338 réponses à ce sujet

[IntoTheDarkness]

avatar0 wrote...

Saying a man "is a master swordsman who has never lost a duel" does not allow you to make the logical conclusion that this man "will definitely win the next duel as well."

It also doesn't mean that the only way to defeat the said master swordsman is through "unconventional means such as poisoning."

Good analogy, I like it.

However, is "a god-like being who has taught organics how to use a sword and have defeated them over 2,000 times because teaching them how to use a sword and killing them in sesequent duels were his plan all along" beatable?

I hate the catalyst. I just think conventional victory is even a bigger leap than the poisoning, thus I hate it worse.

[D1ck1e]

"Indoctrination can create perfect deep cover agents. A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe. Should a Reaper subvert a well-placed political or military leader, the resulting chaos can bring down nations."

That's my take on it.

[IntoTheDarkness]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

They said the same about the crew you assemble in ME1, and in ME2, and about getting to Illos, and about defeating Sovereign, and about getting through the Omega Relay, and about defeating the Collectors, and about the forces you unite in ME3.

Clearly, you must have failed in all those tasks because some people said they were impossible.

Oh wait, they actually showed you repeatedly overcoming supposedly impossible odds with reletive ease and with very good results.

See, it's all about what you show instead of what you say. You don't show Shepard defeating the Reapers by conventional means, tell you about it happening on Palaven, have Hackett say he's prepared for the eventuality, have everyone of your allies make plans for the aftermath and about how good your chances are, and have Javik tell you that his cycle's disadvantage is your greatest strength, all after showing you repeatedly doing something completely the opposite of what apparently can't be done, then tell you something contradictory and expect you to accept it without question. 

i believe the reapers should have considered the impossible miracles into calculations if they were at least half smart as us raging over the ending.

[acrb101]

sergio71785 wrote...

It took two hits of the thannix cannon to destroy the Collector ship, which is cruiser sized. The "thannix cannon" of the reapers one-shots any of our ships, including dreadnaughts.

In the opening scenes, a Sovereign class Reaper is seen duking it out with a dreadnought over earth. It takes a few hits from the Reaper's main gun to destroy the dreadnought.

Exibit A:


In Mass Effect 1, Sovereign seems to destroy dreadnoughts with a single blow from his main weapon. I'd assume that upgrades in sheilds and armor allow the galaxies' dreadnoughts to withstand Reaper attacks.

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Good analogy, I like it.

However, is "a god-like being who has taught organics how to use a sword and have defeated them over 2,000 times because teaching them how to use a sword and killing them in sesequent duels were his plan all along" beatable?

I think a better way to phrase this analogy would be "a god-like being who has taught organics how to use a sword in a particular way so that said god-like being always knew the weakness and then used this weakness in subsequent duels because this was his plan all along".

Modifié par acrb101, 02 avril 2012 - 07:39 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Liber320 wrote...

Reapers depended heavily on the element of surpirse and either an non-unified or extremely centralized galaxy.

In this cycle, we:

- Were warned and found out about them before the attack

- Stopped them from using the Citadel and shutting down the Mass Relays

- Managed to destroy one of them and find another derelict one, using their technology to create shielding and weapons almost if not equal to theirs

- Had the entire galaxy (more or less) working together to stop them


So while it may be a long shot and would most definately result in an unfathomable amount of casualties, it could definately be done.

that analysis only works if there had been 2 CYCLES in the past, ours and the protheans.

there had been 2000. come on, reapers must have calculated what organics capabilities are under ideal circumstatnces. all conditions you lists could have happended in the past cycles, and even if it did not, reapers should have known the possibility and consequently prepared for such set of evensts.

[saeval912]

its been shown that conventional means work, throughout the whole series.

Also, I've seen with most "conventional fight" arguments that the crucible does work, not as a giant super-colored magic explosion, but as something hampering Reaper shields... which has definitely been shown to be more than enough to wipe them out.

[Sepharih]

 I do not care how advanced the reapers are, or what the tecnical readouts of the galactic alliance ships are.  I do not care what lore can be cited to explain how it's impossible for us to defeat them conventionally...because new lore can be established and/or old lore hand waved away at any moment the writer wants to.
All I care about is what the story calls for.

If you have a story about a small group of rebels fighting an unstopable empire symbolized by a giant war machine, then the final battle and conclusion should follow a small group of rebels defeating and destroying that machine (ex. Star Wars).  It doesn't really matter if the way they're able to do it is a little contrived (half a dozen one man fighters against something the size of a moon...please).  As long as it fits with the themes of the story you can find a way to make it work.

