What if you don't get a good enough grouping? The Crucible's components has been built to withstand mobility, after all.
A good enough grouping? Really? You mean getting all your shots within that target that is seen? I ignored that spot and shot around it and it still activated the cutscene, so I would guess the shot group does not have to be at that spot and only close enough to damage the thing to cause it to go boom
A good enough grouping? Really?
You mean getting all your shots within that target that is seen?
I ignored that spot and shot around it and it still activated the cutscene, so I would guess the shot group does not have to be at that spot and only close enough to damage the thing to cause it to go boom
Guest_StreetMagic_*
It's not even that bittersweet. They're practically handing people a chance to survive, after releasing the EC (but it was doable before that as well). Just because they don't continue the story from there doesn't mean it's bitter. It just means it's over.
Only after Shepard got closer.
What about the shots before the cutscene? I wasn't hitting that spot, but still damaging the tube? Had Shepard stayed in that spot the tube would still go boom making it unecessary to get close to it
Then I question how you even made it to ME3 in the first place instead of quitting the franchise long ago.
It was rough going in ME2, I'll give you that "I was dead for two years? Cool."
Where some folks see dumb and crazy, I see someone Not Afraid To Die.
I'm more of a "Not exactly Plan A" type.
What about the shots before the cutscene?
I wasn't hitting that spot, but still damaging the tube?
Had Shepard stayed in that spot the tube would still go boom making it unecessary to get close to it
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I think everything they wanted to comment on the endings is in Citadel. Synthesis is their preferred choice, while in destroy, you'll live.
---
The Cision Dauntless
The mistake here was never following through with the original promise of "hard choices" from ME1, not that they stopped offering people an easy way out at the end.
SO we agree it was thematically inconsistent? Glad we go that out of the way.
Of course it wasn't necessary, but it is what the developers chose to do in their game. Also the principle of a "bittersweet" (or harsher) ending fits quite well with the plot of, you know, an apocalyptic war. If anything the "bittersweetness" should have started much earlier.
And choosing to invalidate certain stories and playstyles they were formerly encouraging people to play bit them, big time. Not that they'll ever admit it.
And the principle of "bittersweet" fits depending on the choices made. Like say a no-import Shepard who got a bunch of people killed in the previous two games. Not so much in others. Again, a pity Bioware chose not to respect that.
It was obvious from 2007 that it wasn't your character and your choices didn't do much.
Even if you did have far more control over your character or a more choice-driven narrative that still doesn't require that people get a rainbow and sunshine ending, in fact the exclusion of it could be applauded depending on the story.
Doesn't require it, no. BUt it at least respects the audience to allow for an upbeat ending for players who were actually working towards that.
ANd of course any ending that shows Shepard expressly alive gets the "rainbows and unicorns" treatment. That's such a tired old chestnut. Does anyone actually take that seriously anymore, or is that more of a reflexive reaction?
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Not that they'll ever admit it.
They admitted enough by losing both the two doctors and Casey Hudson. They don't have to say anything.. that's just some pretty major fallout.
They admitted enough by losing both the two doctors and Casey Hudson. They don't have to say anything.. that's just some pretty major fallout.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Considering the instigation BioWare's dealt with over the past five or so years, I really don't blame them.
Funny that I'm only now ready to "instigate", after the release of DAI (OK, not really. I'm just ignoring it and not a fan of DA anymore). But everyone else is praising it.
I'd rather have the past 5 years. And Casey Hudson back.
They admitted enough by losing both the two doctors and Casey Hudson. They don't have to say anything.. that's just some pretty major fallout.
The Doctors moving on may have something to do with larger mismanagement issues. There was one massive project (TOR) in particular that didn't turn out as hoped.
Funny that I'm only now ready to "instigate", after the release of DAI (OK, not really. I'm just ignoring it and not a fan of DA anymore). But everyone else is praising it.
I enjoy DAI. I played it 11 times. I probably won't play the game anymore until I get that Jaws of Harrkon dlc
Guest_StreetMagic_*
I enjoy DAI. I played it 11 times. I probably won't play the game anymore until I get that Jaws of Harrkon dlc
I only like some characters.
