapers underdeveloped

 

Something like Leviathan should have been in the base game not DLC. The Genophage and Geth conflict did not necessarily need to be resolved in this game and definitely should not have been if it is at the expense of what this game is supposed to be about (I also think the basis of the Rannoch arc really has problems with the context of this game but that is a topic for another thread). There is also the question if it is actually good writing to have one game resolve everything...

 

3. Dropping ME2's ball

 

While Shepard's resurrection and Cerberus get some deserved heat around here, these things would look much better if there had been some semblance of a Eureka! moment where the pieces snap into place in ME3. Instead Cerberus is indoctrinated and largely serves as an enemy auxiliary force and Shep's death is ignored outside of a few videologs on Cronos Station. The handling of Cerberus stands out as particularly grating as it squanders the characterization from ME2 and makes shoehorning them into that game look rather meaningless. ME3 didn't need something like a separate "Cerberus path" where the player worked with them instead but it did need for them to be used for more than they were. Mind control is very weak.

 

As an aside, revealing that they are indoctrinated at the beginning of the game doesn't seem like the best storytelling. Within the first 15 minutes the player is told that Cerberus are traitors, couldn't save that for a twist?

 

There are of course other problems like the poor transition between ME2 and ME3 that doesn't do a good job for veterans or newcomers but those could be largely patched up with better execution.

[Jorji Costava]

2. Prioritizing resolving background conflicts in the setting while leaving the primary conflict with the Reapers underdeveloped

 

Something like Leviathan should have been in the base game not DLC. The Genophage and Geth conflict did not necessarily need to be resolved in this game and definitely should not have been if it is at the expense of what this game is supposed to be about (I also think the basis of the Rannoch arc really has problems with the context of this game but that is a topic for another thread). There is also the question if it is actually good writing to have one game resolve everything...

 

I actually think the problem goes in the other direction; from my POV, those background conflicts are really the meat of the story, and the Reaper conflict itself is simply a way to push forward those other conflicts towards resolution (similar to the archdemon in DAO). So the problem wasn't overemphasizing those conflicts, it was making the Reapers so powerful and numerous that it became impossible to see how resolving those other conflicts could contribute to winning the war (the other part of the problem goes back to ME2's inclusion of a lot of content that advanced neither the Reaper war nor the background conflicts).

 

Honestly, I never found the Reapers to be great antagonists to begin with (even the name is kinda overwrought and silly), so I think they should only have been emphasized as much as was necessary in order to explain how it was possible to resolve the war without the galaxy being wiped out. That doesn't mean you have to have conventional victory, but whatever method you do devise shouldn't come at the expense of dealing with questions like the genophage or the Morning War.

[nos_astra]

Personally I think there was nothing wrong with the concept of the Crucible, just that's it's function was poorly written. It is an example of a good idea that was poorly executed.

I thought the concept was a square peg in a round hole.

There is everything wrong with the idea; its conception, contributions across various cycles with unique cultures and languages, its magical capacities.

There is no real explanation as to how it was conceived of, how it was hidden and found or how its possible that these plans are easily readable. There is no explanation, no concept of time, distances, scale or ... language. Just lots of handwaving.

[AlanC9]

From a game design perspective though I think conventional victory is the way to go. I find it disingenuous that the game constantly tells you that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally while being such a contemporary TPS in multiple aspects, bases the plot around exactly that, implementing the EMS system, and setting up the story to facilitate a stalemate for the multiplayer (where most of what you do involves beating, pushing back, and destroying the Reapers in entire droves).

Story wise I think as soon as the game introduced the idea that the galaxy could stand and fight, and not get completely rolled over while actually doing a pretty decent job at fighting the Reapers (like seriously, how is this whole cycle business a net gain for the Catalyst?), CV becomes a legitimate option. You're right in that from a lore sense there is chance that a conventional victory is impossible, yet there is no reason why the current cycle should be fighting the Reapers as well as they do in ME3. It was ME3 that made me a CVer. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that so much of this game lends it's self towards a conventional fight and not have it pay off.

I'm not really following this. The galaxy map and news reports make it clear that the Reapers are winning, don't they? And not being totally rolled over doesn't make CV possible. In 1944 the Axis had no chance whatsoever of a military victory without some sort of Allied political crack-up. No chance of that with the Reapers.

I'll take your word for it about MP giving the wrong impression, though. I haven't touched it myself.

[Iakus]

I'm not really following this. The galaxy map and news reports make it clear that the Reapers are winning, don't they? And not being totally rolled over doesn't make CV possible. In 1944 the Axis had no chance whatsoever of a military victory without some sort of Allied political crack-up. No chance of that with the Reapers.

