I always thought Destroy hitting the Geth was nonsensical myself. When firing the Synthesis beam, the Crucible can remake all life in the galaxy -down to the freaking grass- at the molecular level instantly and with no visible side effect, but when in Destroy mode it can't distinguish between Reaper and Geth?
Probably because the Geth were modified with Reaper code. Destroy seems to target everything with Reaper code in it.
I chalk it up to the "Destroy" option just being a hack job built on the Crucible over time. It targets things badly because the machine wasn't designed for it. /shrug
Hell, it doesn't even have a decent interface. All of the options require some form of possible suicide. Did anyone even think of making a ****** BUTTON?
Probably because the Geth were modified with Reaper code. Destroy seems to target everything with Reaper code in it.
Shouldn't it blow up things like the Mass Relays or the Citadel then? These things are filled to the brim with Reaper tech. And EDI isn't anywhere near as loaded with Reaper code as the Reapers themselves or New!Geth are.
Besides, beyond the Reaper code, the Geth aren't like the Reapers at all, which are built with, and driven by a consciousness created by, untold number of liquefied organics (who knows how that works but whatever). Whereas the Geth are pure synthetic. The Crucible is capable of remodeling life at the base level in an instant, it defies belief that it's suddenly uncapable of distinguishing between three very different sets of beings just because of Reaper code.
It's just stinks of giving Destroy an arbitrary downside because Bioware knew that, for all the arty pretentiousness of the ending, most people are in to destroy the damn Reapers, not turn into space Stalin or molest the entire galaxy with their ''essence''.
/rantover
It's just stinks of giving Destroy an arbitrary downside because Bioware knew that, for all the arty pretentiousness of the ending, most people are in to destroy the damn Reapers, not turn into space Stalin or molest the entire galaxy with their ''essence''.
/rantover
Yeah, they were just trying too hard. Like they thought making straight up action stories was too boneheaded or something. Everyone has to be clever these days. Or at least, try to be clever.
Yeah, they were just trying too hard. Like they thought making straight up action stories was too boneheaded or something. Everyone has to be clever these days. Or at least, try to be clever.
They definitely bit off more than they could chew writing wise. I mean, I'm all for making a more esoteric ending ending that isn't just ''and then the Reapers died and Shepard went riding into the sunset to make blue babies with their waifu'' but there are ways to do these things. Deus Ex did it well enough. Red Dead Redemption pulled off a melancholic ending almost perfectly.
Mass Effect was a straight up war story, until the last 10 minutes when you're force-fed massive amounts of barely-even-pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and have to make a decision that was barely foreshadowed at all in the series, in order to solve a problem that was already (thematically) solved on Rannoch. Not only that, but 2 of those 3 options offered were best represented by villains who were indoctrinated by the Reapers themselves!
It's a bummer, because the actual themes of the ending could have been interesting had it been well written (or well, Destroy vs Control could have at least). But the execution was so awful that IMO any potential is utterly wasted.
They definitely bit off more than they could chew writing wise. I mean, I'm all for making a more esoteric ending ending that isn't just ''and then the Reapers died and Shepard went riding into the sunset to make blue babies with their waifu'' but there are ways to do these things. Deus Ex did it well enough. Red Dead Redemption pulled off a melancholic ending almost perfectly.
Mass Effect was a straight up war story, until the last 10 minutes when you're force-fed massive amounts of barely-even-pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo and have to make a decision that was barely foreshadowed at all in the series, in order to solve a problem that was already (thematically) solved on Rannoch. Not only that, but 2 of those 3 options offered were best represented by villains who were indoctrinated by the Reapers themselves!
It's a bummer, because the actual themes of the ending could have been interesting had it been well written (or well, Destroy vs Control could have at least). But the execution was so awful that IMO any potential is utterly wasted.
I agree, it probably could have been better..
