Some people are adamant against possibility of conventional victory.
However I suspect same people won't be against winning via unconventional means, but in "better" way than presented by starkid. This also could be made possible by your refusal to him.
After all - you've researched the Crucible, so there is possibility that with more research you make "Crucible 2.0" that is improved and can fire, destroying only Reapers. This actually was originally intended - to big extent it looks that you just not completed your research properly so these 3 options are best it could do. Note that with lower EMS you get even less options, because Crucible is even more unfinished.
Refusing starchild hologram, retreating (maybe even evacuating a Crucible 1.0) and using conventional warfare only to stall for some more time to do more research does not contradict implausibility of purely conventional victory.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 11 avril 2012 - 07:22 .
Every day the reapers on earth alone "process" 1.86 milion people. EdMultiply it by the number of worlds attacked... Every delay the reapers forces grow by the milions while your forces dwindle out to nothing. Telling the fleet, allready heavily engaged and mixed with reaper forces, to pack up and go home... If the fleet won't be annihilated during the retreat it will due to luck alone. the best you can hope for is losing only half the fleet and not a complete rout. Your ground forces will be annihilated without orbital support, entire divisions reduced to small geurilla groups. The reapers will regain control of the citadel and lock it down again, so good luck getting back in. In most sense, the war will be over. You gave it your best shot, but pulled your punches and you will never be able to get a better chance. Hacket tells you it's a one shot deal, and only launch the attack when you're ready, cause once your forces were committed there's no going back.
The original designers of the crucible (I still think it was the reapers, creating a mcguffin that will suck resources out of the war effort), probably weren't very interested with the survival of synthetics. But I just can't understand what kind of designer will involve a "to activate, shoot an explosive power relay" feature in his design instead of a lever.
Conventional victory is impossible, but saying no and see the reapers winning should be an option.
So the alternate ending you want is:
Shepard: this choices are unacceptable. I rather you just wipe us all out. Starchild: ok. See you in another 50k years. Logging you out. Shepard: well I may have doomed all organic life in the galaxy, but atleast I have my PRINCIPLES. Now to break the news to hacket.
Willing to die for your principals is admirable. Demanding that other people will die for your principals is despicable. Its the difference between soldiers and terrorists.
Actually if you try to rationalize it from Shepard's point of view, you quickly realize that it nothing to do with principles - it mainly about trusting this - err, what the hell is this holokid? You can only say that decision is reasonable, if you willing to break the fourth wall and think out-of-character. Sadly due to the bad quality of writing, the "proper" decision simply can't be done. That what leaves majority of players dissatisfied, even if they don't understand why exactly. Hence the link to my thread about it in the first post.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 11 avril 2012 - 12:02 .
Conventional victory is impossible, but saying no and see the reapers winning should be an option.
So the alternate ending you want is:
Shepard: this choices are unacceptable. I rather you just wipe us all out. Starchild: ok. See you in another 50k years. Logging you out. Shepard: well I may have doomed all organic life in the galaxy, but atleast I have my PRINCIPLES. Now to break the news to hacket.
Willing to die for your principals is admirable. Demanding that other people will die for your principals is despicable. Its the difference between soldiers and terrorists.
Not what I'd say, but you're pretty much right. The only way to even change the outcome is to change the ending completely, and then redesign the Catalyst.
The main problem is that the Crucible is not a Conventional weapon, besides being a MacDeus, it's a superweapon that will channel energy on the Dark Energy currents that the Relays manipulate to function. The only reason why they explode is to charge the Crucible energy and spread it. Otherwise you'd have a large bomb that only works for one area, leaving the rest of the Galaxy screwed unless you convinced the Reapers to fight each other or declare a truce.
Even detonating the Relays manually in the Reaper advance was tactically shot down, the codex has the description and reasoning.
Oh, and your chances of "hacking" the catalyst are only slightly lower than your chances of defeating the reapers using spambots...