The entire game is built around the idea of building a fleet of all the united races of the Galaxy as no cycle has ever done before, and this theme is highlighted over and over again.
Despite constant proclomations of their invincibility, at nearly every story beat aside from Thessia, Shepard is shown achieving a decisive victory despite all the odds stacked against him over and over and over again.
A costly but decisive victory as a result of your actions uniting the galaxy was what this story deserved as far as i'm concerned.

Modifié par Sepharih, 02 avril 2012 - 07:41 .

[Azue]

Due to the Reapers being stupid and not shutting down the relays, this cycle would probably cuase considerable damage to Reapers. Also thanks to the Protheans the leaders of the galaxy did not die in an instant.

But in the end it would probably be impossible.

[IntoTheDarkness]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

1. Who's to say the reapers didn't invent the crucible
2. Not really, the protheans altered the Keepers, if they had to alter them to stopbopening the Citadel, they hadn't been altered before, meaning Harby always attacked through the Citadel.
3. We are based off their plans, ME cores, Relays, Citadel. Copying their tech isn't all that hard when it is all around you :')

1. i onlly wish BW was that smart. Apparently it(indoctrination theory)'s not confirmed.

2. crucible was passed down, more openly. who is to say the citade's secrete were kept secret all along?

3. if we can defeat reapers only by using their tehc, that means reapers were either unaware of the orgainc's capability or they risked their lives in every single 2000 cycle and got extremly lucky to survive them all. either way reaers are a big stupid jellyfish.

[Grasich]

First off, consider what you yourself said, this cycle has been going on for millions of years, and has occured an innumerable number of times.

Looking at it from a statistic point of view, it's impossible to win regardless of how you try.

However, this is a game. Also, as others have pointed out, we have a number of advantages that others didn't have. Thannix cannons (taken from sovereign), diversity, stopped their use of the Citadel, stayed organized, retained control of the Relays, and had COMMANDER SHEPARD.

So I would say conventional means (If you call Thannix Cannons, a united Galaxy, and Cains conventional) are definitely enough to win. Especially if they let us chuck a few Relays at the Reapers.

[Vhalkyrie]

Thannix cannons are valid. They were designed to be a weapon to use against the Reapers. The Normandy SR2 also had a number of shield upgrade to help prevent the disaster that befell the SR1. That is the nature of warfare. Adaptation.

Modifié par Vhalkyrie, 02 avril 2012 - 07:47 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Sepharih wrote...

 I do not care how advanced the reapers are, or what the tecnical readouts of the galactic alliance ships are.  I do not care what lore can be cited to explain how it's impossible for us to defeat them conventionally...because new lore can be established and/or old lore hand waved away at any moment the writer wants to.
All I care about is what the story calls for.

If you have a story about a small group of rebels fighting an unstopable empire symbolized by a giant war machine, then the final battle and conclusion should follow a small group of rebels defeating and destroying that machine (ex. Star Wars).  It doesn't really matter if the way they're able to do it is a little contrived (half a dozen one man fighters against something the size of a moon...please).  As long as it fits with the themes of the story you can find a way to make it work.

The entire game is built around the idea of building a fleet of all the united races of the Galaxy as no cycle has ever done before, and this theme is highlighted over and over again.
Despite constant proclomations of their invincibility, at nearly every story beat aside from Thessia, Shepard is shown achieving a decisive victory despite all the odds stacked against him over and over and over again.
A costly but decisive victory as a result of your actions uniting the galaxy was what this story deserved as far as i'm concerned.

Starwars is legendary partially because it was told in 70s and even back then its plots were not perfect.

You are willing to overlook contrived plots as long as it fits the theme? Any contrived plots/unuplausible story destroy the narrative for me, as the first reason I was invested so much in ME was the flawless plot pregression shown in ME1 and ME2. ME2 might have digressed, but in its own it was nearly perfect. ME3 is not, and will be even worse with conventional victory over the reapers.

[SovereignWillReturn]

TL;DR you, horrifical formatting OP.

But defeating reapers is possible conventionally. Derp. Did you not see the Dreadnaught blow up in the space cutscene? it took like, 9 hits and it was out.

If they Citadel just had an EMP effect, it could lead to epic Reaper defeat, actually screw the Citadel.

Bullet for bullet, kill the reapers.

OP is pessimist.

EDIT: Op, Bioware killed the plot with their plot holes so much, you cannot argue for the presented plot points, there aren't any left.

Modifié par SovereignWillReturn, 02 avril 2012 - 07:48 .