But I wouldn't know how to do it. If it was up to me, I'd taking a heavier Gaming route.. just end the story with great battles, some dramatic notes, and just exhaust players with lots of fun. That would cover up some of the faults of a simplistic "Destroy" story. Most games were doing that for years.... back when they just saw themselves as games.
Shouldn't it blow up things like the Mass Relays or the Citadel then? These things are filled to the brim with Reaper tech. And EDI isn't anywhere near as loaded with Reaper code as the Reapers themselves or New!Geth are.
Besides, beyond the Reaper code, the Geth aren't like the Reapers at all, which are built with, and driven by a consciousness created by, untold number of liquefied organics (who knows how that works but whatever). Whereas the Geth are pure synthetic. The Crucible is capable of remodeling life at the base level in an instant, it defies belief that it's suddenly uncapable of distinguishing between three very different sets of beings just because of Reaper code.
It's just stinks of giving Destroy an arbitrary downside because Bioware knew that, for all the arty pretentiousness of the ending, most people are in to destroy the damn Reapers, not turn into space Stalin or molest the entire galaxy with their ''essence''.
/rantover
Originally, the crucible did target the mass relays and the citadel. This is what you guys missed out on. It's about at 4:30. EDI was built from the Luna VI and parts from Sovereign.
Then since we didn't understand what all this meant and didn't understand the meanings behind the colors of the explosions on our screen, we got the Extended Cut Ending delivered to us at the end of June.
I agree, it probably could have been better..
But I wouldn't know how to do it. If it was up to me, I'd taking a heavier Gaming route.. just end the story with great battles, some dramatic notes, and just exhaust players with lots of fun. That would cover up some of the faults of a simplistic "Destroy" story. Most games were doing that for years.... back when they just saw themselves as games.
I'd just have stopped the game just as Shepard activates the Crucible, and have them die as the Reapers go kaboom. Games ends in a victory, but is still bittersweet because Shepard bites it. EMS determines shape of the galaxy afterwards.
If they want more moral ambiguity, make TIM not be indoctrinated and give the player actually viable choices and arguments for Control. If you accept his point of view, either Shepard or TIM himself end up in control of the Reapers. You may or may not have to shoot Anderson to achieve that ending. If they want to add a bad side to Destroy in order to balance it out, instead of the nonsensical Geth genocide, have the Reaper's deaths translate into catastrophic explosions of their Eezo cores, causing massive casualties among the combined fleets and destroying much of Earth, but ending any possible threat the Reapers might ever pose permanently. Boom, moral dilemna, and no pseudo-philosophical drivel needed.
I'd just have stopped the game just as Shepard activates the Crucible, and have them die as the Reapers go kaboom. Games ends in a victory, but is still bittersweet because Shepard bites it. EMS determines shape of the galaxy afterwards.
If they want more moral ambiguity, make TIM not be indoctrinated and give the player actually viable choices and arguments for Control. If you accept his point of view, either Shepard or TIM himself end up in control of the Reapers. You may or may not have to shoot Anderson to achieve that ending. If they want to add a bad side to Destroy in order to balance it out, instead of the nonsensical Geth genocide, have the Reaper's deaths translate into catastrophic explosions of their Eezo cores, causing massive casualties among the combined fleets and destroying much of Earth, but ending any possible threat the Reapers might ever pose permanently. Boom, moral dilemna, and no pseudo-philosophical drivel needed.
Personally, I think the Destroy downside is just not being quite sure of Shep's existence. I already killed the Geth myself. 
Well, I wondered what happened about the environmental clean up afterward. I think our worlds looked a lot like Fallout: wastelands, and according to Mac Walters it was, but due to the outrage of the original ending they made it look like everything was rebuilt in a year.
Shouldn't it blow up things like the Mass Relays or the Citadel then? These things are filled to the brim with Reaper tech. And EDI isn't anywhere near as loaded with Reaper code as the Reapers themselves or New!Geth are.