I'll take your word for it about MP giving the wrong impression, though. I haven't touched it myself.

It's from the multiplayer.  If you get your EMS really high, the screen says your forces are holding their own and even managing to push back in some areas.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I'm not really following this. The galaxy map and news reports make it clear that the Reapers are winning, don't they? And not being totally rolled over doesn't make CV possible. In 1944 the Axis had no chance whatsoever of a military victory without some sort of Allied political crack-up. No chance of that with the Reapers.

I'll take your word for it about MP giving the wrong impression, though. I haven't touched it myself.

 

What I meant by the rolled over comment is that in ME1 the implication of a full Reaper force would be an complete defeat of the current races with out inflicting so much as a dent in the Reapers, that any kind of resistance would be completely futile. In ME3 that really isn't the case. As soon as the game introduces the idea that current cycle could stand and fight most of the gap between CV is futile to CV is possible had already been leaped for me. I felt like the game should have been one where the current cycle could only run and hoped the Crucible could be built before places to retreat to ran out. Instead you have these constant continuous conflicts springing around the galaxy that due to this game's mechanics and the incentive systems in place for things like the multiplayer or the EMS system, seem like the organics are either winning or can continue indefinitely.

 

Why I said this all felt disingenuous because on one hand parts of the story (like the news reports) are telling you defeat is inevitable, yet other parts (like the multiplayer) are pretty celebratory about space combat and racking up your kill count against the Reapers. The two ideas are conflicting to me and ultimately the game play part wins out -- you can only kill so many thousands of Reapers before they start becoming that much less imposing.

[Han Shot First]

I thought the concept was a square peg in a round hole.

There is everything wrong with the idea; its conception, contributions across various cycles with unique cultures and languages, its magical capacities.

There is no real explanation as to how it was conceived of, how it was hidden and found or how its possible that these plans are easily readable. There is no explanation, no concept of time, distances, scale or ... language. Just lots of handwaving.

 

What I meant that is I didn't have a problem with the concept of ending the war with a superweapon. Given that in Mass Effect 2 the technological gulf with the Reapers wasn't narrowed, it was really the only means of defeating the Reapers in Mass Effect 3. I wasn't fond however with some of the execution, particularly in how the Crucible functioned. 

 

A conventional victory in ME3 without some setup in a previous game, would require even more handwaving than finding plans for a superweapon on Mars. I also think that game would now be facing some of the same criticism that the finale of Dragon Age: Inquisition is now getting. People would be saying, "That's it? The Reapers show up and we proceed to kick them in the daddy bags? Kinda underwhelming." Not that the shipped ending provoked a better reaction of course, but I think that has more to do with how the endings were written than in the idea of a superweapon itself. Mass Effect 3 had it's flaws, but I don't think one of them was that the galaxy needed to find an extraordinary means to defeat the Reapers. That did make them seem appropriately menacing right up until the disappointing Catalyst reveal, and made sense given the state of galactic readiness at the end of Mass Effect 2.

 

 

If we're arguing about a lore perspective and contrivance a super weapon doesn't make much sense either -- you're going to hit that iceberg either way. From a game design perspective though I think conventional victory is the way to go. I find it disingenuous that the game constantly tells you that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally while being such a contemporary TPS in multiple aspects, bases the plot around exactly that, implementing the EMS system, and setting up the story to facilitate a stalemate for the multiplayer (where most of what you do involves beating, pushing back, and destroying the Reapers in entire droves).

 

Story wise I think as soon as the game introduced the idea that the galaxy could stand and fight, and not get completely rolled over while actually doing a pretty decent job at fighting the Reapers (like seriously, how is this whole cycle business a net gain for the Catalyst?), CV becomes a legitimate option. You're right in that from a lore sense there is chance that a conventional victory is impossible, yet there is no reason why the current cycle should be fighting the Reapers as well as they do in ME3. It was ME3 that made me a CVer. I'm uncomfortable with the idea that so much of this game lends it's self towards a conventional fight and not have it pay off.

 

As for the player and Shepard, I don't think being a bystander in the final final fight is necessarily bad. The player has other ways of interacting with a game than through shooting dudes and clicking dialogue spokes. For example, Shepard contributes heavily towards EMS, which is essentially the fleet; much like the arrival of the Victory fleet I think there is some satisfaction to be had in watching ship combat unfold in a fleet you helped built. I think the game would end in a satisfying way if Shepard has a final confrontation with Harbinger or whoever, then watches with the rest of the squadmates (who really should be the focus of this series) as the cycle wins their improbable victory in some spectacular cutscene.