I just want to ignore it. I don't know if it's really "hate". Not enough to ruin anyone else's fun at least 
SO we agree it was thematically inconsistent? Glad we go that out of the way.
And choosing to invalidate certain stories and playstyles they were formerly encouraging people to play bit them, big time. Not that they'll ever admit it.
And the principle of "bittersweet" fits depending on the choices made. Like say a no-import Shepard who got a bunch of people killed in the previous two games. Not so much in others. Again, a pity Bioware chose not to respect that.
Doesn't require it, no. BUt it at least respects the audience to allow for an upbeat ending for players who were actually working towards that.
I enjoy DAI. I played it 11 times. I probably won't play the game anymore until I get that Jaws of Harrkon dlc
Guest_StreetMagic_*
OK here I go. I was really invested in DA before. And the various factional conflicts. The game itself isn't that bad either. It's just the philosophy I'm detecting behind it now. I never noticed it in the past, but Bioware is increasingly postmodern in it's messaging. I just want to cut myself off from it. If they keep doing it in Mass Effect, I'll cut myself off here too (Synthesis was one step in that direction... but luckily, we have choices).
OK here I go. I was really invested in DA before. And the various factional conflicts. The game itself isn't that bad either. It's just the philosophy I'm detecting behind it now. I never noticed it in the past, but Bioware is increasingly postmodern in it's messaging. I just want to cut myself off from it. If they keep doing it in Mass Effect (Synthesis was one step in that direction... but luckily, we have choices), I'll cut myself off here too.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
You mean existing on a meta allegorical level?
I have no idea what that means
Lets just say it's kind of like realizing your friend is a Mormon (and you don't like Mormons). And leave it at that.
What I wanted is my Shepard to be smart. To recognize this was an idiotic situation and find another way.
Not dumb enough to walk into a fireball.
That isn't very wise or intelligent of a Shepard.
If you wanted your Shepard to be smart, he'd realize that there was no other way, and that instead of wasting his time calling it an idiotic situation and trying to find the 'honorable' way, he'd turn the situation to his advantage and do what needed to be done.
I have no idea what that means
Lets just say it's kind of like realizing your friend is a Mormon (and you don't like Mormons). And leave it at that.
Guest_StreetMagic_*
Meaning relating conflicts in the game to stuff that's happening in real life, and trying to get a response out of the player based on their personal beliefs.
I ... see.
Not exactly. I don't relate the conflicts to anything in particular. It's how the writers like resolving conflicts that bothers me. It's complicated though... I'm tempted to type a lot more, but it's not that important. 
The problem with this 'it was all going to end badly' theme is that prior to that point you can easily have no (apart from scripted) casualties. It's perfectly possible to get through the entire trilogy oonly losing the VS, Thane, Legion and Mordin. And all of those deaths are largely fairly explanatory and not really a loss.
Anyway, i largely had no problem with the high EMS Destroy EC ending (the first i saw all the way through) until the breath scene. That seemed so out of place and wtf-ery that i was left staring at the scren expecting something else.
It's like Bioware going 'HA HA! Surprise!' and slamming a door in your face,
Guest_StreetMagic_*
The problem with this 'it was all going to end badly' theme is that prior to that point you can easily have no (apart from scripted) casualties. It's perfectly possible to get through the entire trilogy oonly losing the VS, Thane, Legion and Mordin. And all of those deaths are largely fairly explanatory and not really a loss.
Anyway, i largely had no problem with the high EMS Destroy EC ending (the first i saw all the way through) until the breath scene. That seemed so out of place and wtf-ery that i was left staring at the scren expecting something else.
It's like Bioware going 'HA HA! Surprise!' and slamming a door in your face,
If that. I think Thane is the only one that is necessarily tragic, in that sense.
I've done playthroughs with a lot of deaths though --- I don't recommend it , simply because it makes the Citadel party look lame. Not because of bittersweetness and tragedy... but simple aesthetics and lack of "fun".
Retour en haut