Besides, beyond the Reaper code, the Geth aren't like the Reapers at all, which are built with, and driven by a consciousness created by, untold number of liquefied organics (who knows how that works but whatever). Whereas the Geth are pure synthetic. The Crucible is capable of remodeling life at the base level in an instant, it defies belief that it's suddenly uncapable of distinguishing between three very different sets of beings just because of Reaper code.
It's just stinks of giving Destroy an arbitrary downside because Bioware knew that, for all the arty pretentiousness of the ending, most people are in to destroy the damn Reapers, not turn into space Stalin or molest the entire galaxy with their ''essence''.
/rantover
Can a child "intellectually grasp" the "concept" of deriving pleasure from having rights? Does that mean children shouldn't have rights? How do you prove whether someone can intellectual grasp he concept? If it depends on intellect, then should someone with a 190 IQ have more rights than someone with a 70IQ? Clearly the person with the 190 IQ can "intellectually grasp" pain and pleasure.
Your entire post is full of a comical level of ignorance and asks some pretty stupid questions with fairly simple answers, but I just wanted to point this part out as it provided a particularly large amount of hearty laughter.
Should children not have the same rights as adults? Oh, I don't know. How many civilized nations allow them to vote, serve in the labour force, operate complex machinery like automobiles or manufacturing equipment, purchase items like alcohol, firearms, prescription drugs, freely engage in marriage and attempting to breed, join the armed forces etc.? I can tell you the ones that do certainly aren't model societies to any sane person.
Should someone with a 190 IQ have more rights than with a 70? Well, given that the latter is classed as either "borderline intellectual functioning" or "mild mental retardation" by the APA, I'd say allowing that person to attempt to participate in society is doing both them and it a disservice. I wouldn't want that guy processing my insurance claim or designing a piece of technology I plan on using (without me being subject to grievous bodily harm, of course). Nor would I want their inability to perform competitively in the job market to result in their suffering eventually to the point of death (along with no doubt equal suffering for their loved ones all the while).
Since mental retardation is technically a disability, and just to rustle your morally outraged jimmies some more, I would support mandatory euthanasia for disabled fetuses/ infants until we could come up with a means to correct such in utero, as it would be best for both them and society at large.
This is laughable. Feel free to declare internet victory in your reply, because I certainly won't engage with this gibberish further. But thanks for the laugh.
Indeed, it is quite laughable that someone who is attempting to participate in an intellectual discussion can't even understand the core concepts of rather simple philosophies of morality that have been around in the minds of great thinkers since the time of the Charvaka and Epicurus all the way through to the modern day with Singer and Rosen.
Either you're an idiot, or you're just using my posts as an oppourtunity to virtue signal to other libtards on here. Either way, it isn't in my interest to attempt to further humour you, unless I just want some amusement at the resulting butthurt (which I do, so by all means continue if this post has made you mad enough to have another go at not looking like a moron).
Heh "victory", as if my being able to goad derps on an internet forum into making frothing at the mouth salty shitposts is worthy of such a description.
Last I checked, the Citadel and mass relays were damaged by the Crucible's firing. The implications were worse before the Extended Cut, but they're still damaged even in the best possible Destroy ending. EDI had significant pieces from Sovereign, and the Geth had fundamentally altered themselves with Reaper code. It makes sense, though I don't particularly like it, that they would be rendered nonfunctional by a device used to stop the Reapers. I would say synthesis is the real problem with the ending, because it strains suspension of disbelief to the breaking point.
The biggest issue with ME3's ending is a lack of explanation for any of the choices, especially Synthesis. In order for anyone to even believe Synthesis makes sense, they have to actually trust the Catalyst and believe this voodoo space magic will somehow "fix" everything. It's completely ridiculous, and while BioWare wanted it to be the best choice, it ended up being the most idiotic and unrealistic in execution. It just didn't make any sense at all.