I've tried to answer this objection in a thread about an alternate ending sketch. It's specifically tailored towards the scenario outlined there, rather than the general case of a rejection option, but I think parts of it still apply:
Sky Kid has already suggested he was changed by the completion of the Crucible. He apparently could not fight off Crucible attachment with anything more than a single indoctrinated individual seemingly untrained in firearms. We don’t totally know what the Crucible does to the Citadel, but it’s clear that it changes its abilities and functions significantly; it may well have directed total control of the Catalyst to the people who were able to implement its attachment. (The only other speculation we have on its purpose comes from the Sky Kid, who is admittedly not an impartial commentator at this point.) I think Sky Kid might well be vulnerable in his current state. This would also impede his ability to stop Shepard's sabotage and manipulation
There's more on that issue in the link.
I also tried to deal with some of the objections about whether or not a semi-conventional military response based on some form of damaging the Reapers would work, and a few other issues. I don't think any of it's conclusive, but I think it at least suggests some possible responses to various points you've made.
Every day the reapers on earth alone "process" 1.86 milion people. EdMultiply it by the number of worlds attacked... Every delay the reapers forces grow by the milions while your forces dwindle out to nothing.
1,86. Okay, I like that number, it is in a codex entry that looks like someone put some thought into it. Let’s go with it.
So every day they kill 1,86 million humans on Earth (it specifically states “on Earth”, we have no info on what they are doing everywhere else). Judging by the way it’s worded, that 1,86 are the ones that are liquefied. Earth’s population according to the wiki is 11,4 billion and at this rate in about a decade there will be no one alive left on the planet, which gives us a timeframe.
I am assuming that all that goo is needed for the new sov-class reaper, because the codex says the goo is stored in the processing ships. They don’t seem to be actually making the reaper yet. Or if they were, we weren’t told. You’d think all that intelligence reports that give precise numbers of people slaughtered per day would have picked up on a reaper-making facility.
Which brings us to the interesting question of whether they need the citadel (or something else they don’t yet have on Earth) to make the new sovereign, and the even more interesting question whether they need the citadel to make new destroyers.
Anybody seen any evidence they are making new destroyers anywhere? Serious question, I have played start to finish only once, might have missed it.
The reapers will regain control of the citadel and lock it down again, so good luck getting back in.
If I’m retreating (which I would be doing if I decided to not activate the crucible and either blow up the relay instead or simply get out and regroup) then why would I need to get back in the citadel?
The only reason I would need the citadel is for controlling the relay network. But if it still could control the relay network, the reapers would have probably started by taking it (since it’s so easy for them it doesn’t even require a cutscene) and shutting the relays down instead of landing on Earth and stomping on buildings.
Moreover, once they do take it, they still can’t shut the network down. Either that, or they are deliberately not shutting it down and waiting for the fleet and the crucible arrive at Earth.
Which would suggest the crucible is yet another reaper trap of some sort. Like almost every other piece of highly advanced technology nobody understands that was conveniently lying around. And if we, scifi nerds can see that, surely a decorated admiral like Hackett can see that it’s a possibility. That alone requires to have some kind of contingency plan, but you and the game keep trying to convince me that there was none. What, is Hackett indoctrinated now?
If anything, introducing a plan B, that Hackett did have, would fix the above listed narrative problems of the whole game, not just the ending.
Moreover, you yourself say that
The original designers of the crucible (I still think it was the reapers, creating a mcguffin that will suck resources out of the war effort)
So why then do you want to go along with the reaper plan? Why do you trust that glowing thing when it says that picking these options will stop the cycle? How do you know that it isn't part of some even bigger scheme, maybe an even bigger cycle that involves the galaxy 'beating' the reapers by pushing a reset button, then regressing into the stone age, and then more reapers come in, rebuild the relays and it all begins anew?
It's stated clearly that the Reapers can't be defeated by conventional means, and that the Crucible is their only real hope. Saying 'No' to the Star Child is essentially giving up on the whole 'saving the galaxy' thing; and just letting the Reapers win.