 

At the very least it would make me happy.

 

On second thought you might be right about the finale still being interesting even if Shepard's isn't directly responsible for all of the Reapers being destroyed. Like any of the other alternatives I suppose it would depend on how it was written. But I'm not sure I would buy into a conventional victory plot unless it was setup in Mass Effect 2. In think the finale of ME2 leaves the galaxy too unprepared for me to be able to suspend disbelief there. In Mass Effect 1 the combined Council fleets struggled to destroy a single Reaper, and at the end of Mass Effect 2 they haven't really made much technological progress beyond Thanix cannons. 

[dreamgazer]

Not sure how someone can get through ME1 if they have such a low tolerance for MacGuffins.

[KaiserShep]

There is no real explanation as to how it was conceived of, how it was hidden and found or how its possible that these plans are easily readable. There is no explanation, no concept of time, distances, scale or ... language. Just lots of handwaving.

 

From dialogue with Vendetta, the explanation as to how the Crucible came to be was inferred rather than given outright, since it could only deduce how it was conceived rather than from observation. I think it makes sense that the Crucible probably began life as a standalone weapon by design, later incorporated into the Citadel once it was discovered that it was a massive relay that somehow controlled the rest of the network. I don't think it would really be necessary to go into a long bit of exposition on this.

 

As for reading plans, how is this any different from humanity reading the data on the prothean archives on Mars?

[nos_astra]

From dialogue with Vendetta, the explanation as to how the Crucible came to be was inferred rather than given outright, since it could only deduce how it was conceived rather than from observation. I think it makes sense that the Crucible probably began life as a standalone weapon by design, later incorporated into the Citadel once it was discovered that it was a massive relay that somehow controlled the rest of the network. I don't think it would really be necessary to go into a long bit of exposition on this.

From the dialogue with Vigil it was established that the Reapers'  modus operandi was:
1) make sure no information about the Reapers survives so that no one can be warned
2) a decapitation strike removed access to the Citadel as well as travel and communication via mass relay
 
ME3 changed the rules. Previously Ilos was a lucky thing and a massive sacrifice that gave this cycle an adavantage (one they pissed away in ME2). Now Ilos had happened over and over again. Many cycles apparently had some secret facility and built their own mass relay to access the Citadel. And despite this no one managed to warn anyone.
And the Reapers had this massive blind spot and missed hundreds of Iloses.
 

As for reading plans, how is this any different from humanity reading the data on the prothean archives on Mars?

It's not. Though previously the Mars Archives were a small cache and it took years to decrypt what was there before it was all changed to an archive that apparently was in plain English.

Cultural differences set up in ME1 quickly degraded into a nice selection of Planets of Hats.

I don't know if you are fluent in more than one language. If you are it may be more likely you feel there ist something wrong about that "one galaxy, one language" theme.

[Iakus]

From the dialogue with Vigil it was established that the Reapers'  modus operandi was:
1) make sure no information about the Reapers survives so that no one can't be warned
2) a decapitation strike removed access to the Citadel as well as travel and communication via mass relay
 
ME3 changed the rules. Previously Ilos was a lucky thing and a massive sacrifice that gave this cycle an adavantage (one they pissed away in ME2). Now Ilos had happened over and over again. Many cycles apparently had some secret facility and built their own mass relay to access the Citadel. And despite this no one managed to warn anyone.
And the Reapers had this massive blind spot and missed hundreds of Iloses.
 

It's not. Though previously the Mars Archives were a small cache and it took years to decrypt what was there before it was all changed to an archive that apparently was in plain English.

Cultural differences set up in ME1 quickly degraded into a nice of Planets of Hats.

I don't know if you are fluent in more than one language. The chances are if you are it might be more likely you feel there ist something wrong about that "one galaxy, one language" theme.

Can't like twice so I'll "THIS!"

[themikefest]

The problem with having a conventional victory is time. It would take a long time and since Bioware wanted everything solved in one game, they had the crucible solve the reaper problem.. Had ME3 been made into 2 games or setup from a previous game, like Han Shot First suggested in his post above, a conventional victory could happen depending on how it was done.

[Iakus]

What I meant that is I didn't have a problem with the concept of ending the war with a superweapon. Given that in Mass Effect 2 the technological gulf with the Reapers wasn't narrowed, it was really the only means of defeating the Reapers in Mass Effect 3. I wasn't fond however with some of the execution, particularly in how the Crucible functioned. 