What's even worse is Mac failed to properly even address underlying issues in ME1 and ME2. It's as if he forgot Saren was advocating for something similar to Synthesis and TIM always wanted Control, of which both parties were indoctrinated. This, alone, would have made either Synthesis and Control completely impractical unless one has the belief Shepard is just more "special" than TIM and Saren, which is what BioWare wanted us to believe.
Destroy was just the only option that made sense and honestly was the "best" moral dilemma, and I use the word best loosely. I didn't care that EDI and the geth died. I just cared that I wasted all that time going to Rannoch to save the geth and the quarians just for them to be scrapped in the end anyway. Other than that, Destroy just made the most sense and was the most credible moral dilemma. There was no dilemma with Control or Synthesis because everybody "wins," besides Shepard.
What BioWare should have done is have more realistic drawbacks to each choice and it would have led to a more challenging decision. Synthesis and Control just never made sense. Destroy was the only solution that would actually resolve any uncertainties that the reapers or the catalyst might still be a threat. We need more decisions that are less "I win" and more a "mixed bag" in MEA so that decisions aren't so obviously lopsided in favor of a particular choice.
Well, I wondered what happened about the environmental clean up afterward. I think our worlds looked a lot like Fallout: wastelands, and according to Mac Walters it was, but due to the outrage of the original ending they made it look like everything was rebuilt in a year.
Can you imagine how much a 2 km long Reaper must weigh once it's eezo core is deactivated?
And tens of thousands of them keeling over dead on planets or in orbit above them... 
Can you imagine how much a 2 km long Reaper must weigh once it's eezo core is deactivated?
And tens of thousands of them keeling over dead on planets or in orbit above them...
They really shouldn't have made the reapers that large. It would've been better if they were just a swarm or something. They were already overpowered enough. It's not as if being the size of a small island should make a difference.
They really shouldn't have made the reapers that large. It would've been better if they were just a swarm or something. They were already overpowered enough. It's not as if being the size of a small island should make a difference.
Scale is part of what made them menacing. The entire point of the reapers was to be an overpowered force with no practical means of defeating them. That's what made them so interesting and why it seemed unlikely victory was foreseeable. An unbeatable enemy with no flaws. Had the reapers been much smaller, they would have just been more of a joke and something that would have likely been mocked by fans.
Can you imagine how much a 2 km long Reaper must weigh once it's eezo core is deactivated?
And tens of thousands of them keeling over dead on planets or in orbit above them...
Yeah, also add that to all the shots that Sword fleet visibly fires towards Earth during the climatic battle, if the Marine sergeant in ME2 is any indication, each and every single of those adds up to 3 times Hiroshima. So not only was the planet under a constant barrage of nukes with every missed shot, but now it's got who knows how many gargantuan ships, each the mass of a pretty big asteroid, either lingering in orbit or falling down towards the surface.
Come to think of it, no matter what happens, Earth should be all rights be close to unhabitable come ME3.
They really shouldn't have made the reapers that large. It would've been better if they were just a swarm or something. They were already overpowered enough. It's not as if being the size of a small island should make a difference.
Just be happy that they weren't the size of Star Destroyers I guess?
Yeah, also add that to all the shots that Sword fleet visibly fires towards Earth during the climatic battle, if the Marine sergeant in ME2 is any indication, each and every single of those adds up to 3 times Hiroshima. So not only was the planet under a constant barrage of nukes with every missed shot, but now it's got who knows how many gargantuan ships, each the mass of a pretty big asteroid, either lingering in orbit or falling down towards the surface.
Come to think of it, no matter what happens, Earth should be all rights be close to unhabitable come ME3.
Which is why MEA is going to avoid ME3 as much as it possibly can by having the ARK depart before the reapers invade. Thus, none of this is and issue.
LOOOOOOOOLLL. BSN delivers yet again
Importance of human/organic life has nothing to do with metaphysical garbage like having a "soul", you misanthropic imbecile. Go out in public and actually try to kill someone you don't like, and see how well that defense holds up, instead of edgelording on an internet forum like a brooding wuss. No one cares that you've reached the 9th grade and finally discovered nihilism.