Sheppard is consistently portrayed as someone who just wont give up, no matter the odds; so quitting just isn't an option for him/her (and therefore wouldn't be presented as one).
Which is why an ending in which he does willingly choose meaningful resistence and eventual destruction rather than the terms of the Reapers is entirely fitting.
As Shepard continually said, this war was going to be one without sacrificing the souls of the very civilizations he was trying to protect.
Even Renegade Shepard would oppose these costly terms, and Paragon actually makes even less sense, he full well-knows that to refuse is suicide, but then Illusive Man and Saren knew resisting the Reaper's was suicide as well, that is why they attempted to submit in order to save us, and it is why when they realized the truth they choose death over the Reapers.
Demanding that other people will die for your principals is despicable.
So is demanding they submit to a fate you decide for them, which is what you're doing if you pick any of the present options.
control=enslavement of synthetics (the Geth have proven themselves just as much "people" as the Asari or Turians)
destroy=genocide of synthetics (again, Geth, and EDI is just as emotional and contemplative as them, if not more so)
synthesis=forcing a complete alteration, on a molecular level, upon every living thing in the galaxy, resulting in genetic conformity
Those that came to fight did so of their own free-will, and they only assembled because of Shepard's resolve, and an unwillingness to compromise those principles. They came willing to die because they shared those principles.
They have already made their choice to die by joining the galactic resitance, because they had trust in you to sacrifice everything but your principles.
And at the end you are willing to do exactly that, and not put trust enough in them to conduct themselves as they promised they would, because if they don't they die anyway?
They know that if any of them run---not to overuse the meme, but, if they don't hold the line---if any of them break their ranks, that that is to prolongue an inevitablity, and in this case a self-fulfilling prophecy, because by running they make those that stay weaker (they decrease morale, they decrease numbers, and they decrease firepower), and they only make themselves easier to kill. That if they ever had a chance to beat them conventioally, it would be with the entire might of the galaxy bearing down on them, strong and steady, sustaining fire until they are unable to fire, continuing the struggle until they are gutted. Because the fight ends there, either way. It's what they signed up for, and they know that.
To not hold them to their oaths, as well as tossing out all faith in them, is equally despicable.
Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 11 avril 2012 - 11:27 .
voted, wouldnt mind this but would need to see what happens to tuchanka, palaven, thessia and rannoch, the geth and quarians, the krogan and turians, the asari, did the decisions i make effect how they can rebuild. squadmates, friends and people i met, what happened to them, victory fleet? things would need to be answered
Conventional victory is impossible, but saying no and see the reapers winning should be an option.
So the alternate ending you want is:
Shepard: this choices are unacceptable. I rather you just wipe us all out. Starchild: ok. See you in another 50k years. Logging you out. Shepard: well I may have doomed all organic life in the galaxy, but atleast I have my PRINCIPLES. Now to break the news to hacket.
Willing to die for your principals is admirable. Demanding that other people will die for your principals is despicable. Its the difference between soldiers and terrorists.
Going with the Mass Relay holocaust theory, it's really debatable if letting the Reapers win would result in more deaths.
Edit: just how the whole thing looks... It's like the great wall of china. [quote]a.m.p wrote...
WARNING: Wall of text incoming
@Solmanian You do realize we are arguing based on almost zero numeric data that isn’t even supposed to be internally consistent on such deep levels? Because it’s made up. We are right now probably giving it more thought than whoever wrote this did.
My main point that I am trying to communicate in this thread is that there’s evidence to support both positions. Some of that evidence contradicts each other. There’s room for maneuver. If the writers choose so they could write in a conventional or semi-conventional victory even at this point and it will be much less of an asspull than the entire crucible plot.
Nevertheless, let’s continue because why the hell not? [/quote]
I like it. I'm feeling like we're two literary dreadnaughts, flinging walls of text at eachoder. RP ftw!