[The Night Mammoth]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

The Night Mammoth wrote...

They said the same about the crew you assemble in ME1, and in ME2, and about getting to Illos, and about defeating Sovereign, and about getting through the Omega Relay, and about defeating the Collectors, and about the forces you unite in ME3.

Clearly, you must have failed in all those tasks because some people said they were impossible.

Oh wait, they actually showed you repeatedly overcoming supposedly impossible odds with reletive ease and with very good results.

See, it's all about what you show instead of what you say. You don't show Shepard defeating the Reapers by conventional means, tell you about it happening on Palaven, have Hackett say he's prepared for the eventuality, have everyone of your allies make plans for the aftermath and about how good your chances are, and have Javik tell you that his cycle's disadvantage is your greatest strength, all after showing you repeatedly doing something completely the opposite of what apparently can't be done, then tell you something contradictory and expect you to accept it without question. 

i believe the reapers should have considered the impossible miracles into calculations if they were at least half smart as us raging over the ending.

What I said has nothing to do with the logistics or power ratings of armor and weapons, and numbers of ships, or anything like that. 

You don't show one thing and say another and expect people to go along with it. That's why fighting the Reapers should have been an option, else War Assets and alliance building becomes compeltely arbitrary. 

[ZLurps]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

ZLurps wrote...

Wow...

Well, I would add following to your thoughts.

There might be cycles that fail, Prothean cycle is example of that, no Reaper dreadnought was made of them. Then, however Reapers find other uses for them. The Collector drones was one use for Protheans, but there's also Reaper destroyers and fighters that may as well be constructed from space faring races that aren't "ascended" to dreadnought form.

What comes to technology... Rachni wars was most likely Sovereign's doing and it's attempt to gain access to the Citadel that was not responding it's command to open the mass relay in the dark space. Rachni wars were about 2000 years before the event's of ME3. I think those 2000 years were important for current galactic races, not only because of technology, but because of political progress that created possibility for united fleet for example. Also, economics.

May get back into this later.

I say your argument of 2,000 years is quite logical, given that reapers' only way of returning is using mass relays.

However, in ME3 we know reapers can just fly in using FTL from the dark space. Why didn't they just come flying in 2000 years ago? If they are as smart as they claim to be(as as Legion tells Shepard), what inevitable circumstances forced to them wait 2,000 years while Sovereign kept failing? Shouldn't Soveregin have foreseen this given his superintellect?

Frankly, this goes to territory where there's no real answers, guy who created the Reapers and founded the lore left BioWare.

One theory was that Reapers started their voyage from dark space when they didn't get to hear from Sovereign, perhaps 1000 year ago.

Then why Sovereign was still trying to open the relay? Did entire Reaper fleet traveled or was some part of their forces left behind where counter part of Citadel is? Sure they weren't dragging portable giant mass relay with them, though since event's of ME3 maybe they did, but accidentally lost it because Reaper #2856, #984 and 1511 lost grip while towing and it slipped in the super nova.

It gets even more funny if you take the Collectors and Harbinger in account. Collectors had live communication link to Harby that we can assume was in dark space with rest of the Reaper fleet. How in the world Sovereign was not able to message Harby that things are bit awry here via Collectors 2000 years ago?

Oh wait, maybe Sovereign was jealous about the Collectors or something, why it didn't fly to dark space and get back with the fleet 1996 years ago?

Bottom line, some things in ME lore are done well, some are not.

Modifié par ZLurps, 02 avril 2012 - 07:52 .

[The Night Mammoth]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

 I do not care how advanced the reapers are, or what the tecnical readouts of the galactic alliance ships are.  I do not care what lore can be cited to explain how it's impossible for us to defeat them conventionally...because new lore can be established and/or old lore hand waved away at any moment the writer wants to.
All I care about is what the story calls for.

If you have a story about a small group of rebels fighting an unstopable empire symbolized by a giant war machine, then the final battle and conclusion should follow a small group of rebels defeating and destroying that machine (ex. Star Wars).  It doesn't really matter if the way they're able to do it is a little contrived (half a dozen one man fighters against something the size of a moon...please).  As long as it fits with the themes of the story you can find a way to make it work.

The entire game is built around the idea of building a fleet of all the united races of the Galaxy as no cycle has ever done before, and this theme is highlighted over and over again.
Despite constant proclomations of their invincibility, at nearly every story beat aside from Thessia, Shepard is shown achieving a decisive victory despite all the odds stacked against him over and over and over again.
A costly but decisive victory as a result of your actions uniting the galaxy was what this story deserved as far as i'm concerned.