When you do finally snap, please point the gun at yourself first rather than your classmates/ co-workers.
What I wrote was tame as hell, it was nothing but fluff, nowhere near egdy. I could easily have taken it much further.
Hell, I could have started talking about how despite our over inflated self value that we're nothing more than food for worms, who will be put in the ground and left to be eaten as the world goes on without us and forgets our names, that we go through life constructing artificial renderings of who we are, such as self esteem, in order to give us some form of self because we would be nothing otherwise. I could have talked about how a meteor could hit the earth tomorrow and wipe us all out and, to steal a line from Dr.Manhattan, the universe wouldn't even notice. It would be as if we never existed and no one will remember our achievements, accomplishments and triumphs as a people, because none of what we did was important enough to matter in the grand scale of the things. The Reaper harvests put this last point to excellent display actually.
So you see mate, I managed to reign myself in from breaking the edge o'meter quite well if I may say so myself.
This is hilarious. Please, don't stop now. I take it all back! I want to keep this going as long as possible. Share more of your wisdom.Your entire post is full of a comical level of ignorance and asks some pretty stupid questions with fairly simple answers, but I just wanted to point this part out as it provided a particularly large amount of hearty laughter.
Should children not have the same rights as adults? Oh, I don't know. How many civilized nations allow them to vote, serve in the labour force, operate complex machinery like automobiles or manufacturing equipment, purchase items like alcohol, firearms, prescription drugs, freely engage in marriage and attempting to breed, join the armed forces etc.? I can tell you the ones that do certainly aren't model societies to any sane person.
Should someone with a 190 IQ have more rights than with a 70? Well, given that the latter is classed as either "borderline intellectual functioning" or "mild mental retardation" by the APA, I'd say allowing that person to attempt to participate in society is doing both them and it a disservice. I wouldn't want that guy processing my insurance claim or designing a piece of technology I plan on using (without me being subject to grievous bodily harm, of course). Nor would I want their inability to perform competitively in the job market to result in their suffering eventually to the point of death (along with no doubt equal suffering for their loved ones all the while).
Since mental retardation is technically a disability, and just to rustle your morally outraged jimmies some more, I would support mandatory euthanasia for disabled fetuses/ infants until we could come up with a means to correct such in utero, as it would be best for both them and society at large.
Indeed, it is quite laughable that someone who is attempting to participate in an intellectual discussion can't even understand the core concepts of rather simple philosophies of morality that have been around in the minds of great thinkers since the time of the Charvaka and Epicurus all the way through to the modern day with Singer and Rosen.
Either you're an idiot, or you're just using my posts as an oppourtunity to virtue signal to other libtards on here. Either way, it isn't in my interest to attempt to further humour you, unless I just want some amusement at the resulting butthurt (which I do, so by all means continue if this post has made you mad enough to have another go at not looking like a moron).
Heh "victory", as if my being able to goad derps on an internet forum into making frothing at the mouth salty shitposts is worthy of such a description.
Scale is part of what made them menacing. The entire point of the reapers was to be an overpowered force with no practical means of defeating them. That's what made them so interesting and why it seemed unlikely victory was foreseeable. An unbeatable enemy with no flaws. Had the reapers been much smaller, they would have just been more of a joke and something that would have likely been mocked by fans.
This is hilarious. Please, don't stop now. I take it all back! I want to keep this going as long as possible. Share more of your wisdom.
Expand your use of Google! Cite the names of more intellectuals whose views you don't understand to demonstrate your intellectual chops. Use more creative insults. Don't stop now! You're just warming up. You're only advocating some things that were embraced by Nazi Germany and the SS. You've got so much more room to grow.
At the very least talk more about rights. I really want to hear more about the theory of rights that starts off by positing that operating heavy machinery is a right! This is groundbreaking stuff.