[quote]
[quote]well sure. The shenghai break the war asset system. How can a single regular cruiser be worth almost twice than a stock alliance cruiser [/quote]Khalisah al-Jilani is what breaks the war asset system. What exactly is one unit of war assets? See, when I am told that one reporter is worth 1/9 of the whole alliance sixth fleet, I dismiss this as a poorly thought through gameplay mechanic and move on.
[/quote]
It's called propoganda. A talented reporter on your side can be just as valuable as a tank division. Morale is very importent, in war it can mean if a unit will fight to the end or run without firinig a shot.
[quote]
[quote]*calculations on reaper numbers* [/quote]I honestly don’t want to make any detailed calculations based on assumptions and arbitrary numbers. My point is again, we don’t know. We don’t even know how many reapers there are in Sol when we attack. Could be argued and written either way. [/quote]
My final comment on the matter: (final space battle), look up 3:26. Can we atleast agree that there's a butload of reapers? and maybe that it was more than a match for the allied forces, as evident by the soveriegn class that was crippled from multiple dread fire and was still able to oneshot the alliance dreadnaught with is... matching their numbers just wouldn't be enough. And I'm sorry if I'm too pigheaded to accept an ending that involves pushing the "off" button on the reaper shields.
[quote] Let me start from afar. You know, one thing that is barely ever addressed is the protheans. The reapers took centuries (Vigil and Javik told us) to wipe out all of them, and that with the citadel and the relays under reaper control.
Let’s be generous and say that most part of those centuries they spent cleaning up the remaining protheans who were hiding and hoping to outwait the end of the world (see how Javik got frozen). Javik himself was born after the invasion began. He spent some part of his life actively fighting the reapers, so in his time there was still active resistance. So let’s cut that first century in half and say that it took them under 50 years (Vigil says "decades") to obliterate the prothean defenses.
[/quote] You have to remember that javik also say that this cycle is much more primitive and less technologically advanced. This is evidenced by their use of particle weaponry, which is similar to a reaper main gun (to prevent confusion: according to ME3 codex the hydromagnetic doohiky that the thanix is based off were the secondery guns situated in soveriegn's "arms". not sure if its a retcon or simply a clarification), while most warships in shepard time are still using slugthrowers. meaning a prothean warship would've been more of a match to a reaper, because their firepower was 5-10 times more powerfull than modern ships (the codex is kinda fuzzy with vast numbers variance regarding the firepower of a particle gun), hich means they could actualy penetrate the reaper barriar with relative "ease" (no need to gang up your ships on a single reaper to have an effect). Liara, and every other Npc with varied knowledge of the protheans, tells you that they haven't even scratched the surface of the prothean data caches (which are the basis for modern MEverse technology). Anderson even implies in ME1 that no significant weapon tech was extracted from the prothean data caches.
[quote]
Since you’re fluent in soviet military history, let me refer you to repurposing civilian industry to mass produce those T-34s you mentioned (because they did get destroyed in great numbers and there was always need for more, right?), evacuating whole industrial facilities from territories about to be occupied reorganizing the infrastructure for war and so on. You mean to tell me a galaxy facing annihilation didn’t try and do anything similar? Yes, I know the game tries to tell me that, but from a common sensed tank commander’s point of view, really?
