588 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

The series isn't told purely through Shepard's perspective; we aren't limited entirely to his view point. We see several things in all three games that Shepard isn't present for; Saren killing Nihlus, TIM talking to Miranda about Shepard, the Collector General typing, Virmire Survivor with the Council before Shepard shows up.
 
Shepard is our primary view point throughout the series, but not the only one.

I'm pretty sure Sylvius would say that this is a problem with Bio's presentation, not a reason to do more of it. I've got problems with this myself, going all the way back to BG2, where I know about what's going on at Spellhold when my PC does not.

[AlanC9]

The second, I would hesitate to say anyone, even the asari have "mastered".  The Reapers are the real masters of the tech.  Humans,just copy it

You're drawing that distinction now?

[Iakus]

But you want to throw out past events that counter your arguments. Why should we disregard the endless resources and manpower in the galaxy just because you want us to? Why should we disregard how easily clandestine groups can acquire endless resources and undertake massive endeavors in secret just because you want us to?
 

Because resources and manpower aren't endless?  

 

Well, unless you keep promoting N7 operatives 

 

 

 

Cerberus.

 

And how well did that work out for them?

 

 

 

Again, the people telling us that the Crucible is the only option are not omniscient. It doesn't matter what they told us, and I'm pretty sure you know this. You just don't want them to go to the Andromeda galaxy so you're clinging to any stupid little argument you can.

I don't want them going to Andromeda because it shouldn't be freaking possible for them to get there.

 

Believe me, if it could be done in a lore-friendly way I'd embrace a change to shake the dust from my feet and leave the Catalyst garbage behind.

[Iakus]

You're drawing that distinction now?

???

 

...yes?

 

I've kinda always said the Reapers were the masters of Mass Effect technology, and the key to beating them should have been finding new technologies that don't rely on it.

[Killroy]

Because resources and manpower aren't endless?  
Well, unless you keep promoting N7 operatives 

Yes they are. Cerberus literally has endless resources at the same time the Crucible has endless resources. This is established in the game. You cannot argue against this.
 

And how well did that work out for them?

I don't even know what you're implying here.
 

I don't want them going to Andromeda because it shouldn't be freaking possible for them to get there.

It shouldn't have been possible to bring people back from the dead but what do ya know?
 

Believe me, if it could be done in a lore-friendly way I'd embrace a change to shake the dust from my feet and leave the Catalyst garbage behind.

Numerous people have pointed out numerous lore-friendly ways it could be done but you're not interested.

[Former_Fiend]

I'm pretty sure Sylvius would say that this is a problem with Bio's presentation, not a reason to do more of it. I've got problems with this myself, going all the way back to BG2, where I know about what's going on at Spellhold when my PC does not.

 

It's not a problem I have. The scene with Saren and Nihlus was probably my favorite scene in ME1. And outside of the ME series, I think moving away from this in DA2 is part of what hurt the story. The scenes with Loghain in DAO helped humanize him. We don't get anything light that with Meredith and she's a less interesting character, in my opinion, for it.

[Iakus]

Yes they are. Cerberus literally has endless resources at the same time the Crucible has endless resources. This is established in the game. You cannot argue against this.
 

And the game has been mercilessly mocked for Cerbrus becoming the Empire, complete with Star Foge.  And you want them to do it AGAIN!?

 

 

 

I don't even know what you're implying here.

 

 

Cerberus not only failed in the game, but again, Bioware has been mocked for their portrayal of the organization

 

 

 

It shouldn't have been possible to bring people back from the dead but what do ya know?
 

Again, bad example.  You really want them to repeat some of the worst storytelling features in the trilogy?

 

 

Numerous people have pointed out numerous lore-friendly ways it could be done but you're not interested.

Numerous people have quoted TIM "It's all a matter of 'Resources'"

[Killroy]

And the game has been mercilessly mocked for Cerbrus becoming the Empire, complete with Star Foge.  And you want them to do it AGAIN!?

It doesn't matter what is or isn't mocked. We're talking about lore and what's been previously established. Just because you can't make a coherent argument without ignoring the obvious doesn't mean we have to ignore the obvious.
 

Cerberus not only failed in the game, but again, Bioware has been mocked for their portrayal of the organization

How is that at all relevant? The Crucible can also fail, and their failure has nothing to do with their existence.
 

Again, bad example.  You really want them to repeat some of the worst storytelling features in the trilogy?