 

A conventional victory in ME3 without some setup in a previous game, would require even more handwaving than finding plans for a superweapon on Mars. I also think that game would now be facing some of the same criticism that the finale of Dragon Age: Inquisition is now getting. People would be saying, "That's it? The Reapers show up and we proceed to kick them in the daddy bags? Kinda underwhelming." Not that the shipped ending provoked a better reaction of course, but I think that has more to do with how the endings were written than in the idea of a superweapon itself. Mass Effect 3 had it's flaws, but I don't think one of them was that the galaxy needed to find an extraordinary means to defeat the Reapers. That did make them seem appropriately menacing right up until the disappointing Catalyst reveal, and made sense given the state of galactic readiness at the end of Mass Effect 2.

 

 

 

On second thought you might be right about the finale still being interesting even if Shepard's isn't directly responsible for all of the Reapers being destroyed. Like any of the other alternatives I suppose it would depend on how it was written. But I'm not sure I would buy into a conventional victory plot unless it was setup in Mass Effect 2. In think the finale of ME2 leaves the galaxy too unprepared for me to be able to suspend disbelief there. In Mass Effect 1 the combined Council fleets struggled to destroy a single Reaper, and at the end of Mass Effect 2 they haven't really made much technological progress beyond Thanix cannons. 

You got to admit, at least DAI's ending is only being branded as "underwhelming"  That's still a hell of a lot better than how ME3's ending was received.

 

Not that the bar was all that high, of course 

[God]

Not sure how someone can get through ME1 if they have such a low tolerance for MacGuffins.

 

Not sure how someone can get through most modern science fiction with such a low tolerance for MacGuffins.

[dreamgazer]

ME3 changed the rules. Previously Ilos was a lucky thing and a massive sacrifice that gave this cycle an adavantage (one they pissed away in ME2). Now Ilos had happened over and over again. Many cycles apparently had some secret facility and built their own mass relay to access the Citadel. And despite this no one managed to warn anyone.
And the Reapers had this massive blind spot and missed hundreds of Iloses.

How did ME3 change these rules? ME1 established the idea of a pattern of extinguishing civilizations at the apex of their glory "more times than you can fathom", so the idea that this has all happened before and will all happen again is already present in the narrative. That's a problem introduced by ME1's faulty internal logic, which also established that the Reapers weren't entirely thorough with their evidence wipes (yet thorough enough to get the galaxy back to an unaware state).

[Excella Gionne]

I would tell you, but there's not enough time to explain it.

It can take Shepard more than 3 days to respond and still nothing would have happened during those days. I call B.S. on Starkid's statement of "not enough time."

[Iakus]

How did ME3 change these rules? ME1 established the idea of a pattern of extinguishing civilizations at the apex of their glory "more times than you can fathom", so the idea that this has all happened before and will all happen again is already present in the narrative. That's a problem introduced by ME1's faulty internal logic, which also established that the Reapers weren't entirely thorough with their evidence wipes (yet thorough enough to get the galaxy back to an unaware state).
 

They didn't blitz the Citadel and shut down the relay network asap.  They let the galaxy come together into a coherant force to communicate and reinforce each other.

 

They turned the Reapers from ambush predators that relied on surprise and divide-and-conquer methods into an Infinite army of Invulnerability.

 

They turned the Mars archives, a "small data cache" into a massive facility that hadn't been fully explored decades after it had been found, when governments desperately scramble for used Prothean toothbrushes when they're found.

[dreamgazer]

They didn't blitz the Citadel and shut down the relay network asap. They let the galaxy come together into a coherant force to communicate and reinforce each other.

The element of surprise is gone, which changes the equation. What's to prevent civilizations from simply destroying their nearest relays after word of the Reapers' arrival at the hub of the network? That's one of many concerns for the over-confident Reapers.

They turned the Reapers from ambush predators that relied on surprise and divide-and-conquer methods into an Infinite army of Invulnerability.

You assume they're not both, though "infinite" is of course an exaggeration. Dividing and conquering simply conserves resources and marginalizes collateral damage. Humans conduct strategic military operations all the time when they could just zerg-rush and be done with it.

They turned the Mars archives, a "small data cache" into a massive facility that hadn't been fully explored decades after it had been found, when governments desperately scramble for used Prothean toothbrushes when they're found.

Eh, the size of the facility doesn't really matter, and that data could easily have been chalked up as inconsequential at first sight. An unused amplifier or something else. Context and foresight changes things.

Anyway, none of this addresses the concern about the potential repetition of the Ilos facility across time.