[/quote]
Ofcourse you can repurpose industry, but only to a certain extent. You can turn a car factory into a tank factory, but you can't turn it into a shipyard. If the enemy destroys your drydock and shipyards, you could mount guns on civilian ships, but have a problem building a cruiser from scratch. To build spaceships, you need a spacedock. And those were definiteley priority targets, as during exploration and reading the text from planet and space debree we see that the reapers were targeting any space installations both civilian and military no matter how backward the planet were, or how deserted the system used to be. galactic ship production probaly came to a screeching halt. I don't remeber if it was official, but one CDN article was about how many ships the alliance shipyards cranked out that year, apparently it was a record or something like 1 dread, a dozen or so cruisers, a few dozens frigates and several thousands fighters. If you except those figures, than even at it's height the alliance was producing an average of a cruiser every month or so (not realy how shipbuilding works, but whatever...). If you consider the massive damage inflicted upon space based installations, I doubt the galctic community wartime industry could crank out more that a few dozen cruisers at best (and thats assuming that the surviving alian infrastructure were still vastly superior to humanity alone at her prime) in time for the battle for earth. hardly enough to have a great effect on the outcome. Javik himself says that the strategy the protheans chose, to defeat the reapers by attrition by sacrificing planets to build up their forces (classic defence in depth) was a failure because every planet that fell made the reapers stronger ("for every man who fell to the reapers we lost two men: the one who will fight them, and the one who joined on their side". A realy unaccurate qoute, just giving the gist of it.).
[quote] And you really mean to tell me that in mere months the same reapers, that took decades to kill protheans, destroyed the whole infrastructure of the whole galaxy, and that with relays and the citadel under our control? Were they lazy and less effective last time? There was absolutely nowhere to fall back to form Earth? There wasn’t a contingency plan just in case the magical device nobody-knows-what-it-does didn’t work the way they hoped it would?
Or let me rephrase that. If all of the above was written into that fourth ending I’m proposing, if we found out about a plan B that Hackett did actually have, would that make less sense than “Oh, nobody starves, and FTL travel is totally possible without relays, don’t you worry”? [/quote]
Oh, I have no doubt that those fleeing the battle would have somewhere to run to. But combined galactic opposition will never as be as powerfull as it were in that battle. And I explained above why was the prothean defence more effective. If hacket plan A relied on an alian mcguffin that they weren't sure how to even turn on, what do you think his other options were...
Also, the writers made some reasonable explainations as to why the "everyone starves, but not before the krogan conquer the sol system" is not the most probable result. But you don't realy care about that.
[quote] My point was, if they want me to believe while I first go through their game that their evil fleet is absolutely unbeatable, they should put those intimidating numbers in the game. “Shepard, they outnumber us one hundred to one and that’s just the big ones, this is more than we ever predicted”. Not “Shepard, we can not win this fight conventionally and we aren’t even going to consider it – Wait, why? – Because”.
[/quote]
Well if everyone in the galaxy, including shepard and all his friends, believe that conventional warfare is not realy an option, maybe they know what they're talking about? I could tell you I don't think the mexican army can defeat the U.S. army, because the latter has the largest defense budget in the world, is better equipped, more technologicaly advanced and more exprienced. It will be the same. In combat you try to maximize your advantages, while minimizing your disadvantages. But if the enemy is superior in every way, retreat is the only viable option. "We had six months to prepare, and they still tore through our defences in seconds". That seems relevant. We aren't talking about some space pirates; this is an army of proffesional scenery chewing super-vilains.
[quote] Evacuating the majority of the fleet before ramming the relay? In Arrival the Normandy was just fine jumping away seconds before impact. Protect the retreating forces (See Shield fleet protecting the crucible all that time we were having philosophical conversations with TIM), evacuate as many as you possibly can, ram the relay when they are about to reach it.
[/quote]
Instead of using facts (the fleets were commited to melee, as u can see dreadnaughts firing in point blank), I'll just say this: the game's moto and theme is "take earth back". Though I fully expected at the time that the choice that'll end the trilogy will be something along choosing between humanity and the alians, blowing up earth seems to defeat the game theme. Can you even imagine the convo with anderson, telling him you're sacrificing earth for an edge. Not even a definite war winning edge?
[quote]
[quote]Or they can do what every ship in ME is said to do, according to the codex, when they're about to lose a fight: jump to FTL. [/quote]That is a fair point. Therefore requires an asspull to address (didn’t say it would be genius storytelling). So let me perform one: this could be justified by claiming that whatever happens when the relay explodes also expands at FTL speed. The spacemagic from the crucible is obviously FTL, or reapers could outmaneuver it. [/quote] The crucible effect is charged by the relays, creating galaxy encompassing shockwaves, so the reapers didn't realy have anywhere to run. As for the realy explosion being FTL... since I have no real background in astronomy, I couldn't properly rebuttle this.