Why do you keep trying to change the discussion? If you had a solid, coherent argument you wouldn't have to try to get us to forget what we're talking about. It doesn't matter how successful Cerberus was, how popular plot elements were, or how illogical established lore may be. Your argument lacks foundation and you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Faust1979]

Just don't make reference to any of them easy to solve, whole new galaxy, whole new characters means that it doesn't really matter all that much what you did.

[Former_Fiend]

Iakus, end of the day I just cannot see these justifications as being the lore breaking, suspension of disbelief shattering space magic that you're making them out to be. I think you're taking a lot of information far more literally than you were meant to. I think your view on the writer's intent is skewed, and that you're taking it as far more set in stone than it actually is. 

I don't know if one of us or both of us are failing at communication, I don't know if our desires and priorities regarding the game are just completely incompatable.

 

What I do know is that if they were to canonize one of the endings, then I would not buy the game. That would be a deal breaker for me. I'd walk away from this series and hope they don't screw up with Dragon Age. 

 

And I still haven't heard a viable alternative to that other than setting out before the endings.

 

 

Just don't make reference to any of them easy to solve, whole new galaxy, whole new characters means that it doesn't really matter all that much what you did.

 

Except for the whole, the entire galaxy is made up of cyborgs in one of the endings, thing.

[Faust1979]

Iakus, end of the day I just cannot see these justifications as being the lore breaking, suspension of disbelief shattering space magic that you're making them out to be. I think you're taking a lot of information far more literally than you were meant to. I think your view on the writer's intent is skewed, and that you're taking it as far more set in stone than it actually is. 

I don't know if one of us or both of us are failing at communication, I don't know if our desires and priorities regarding the game are just completely incompatable.

 

What I do know is that if they were to canonize one of the endings, then I would not buy the game. That would be a deal breaker for me. I'd walk away from this series and hope they don't screw up with Dragon Age. 

 

And I still haven't heard a viable alternative to that other than setting out before the endings.

 

 

 

Except for the whole, the entire galaxy is made up of cyborgs in one of the endings, thing.

 

the milky way not andromeda

[Former_Fiend]

Edit: Wrong thread.

[Former_Fiend]

the milky way not andromeda

 

Yeah, except we're still playing as humans, and we're going to have other milky way races with us.

 

So, if we were to leave the Milky Way for Andromeda after the endings, then we'd still be under the effect of space magic, so not mentioning it won't solve the problem for people who chose Synthesis. 

 

 

Unless leaving the galaxy un-synthesizes people somehow.

[Faust1979]

Or just not reference like I said. In my opinion things don't have to line up properly the choices from the last game don't have to matter that much, all I ask is the the story they are telling for this game is fun and thrilling. If it doesn't line up with what happened at the end of three then so be it that is my personal opinion. Lots of stories and shows and in comics just sometimes decide not to reference things for story reasons.

[GalacticWolf5]

Yeah, except we're still playing as humans, and we're going to have other milky way races with us.

 

So, if we were to leave the Milky Way for Andromeda after the endings, then we'd still be under the effect of space magic, so not mentioning it won't solve the problem for people who chose Synthesis. 

 

 

Unless leaving the galaxy un-synthesizes people somehow.

 

Which is why they'll say we left before the Crucible was used.

[Former_Fiend]

Or we left the Milky Way before the Crucible was used.

 

Which is what I've been arguing in favor of for the whole thread.

[GalacticWolf5]

Yeah sorry, didn't read much from this thread.

[wolfhowwl]

Is anyone else tired of reading the same repeated posts from the same handful of posters about how much they hate the premise of the game?

 

If it really is that objectionable why don't you just move on? BioWare isn't going to change the game and you can spend your time elsewhere talking about a game you will play.

[Il Divo]

It was certainly the intention of the ME3 writing staff to get that across that this is the one hope, all or nothing. Especially when you had the one survival alternative - Sanctuary - turn out to be a massive trap.

 

But going back to a post I made a few pages ago, that's more about establishing tone than it is conveying reality. Bioware crafted this story where Shepard was trying to complete the Cruicible because Shepard believed it was the only hope to save the Galaxy. They didn't want to present any alternatives then because they didn't want the players saying "Why can't we latch on to that, instead? Sounds more reasonable." They want the player as invested as Shepard is. 

 

Alan kinda hit on this already, but just to add: ME3 certainly intended the Crucible to be viewed as the most viable path to victory over the Reapers. But that doesn't neglect there being other, equally important objectives to consider.

 

We might want to preserve this cycle, if possible. That doesn't mean we can't consider it to be important that someone make it through alive.