Starwars is legendary partially because it was told in 70s and even back then its plots were not perfect.

You are willing to overlook contrived plots as long as it fits the theme? Any contrived plots/unuplausible story destroy the narrative for me, as the first reason I was invested so much in ME was the flawless plot pregression shown in ME1 and ME2. ME2 might have digressed, but in its own it was nearly perfect. ME3 is not, and will be even worse with conventional victory over the reapers.

If it fits the narrative and the theme it isn't contrived. Fighting the Reapers conventionally works well with both of those elements.

Theme: Diversity makes us stronger when united, it allows you to overcome seemingly impossible odds.
Narrative: Gathering War Assets and creating alliances in order to defeat a common enemy. 

Add in something as perfect as ME2's sucide mission, emphasis on suicide, where your preperation before and choices during the mission build up to how well you succeed, and you have an excelent  and memorable set-up. 

They did pretty much exactly the same thing in ME3, but stripped away any sense of consequence at the end, something which have been better achieved by a conventional battle.


But you're happy with the Crucible, literally the most contrived thing I've ever seen? 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 02 avril 2012 - 07:58 .

[IntoTheDarkness]

Grasich wrote...

First off, consider what you yourself said, this cycle has been going on for millions of years, and has occured an innumerable number of times.

Looking at it from a statistic point of view, it's impossible to win regardless of how you try.

However, this is a game. Also, as others have pointed out, we have a number of advantages that others didn't have. Thannix cannons (taken from sovereign), diversity, stopped their use of the Citadel, stayed organized, retained control of the Relays, and had COMMANDER SHEPARD.

So I would say conventional means (If you call Thannix Cannons, a united Galaxy, and Cains conventional) are definitely enough to win. Especially if they let us chuck a few Relays at the Reapers.

Only if reapers are actually not as smart as they claim to be. They must have calculated the capability of the organic species in any circumstances if they want to 'endure' millions of cycles as Soveregin says.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Grasich wrote...

First off, consider what you yourself said, this cycle has been going on for millions of years, and has occured an innumerable number of times.

Looking at it from a statistic point of view, it's impossible to win regardless of how you try.

However, this is a game. Also, as others have pointed out, we have a number of advantages that others didn't have. Thannix cannons (taken from sovereign), diversity, stopped their use of the Citadel, stayed organized, retained control of the Relays, and had COMMANDER SHEPARD.

So I would say conventional means (If you call Thannix Cannons, a united Galaxy, and Cains conventional) are definitely enough to win. Especially if they let us chuck a few Relays at the Reapers.

Only if reapers are actually not as smart as they claim to be. They must have calculated the capability of the organic species in any circumstances if they want to 'endure' millions of cycles as Soveregin says.

I don't think they are.

[IntoTheDarkness]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

Sepharih wrote...

 I do not care how advanced the reapers are, or what the tecnical readouts of the galactic alliance ships are.  I do not care what lore can be cited to explain how it's impossible for us to defeat them conventionally...because new lore can be established and/or old lore hand waved away at any moment the writer wants to.
All I care about is what the story calls for.

If you have a story about a small group of rebels fighting an unstopable empire symbolized by a giant war machine, then the final battle and conclusion should follow a small group of rebels defeating and destroying that machine (ex. Star Wars).  It doesn't really matter if the way they're able to do it is a little contrived (half a dozen one man fighters against something the size of a moon...please).  As long as it fits with the themes of the story you can find a way to make it work.

The entire game is built around the idea of building a fleet of all the united races of the Galaxy as no cycle has ever done before, and this theme is highlighted over and over again.
Despite constant proclomations of their invincibility, at nearly every story beat aside from Thessia, Shepard is shown achieving a decisive victory despite all the odds stacked against him over and over and over again.
A costly but decisive victory as a result of your actions uniting the galaxy was what this story deserved as far as i'm concerned.

Starwars is legendary partially because it was told in 70s and even back then its plots were not perfect.

You are willing to overlook contrived plots as long as it fits the theme? Any contrived plots/unuplausible story destroy the narrative for me, as the first reason I was invested so much in ME was the flawless plot pregression shown in ME1 and ME2. ME2 might have digressed, but in its own it was nearly perfect. ME3 is not, and will be even worse with conventional victory over the reapers.

But you're happy with the Crucible, literally the most contrived thing I've ever seen? 

If it fits the theme, it's not contrived. 

No I'm not. I hate the crucible and the catalyst. I think BOTH the conventional victory and the superweapon are contrived. The crucible's damage is already done, though. If they come up with a new ending with conventional victory, it will double the damage.