That's why I went and asked a bunch of astronomers.
They assured that the maximum speed of a supernova explosion can be no more than 10% of the speed of light. There were a bunch of equations, but I'm more of a mechanical engineer (not the kind in a garage) and this realy isn't my field.
[quote]
[quote]Oil metaphor [/quote]Using your oil metaphor, at the point when we presumably have the reapers retreat, oil already ran out. It is immediate danger. They could be back anytime and we need better FTL yesterday.
Let’s go back to tank history. Correct me if I’m wrong, because my knowledge of tank history is limited to books, documentaries and the Artillery Museum. The T-34, was developed in a relatively short time after previous models were considered unsatisfactory and launched into mass production spring 1940, right? As part of an ongoing campaign to prepare for an inevitable attack. Because it was immediate danger.
[/quote]
I think a more appropriate example would be Europe in the period between WWI and WWII. WWI was so traumatic, thats the common mindplace was: anything but another world war. Any concerns about the expansion of the third reich, and suggestions to oppose it were dissmissed as warmongering. Appeasement was the only appraoch. With every country hitler conquered, europe leaders hoped it will sate his hunger. Churchil was ridiculed, I imagined he didn't enjoy saying "I told you so" more than shepard.
You've met the council... What do you think are the chances of them declaring: yay, the reapers are gone, and they are NEVER coming back! time to go back to normal everybody, and concentrate on the rebuilding effort. Good thing that whole mess is behind us...
[quote] [quote]Solmanian wrote...
Every day the reapers on earth alone "process" 1.86 milion people. EdMultiply it by the number of worlds attacked... Every delay the reapers forces grow by the milions while your forces dwindle out to nothing. [/quote]
1,86. Okay, I like that number, it is in a codex entry that looks like someone put some thought into it. Let’s go with it.
So every day they kill 1,86 million humans on Earth (it specifically states “on Earth”, we have no info on what they are doing everywhere else). Judging by the way it’s worded, that 1,86 are the ones that are liquefied. Earth’s population according to the wiki is 11,4 billion and at this rate in about a decade there will be no one alive left on the planet, which gives us a timeframe.
[/quote] The codex also say that as the indoctrinated humans build more processing centers, that ratio will grow. So it's alot less than a decade.
[quote]
I am assuming that all that goo is needed for the new sov-class reaper, because the codex says the goo is stored in the processing ships. They don’t seem to be actually making the reaper yet. Or if they were, we weren’t told. You’d think all that intelligence reports that give precise numbers of people slaughtered per day would have picked up on a reaper-making facility.
Which brings us to the interesting question of whether they need the citadel (or something else they don’t yet have on Earth) to make the new sovereign, and the even more interesting question whether they need the citadel to make new destroyers.
Anybody seen any evidence they are making new destroyers anywhere? Serious question, I have played start to finish only once, might have missed it.
[/quote]
I don't think they need something special, since the collectors were allready half done with theirs. Who knows where their production facilities are? Underground? In dark space? Just because we don't know where their production facilities are located, certaily doesn't mean they only begin producing new ships after the reaping of the galaxy is over. You your self said replacing destroyed vessles is a priority of every military. In this case replacing the numerous detroyers that are lost daily in the fight against the turians.
[quote]
[quote]The reapers will regain control of the citadel and lock it down again, so good luck getting back in. [/quote] If I’m retreating (which I would be doing if I decided to not activate the crucible and either blow up the relay instead or simply get out and regroup) then why would I need to get back in the citadel?