[Il Divo]

Exact numbers about fictional products in a fictional economy?  What would it prove?  What would these numbers actually mean? 

 

What we do have is:

 

Genocidal war with millions of people dying every day

Massive project straining this cycle's scientific know-how to the max  With "everyone know knows how to hold a hammer" being assigned to it

Huge fleet buildup, larger than has been seen in recorded history

A terrorist organization opening a second front

An economy due to collapse in a year due to the strain of the war

 

Add to this a second miracle project introducing technology never before hinted at as a "Plan B" (or C, or D, or whatever) that can be accomplished in a few months just by skimming a bit off the Crucible Project (which again, was repeatedly said to be the galaxy's only hope)

 

Does this make any sense at all?

 

Given your premise that we shouldn't have the resources for an Ark? Yes, this is definitely important to consider.

 

What you've listed isn't really making the argument better. It's outlining how nonsensical it is that ME3 circumvented the scale of this threat. Dlc like Citadel, Shepard relaxing with Garrus, night clubs, people fawning over Blasto, etc, don't support the idea that we can't have the resources for an Ark project.

 

If the galaxy has time for this sort of thing, they almost certainly have time to engage in a project to make sure someone makes it through alive, which could be argued to be more important than the long shot that is the Crucible.

 

Ultimately, what's stopping Bioware from deciding that part of the budget we thought was going to the crucible went secretly to the Ark instead?

[Former_Fiend]

Is anyone else tired of reading the same repeated posts from the same handful of posters about how much they hate the premise of the game?

 

If it really is that objectionable why don't you just move on? BioWare isn't going to change the game and you can spend your time elsewhere talking about a game you will play.

 

Am I tired of it? Yes.

 

Am I going to stop? Probably not. I'm stubborn that way.

[Sylvius the Mad]

We do know that. Both from EC and Leviathan.

Except that content isn't there.

That Leviathan tells us something doesn't make it so. It just means we were told it. The reasons behind that are unknown to us.

Is the stuff designed to add "clarity and closure" to the game now going to be ignored or made erroneous because said explanations hurt the possibility of future games?

There's no need to make it erroneous. It was never clear enough to require that.

We can work around it by declaring the sources of information within that content to be unreliable.

[Sylvius the Mad]

The player doesn't die though. Shepard is the central character, but the story is still told for me, the player. I, the player, want closure. Not Shepard. The protagonist's death doesn't remove my desire to know the consequences of my actions.

I legitimately don't care what happens after I stop playing.

[Faust1979]

I legitimately don't care what happens after I stop playing.

 

I agree the surviving  characters go on with their lives and the universe continues the end

[Sylvius the Mad]

It's dumb because it dissproves IT?

It makes sense within the setting. The more time you take on getting War Assets; the more time we have for the Crucible. If you rush the whole game, without completing any side-quests, that means we had barely enough time to make the Crucible and that your defenses suck.

The reason why it's possible to only have Control is probably because you had the Reaper Brain, which most likely helped the science better understand a part of the Crucible (the Control side). If you had the Reaper Heart, then they better understood another side of the Crucible (Destroy).

That mechanism should have been explained better.

If the Intelligence truly didn't want Shepard to choose Destroy, it wouldn't even mention it. Yet it does. It says it's not a good solution but it still offers it. It also offers Control but says that it doesn't want Shepard to chose it.

Shepard went there to Destroy the Reapers. That's been his objective all along. He wasn't even allowed to entertain other ideas when theyvwere suggested. Nkt offering a Destroy option makes the hallucination less credible. Alternatively, Shepard is particularly strong-willed and is able to insert Destroy into the hallucination himself (this is actually backed up by Leviathan, which identifies Shepard as singularly threatening to the Reapers).

About the epilogue slides, I'm gonna give you an example. In Synthesis, Shepard dies. Why would the Intelligence show him a world in which he is dead? He's dead, he's not part of this world anymore, he can't see it. The answer to this is: because it's not being show to Shepard. It's being shown to the players.

I wish the game wouldn't do that.

So the world stops moving because Shepard is dead? Really? What kind of logic is this?

Shepard stops witnessing it. Shepard is our point-of-view character. If Shepard doesn't witness something, neither should we.

And Shepard is there to witness them in the Control ending, he's the new Reaper master consciousness. He's also there to witness them if he survives in Destroy.

Control I'll give you.

Does FTL communication still work after the mass relays are destroyed/damaged?