This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You know what the worst part about Mass Effect 3 was?

#31pothocketPosted 4/22/2014 7:28:01 AM
Yeah, I get the metaphor. It just doesn't apply. Being ok with games having poor endings because "the end of the roller coaster is always boring" is some fortune-cookie wisdom that sounds good until you actually think about it.
---
http://i.imgur.com/L2ASIya.gif
http://i.imgur.com/5hUcbcx.gif
#32SinisterSlayPosted 4/22/2014 7:29:05 AM
SonyHoundDawg posted...
I don't really get why people were surprised.

I mean I played ME and it was damn, this reapers are bad ass, look how much damage 1 reaper did.

Then I played ME2 and saw dat ending it was holy crap, how you supposed to win against this. According to what I saw in part 1, this battle is not winnable.

Between how strong ME1 reaper was and the sheer volume in ME2 they set up the story for failure.


In 2 and 3 there was some indications that weapons and shields were being upgraded after the first encounter. They would of had lots of scrap to study and upgrade with.

Also, the reapers seemed smaller in me3. I guess its like commanders and foot soldiers. A big command ship probably could take out another fleet. But we mostly saw ships that seemed purpose built to exterminate planets gently, not just destroy the planet outright.
---
He who stumbles around in darkness with a stick is blind. But he who... sticks out in darkness... is... fluorescent! - Brother Silence
#33GynthaeresPosted 4/22/2014 8:20:12 AM
SonyHoundDawg posted...
I don't really get why people were surprised.

I mean I played ME and it was damn, this reapers are bad ass, look how much damage 1 reaper did.

Then I played ME2 and saw dat ending it was holy crap, how you supposed to win against this. According to what I saw in part 1, this battle is not winnable.

Between how strong ME1 reaper was and the sheer volume in ME2 they set up the story for failure.


Eh. There were ways around that.

For example, if I were in charge of the story, I would have said... Maybe the Reapers were immensely powerful and unstoppable, but only if they invaded when they originally intended to. But they didn't. They were delayed for like, 400 years or something. Weapons, armor, and shield tech for the organics would have increased at a fairly steady rate, since they're constantly fighting amongst themselves.
And meanwhile, Reaper tech has stagnated.. and perhaps this is why Reapers harvested organics in the first place, as a means of advancing their own tech. Which is why invading at a specific time was so critical. Too early and there's not much technology you can use. Too late, and the organics can put up a really solid fight.

As a result of being delayed by 400 years, the Reapers would probably have lost a lot of their advantage, thus making the match-up surprisingly even, aside from the surprise/intimidation factor + the whole Indoctrination thing.



Or perhaps they were indeed immensely powerful and nearly unstoppable, and you need the deus ex machina, the Crucible, to beat them. But instead of having it activate a second deus ex machina, the Starchild, what it does is instead reprograms the Mass Relays (which is why it needs to be connected to the Citadel, which is the central control station for the Mass Relays).
An average ending would just involve disabling the Relays for the Reapers. The Reapers can now no longer instantly travel between star systems, so you have a huge advance warning on when they're approaching. People can evacuate, fleets can launch hit-and-run tactics (retreating into the relays), and so on. Eventually the Citadel fleets would wear them down over time.
The best ending might even include reprogramming the Relays to destroy Reapers who try to use them, so half of the Reapers die before they even realize what's happened. Thus making the future conflict much easier.



There were ways around the fact that the Reapers were overwhelmingly powerful. I came up with these on my own, just during my commute to/from work. I can't imagine why writers paid to do this couldn't come up with anything better than what they did.
---
The sole purpose of this space is to make my post look longer.
#34gfrequencyPosted 4/22/2014 8:35:50 AM
The fact that people are still complaining about it two years later as if Mac Walters personally stomped on their puppy?
---
You might very well think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
#35Jprime666Posted 4/22/2014 8:40:47 AM
Mass Effect 3 was a cesspit of bad writing.

The Reapers plan in ME1 was to take control of the Citadel and by conjunction the mass relays. The idea was that they'd storm the Citadel and quickly wipe out everything there and stop everyone else from using the mass relays. This would cripple any chance of resistance the galaxy could put up. The Reapers would stop people from travelling from system to system and they could slowly take their time and wipe out everything methodically and with very little resistance.

Sure the Turian homeworld might put up a good fight against a fraction of the Reaper forces, but if the Reapers had gone though with their plan then the poor little Turians wouldn't have a chance. They wouldn't have the mass relays to retreat, or get reinforcements, and the entire Reaper fleet would decimate them.

So why in Mass Effect 3 do they completely forget to do this? The reason is simply because it's too good of a plan and the writers couldn't think of a way for the player to counter it. So instead the Reapers waste the better part of the game dividing their forces and dicking around on various planets. Even when the Reapers do get around to taking the Citadel(which they of course do effortlessly), for some reason they keep all the mass relays on for Shepard and rest of the Galaxy to use.

For the "pinnacle of life" or whatever they call themselves, they sure are impressively stupid.
---
Indeed! Verily, I say... Ergo!
#36daniel79Posted 4/22/2014 8:42:53 AM
The worst part was the part where EA got hold of Bioware and made them streamline all their games into crap for airheads.
#37pothocketPosted 4/22/2014 8:51:27 AM
gfrequency posted...
The fact that people are still complaining about it two years later as if Mac Walters personally stomped on their puppy?


It was an international tragedy. I'm surprised there hasn't been a memorial built yet. If we let people forget, the terrorist win.
---
http://i.imgur.com/L2ASIya.gif
http://i.imgur.com/5hUcbcx.gif
#38Forever Shadowed(Topic Creator)Posted 4/22/2014 8:54:09 AM
@gfrequency: Yeah, god forbid people get to love a game series for the story and plot and characters. To the point where they become invested in its journey and outcome. You are the current poison that is infecting all video games. I bet if it were up to you games wouldn't even have a single player mode. It'd all be micro transaction base multiplayer. Go back to the CoD boards.

@jprime: Nice! Didn't even notice that.
---
If there's anything more important than my ego around, I want it caught and shot now.
#39ShadowThaReaperPosted 4/22/2014 8:56:58 AM
Mass Effect 2 was just as bad. The plot is nothing but filler.

Not to mention Harbinger. "You suck Shepard" every 10 minutes, while you blast his ass away. He's absolutely no threat.

What an embarrassment.
#40pothocketPosted 4/22/2014 9:02:29 AM
daniel79 posted...
The worst part was the part where EA got hold of Bioware and made them streamline all their games into crap for airheads.


Yet must be one those who thinks the first game is the only one that's an RPG because it played like crap or whatever logic it is that you guys never seem to be able to explain. "Streamlining' isn't a negative, especially when the game in question NEEDS streamlining.
---
http://i.imgur.com/L2ASIya.gif
http://i.imgur.com/5hUcbcx.gif