[/quote]
I was replying to ingvarr suggestion, of calling a retreat after meeting the starchild. A retreat meant for the redesign of a new crucible, a technology that nobody realy understand, and was done by working on a manual written by hundreds (thousands?) of different coltures. Just how much don't they understand the crucible? Wellllll... Just look at the design of the chamber: You have unshielded power relay on the outer part of a piece of hardware that suppose to be in the middle of a massive space combat. You have an open current, where anyone can go and electrecute himself. And ofcourse a giant energy beam in the middle of the room, with no safety rails in sight. It's like it came from the designers of the death star... If the alliance had a decent safety inspector on board, those three choices wouldn't even be applicable (Shepard shoots the power relay until he runs out of ammo, but nothing happens. He tries to control the reapers using the pads, but nothing happens. He than try to jump into the energy beam, but he's deflected by emergency barriars. He then goes back to the starchild and ask: "Ok. that didn't work. What else you got?".
I can't believe I spent 5 hours writing this post... Must not sleep before posting...
@BKnight refusing to sacrifice a part, will only means sacrificing everyone. In war people die, I lost friends in combat so I know just how hard it hits. As a soldier and leader your aspiration is that the number that die on your side is the minimal amount possible. Unfortunatly, sometimes there isn't a "right" choice, and you have to choose which choice is the lesser evil. But refusing the choice, prefering the entire anihilation of not only your squad, but your entire army, your home and all your allies? How can you even justify it? The choice to commit galactic suicide, and making every sacrifice your allies and friends made just to bring you to that point, utterly meaningless? Basicaly spitting in the faces of the bilions who died because of your ego? If anderson was there, he would take turns with hacket in slapping the stupid from your face, and than wrex would headbutt you. I'm imagining a scene like that epidoe of futurama, where your ME1-3 squadies take turns kicking you. I you truly believe in that option, I want you to write me how you think your dialogue with hacket would go, when you tell him that you decided it's best if everyone simply died.
p.s. sorry if I seem overly emotional and offensive, but as a soldier that bled for the defense of his countrymen, I'm personally ofended.
Assuming each cycle produces a maximum of 1 Sovereign class and 3 destroyer class (this limit is arbitrarily placed), there may be upwards of 20,000 Sovereign class Reapers and 60,000 destroyers.
Of course, if each cycle produces more than one Sovereign, then that number could balloon even more. Basically there are enough Reapers to "darken the sky of every world".
We know the Reapers are at least 1 billion years old, and we know it takes tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands, but was it really hundreds of thousands of humans that went missing during ME2? That seems a bit high) to make about half of a Sovereign class Reaper. So lets be generous and bump it up to 5 million to make a full Reaper, because hey why not. That means harvesting 11 billion Humans on Earth would make 2200 Sovereign class Reapers.
Lets say each cycle only managed to harvest 1 billion species, that means each cycle would produce 200 Sovereign class Reapers, that would mean there's 200 billion Sovereign class Reapers.
We also know that the Destroyers "in astounding numbers, make up the bulk of the Reaper fleet" so lets just times them by 3. That's 600 billion Destroyers.
That doesn't count all the Oculus, which I presume are made from the materials from the destroyed ships(?)
Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 12 avril 2012 - 12:48 .
@BKnight refusing to sacrifice a part, will only means sacrificing everyone. In war people die, I lost friends in combat so I know just how hard it hits. As a soldier and leader your aspiration is that the number that die on your side is the minimal amount possible. Unfortunatly, sometimes there isn't a "right" choice, and you have to choose which choice is the lesser evil.
So why can't the OPTION of refusing be in the game? Given the choice, I see a refuse option as the lesser evil. We have a difference of opinion. In your game, you can pick one of the options given to you by the Catalyst, and in my game I can refuse.
What I do in my game would have no effect on yours. That's all we're asking for.
But refusing the choice, prefering the entire anihilation of not only your squad, but your entire army, your home and all your allies?
Your characterisation of the battle is that they're throwing themselves off cliffs by fighting an oppressor, when they are slamming themselves into walls. The difference is that with enough force a wall can be toppled. By virtue of so many being assembled, I think the wall looks formidable, but not invincible.