Uh, not to rain on your parade or anything... being forbidden by law to operate heavy machinery means you do not have a right pretty much everyone else has. Or does something have to be a part of the constitution to be considered a right? I'd be very careful with your answer.
Them being large doesn't really make them that menacing. That just makes them more distant from the player's perspective. We only ever fight their human-sized monsters and occasionally dodge the blaster of a destroyer or two. Just look at Sovereign. It ended up being kind of a joke anyway, because of its own silly tactic to embody itself in a silly hopper and it got itself killed in the process. The rest of them could have bum rushed the Citadel, they would have crippled the galaxy fairly early on.
It's their numbers that add to their menace really, not their size.
Honestly, the mimics were more menacing than the reapers.
The Reapers were handled badly in almost all regards. If a competent gamer was in control of the Reapers, then they would have won within days.
Sovereign could have started off the harvest years before Shepard became a spectre, it already had everything it needed to win. All the nonsense with the Geth, with resurrecting the Rachni and cloning Krogan... that all wasn't necessary. The Conduit? Unnecessary.
The cuttlefish controlled the most famous spectre and a highly respected matriarch. Through them it had full clearances and the authority of the council, it could have marched its pawns straight into the council chambers and triggered the mass relay into dark space. No need for an assault, no need to find the Conduit.
Even all that wasn't necessary... after all, the AI in control of the Reapers also controls the Citadel. At any point it could have started the harvest, it didn't need Sovereign's signal.
Let's assume for a moment Sovereign fails and the Catalyst is in hibernation. Let's assume Harbinger's pet project falls into the hands of the humans. It doesn't change anything.
The Reapers had overwhelming force, the Batarians were theirs for years already and they even controlled part of the Geth. How incompetent do you have to be to lose with such an advantage?
If I had been in control, I wouldn't have bothered with ground troops. I would have established my dominance in space, gotten air superiority over the planets and then covered the populations centers and military bases with air dropped Dragon's Teeth and indoctrination devices. Anything actively resisting would be bombed from orbit. After a week, the planet is mine. What do I need ground troops for? My indoctrinated masses will take care of any stragglers hiding out in the country. Or hey, I'm an incredibly advanced AI with the accumulated knowledge of thousands of species. Can't I come up with a plague that wipes out every sentient being on a planet once I harvested the majority of the population? Make clean up easier? Didn't Harbinger had such a plague tested on Omega? Why not use it again but include humans this time?
Anderson's resistance wouldn't last a week against my Reaper forces. Especially since I wouldn't give him anything to resist against. There is no need to devastate the cities. After all spaceworthy ships have been destroyed, after the orbital defenses are dismantled, after all tactical weapon stockpiles have been annihilated... there's no need for combat anymore. Indoctrinate everyone, then kill the remains with a plague, done.
A dozen Reapers for each planet, after a week the galaxy is mine. Reaper fleet was how large? 10.000 of the big ones? Even more destroyers? Against how many colonies? Massive numbers to overwhelm their fleets, then it's a walk in the park after.
Since the Reapers were able to steal the heavily guarded Citadel, why did they wait so long to do it? It would be my first move and it would cripple the council species. Have you noticed how, despite all the warnings throughout the years, they never made contingency plans? Never moved their government somewhere else? They -knew- that the Citadel was a trap set by the Reapers and stayed.
There was so much stupidity in the games and each addition was worse than the one before. Sovereign lost its shields because a remote controlled robot was destroyed? Why? The Reapers left Object Rho behind so the galaxy would know when they'd come back? Why? Harbinger was running genetic experiments with the help of its clone troopers and attacked the human colonies long before the harvest started, which drew attention to it. Oh, and was the reason the Illusive Man resurrected Shepard. Why?
Not that the council species were any better... both sides failed so hard so often, it's no wonder Shepard only won by accident.
Retour en haut