Something more plausible and brilliant plotdevice should be used; it's their job to come out with one.

[Rafe34]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

In past cycles though, the reapers have attacked through the citadel and isolated each system. Here we have all the races united, which has probably not happened al that often. We also have the thanix cannons, and knowledge of the Repears and how to destroy them.

1. crucible plan was passed down the cycles. Do you think the secret of the citadel was kept secret when the bigger secret was passed down?

2. and 2,000 cycles is enough number to assume that there had been better circumstances than what we have now.

3. the very fact we can copy the reaper technology suggests that they are not very advanced than we are. it counterargues reaper cycle as a whole. they should have failed and got annahilated a long time ago.

Your first point makes no sense.

Your second point is refuted by this being the first time any organic has made it as far as Shepard. If it's the first time any organic made it that far, we can also say that it might be the first time we have had this good of circumstances. So your second point fails as well.

Your 3rd point is defeated by the fact that we can destroy ANY reapers.

The reapers are NOT 50,000 years more advanced than we are. If that were the case, we could not have taken down the Reapers that we did destroy. This would be a worse disparity than cavemen with sticks attacking a Star Destroyer. You not only would not destroy any of them, you wouldn't even be able to hurt them.

It is very easy to suggest a plausible way to conventionally defeat the Reapers.

The Geth turn the Reaper's own code back on them. This code wipes out the Reapers shield for a short time. The fleet cuts them to pieces during this time- Sovereign was taken down by a single Thanix Cannon shot. In the cutscene where you assault earth, a Reaper is destroyed by a Dreadnought's laser beam, doesn't even look like a Thanix Cannon to me.

And in no way, shape, or form would it be anything close to as bad as the ending we currently have.

Modifié par Rafe34, 02 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[Sepharih]

IntoTheDarkness wrote...


Starwars is legendary partially because it was told in 70s and even back then its plots were not perfect.

 
I didn't say they were perfect.

IntoTheDarkness wrote... 
You are willing to overlook contrived plots as long as it fits the theme? Any contrived plots/unuplausible story destroy the narrative for me, as the first reason I was invested so much in ME was the flawless plot pregression shown in ME1 and ME2. ME2 might have digressed, but in its own it was nearly perfect. ME3 is not, and will be even worse with conventional victory over the reapers.

Actually as far as I'm concerned, you've just proven my point, because if you don't recognize the plot contrivances in ME1 and ME2 then my only conclusion is that you don't care because they were good stories that followed their established themes.

[Stygian1]

Good argument, nice read.

But, I think your main flaw in reasoning is that you can't get over the 2,000 prior cycles. Yes, there could have been races that faced the Reapers in better straights than we did. It's logical to think that---except BioWare comes straight out and tells us that there weren't.

To put it in other words, Shepard's cycle is that cycle in the 2,000 cycles with the best circumstances going for it. It is the exception, riding the coat tails of the Protheans who seemed to have been able to fight back more proffieciantley than most other cycles. The Protheans were the crack in the side walk the Reapers tripped over, our cycle was the cement their faces landed on.

Our circumstances aren't the BEST POSSIBLE, but they are the best that have occurred, whether that's logical or not given the amount of cycles preceding us, its what BioWare keeps telling us.

Modifié par Stygian1, 02 avril 2012 - 07:56 .

[KaptainKyle]

This is why the ending was so bad, the writers made the reapers so overly-powerful and just carried on adding things that make them so astronomically powerful that they couldnt think of anyway to destroy them. So they used the one thing that makes even the toughest challenges easy..... magic!

[Gerudan]

That's why the Crucible should weaken them, so they are defeatable and not just wipe them out or control them.

[Tleining]

acrb101 wrote...

In the opening scenes, a Sovereign class Reaper is seen duking it out with a dreadnought over earth. It takes a few hits from the Reaper's main gun to destroy the dreadnought.

Exibit A:


In Mass Effect 1, Sovereign seems to destroy dreadnoughts with a single blow from his main weapon. I'd assume that upgrades in sheilds and armor allow the galaxies' dreadnoughts to withstand Reaper attacks.

no

That Reaper in ME3 is a Destroyer=smaller than Sovereign.
That Alliance Vessel is NOT a Dreadnought. A Dev confirmed that. Ash/Kaidan just needs glasses (they didn't confirm this).

In ME1 Sovereign destroys Cruisers. Unless you want to tell me that the Alliance had 4 of their 6 Dreadnoughts in the Fifth Fleet and was able to Rebuild them without a Problem two years later.