You would have them not even try. If one succumbs to despair, you make any action is futile.
How can you even justify it? The choice to commit galactic suicide, and making every sacrifice your allies and friends made just to bring you to that point, utterly meaningless? Basicaly spitting in the faces of the bilions who died because of your ego?
You are flexing your ego just as much or more so by making others submit to your will, predicated by whichever of the choices presented to you (currently) in-game---the subjugation of a race, the destruction of a race, or the forced assimilation between two races. So either you play dictator, you play holocaust mastermind, or you do what the Protheans did and make a decision on behalf of the entire galaxy to make them genetically conform into a singular race, which, again the last surviving Prothean laments.
And the current endings render past sacrifices meaningless, simply because of the Relays' destruction---which, it can and has been argued, does more damage to the galaxy than the Reapers would have anyway---but even if that were not the case (cause now, apparently, the Relays exploded differently, somehow) you render the sacrifice of Legion meaningless by destroying, enslaving, or coërcively merging with his race.
You spit in his face, on his memory, by betraying his ideology---that all life should self-determinate.
If anderson was there, he would take turns with hacket in slapping the stupid from your face, and than wrex would headbutt you.
a) If Wrex were there he would have said something to the effect of "Enough of this sh!t" and shot the Catalyst in its face. You forget krogan character. They wish to fight. They want to die in combat. Remember Grunt, charged into a room full of Rachni alone. . . and came out alive.
If Anderson or Hackett were there, I would urge them to not lose faith in the ability of the armies gathered.
If the comm worked, I would radio Hackett, tell him the Crucible is a no-go, and let him decide what to do with the armada. I bet you anything he rallies the forces present and gives the Reapers everything the galaxy had.
I would not make others submit to a fate I determined for them---which is what I would be doing in choosing any of the options presented. That only serves to a) submit to the predetermined will of the Catalyst (as I mentioned in my original post on this thread) and turn me into the very thing I am resisting.
I also think it's interesting that you give more credence to the words of a hologram you just met---especially after all your experience with all manner of malicious AIs---than you would to the ability of those who ralied behind you, because they believed in your resolve.
And again, like in ME2, everyone knew what the mission was. Everyone knew it was a losing situation, and everyone accepted that they might not come back.
Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 12 avril 2012 - 04:29 .
So why can't the OPTION of refusing be in the game? Given the choice, I see a refuse option as the lesser evil. We have a difference of opinion. In your game, you can pick one of the options given to you by the Catalyst, and in my game I can refuse.
What I do in my game would have no effect on yours. That's all we're asking for.
You would lose. If you've listened to anything in the 3 games you'd know that.
Heck even read the sums just above you, that shows the power of the Reapers.
Overcoming impossible odds has been a theme throughout the three games. If you payed attention to anything that happened in them, you'd know that.
Still, I don't see why such an option should not be present. It isn't included at the expense of those currently there, and as such has no effect upon the present options. Those that wish to choose them are still free to do so.
And if you are correct, then what's the problem with me making the choice and having a(nother) sad or bittersweet ending---especially when it makes sense? It's starting to seem as though the people crying "Futility!" are the ones who want a happy(er) ending.
Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 12 avril 2012 - 04:13 .
You would lose. If you've listened to anything in the 3 games you'd know that.
Heck even read the sums just above you, that shows the power of the Reapers.
Overcoming impossible odds has been a theme throughout the three games. If you payed attention to anything that happened in them, you'd know that.
Still, I don't see why such an option should not be present. It isn't included at the expense of those currently there, and as such has no effect upon the present options. Those that wish to choose them are still free to do so.
And if you are correct, then what's the problem with me making the choice and having a(nother) sad or bittersweet ending---especially when it makes sense? It's starting to seem as though the people crying "Futility!" are the ones who want a happy(er) ending.
Weird I always thought making hard decisions was the theme throughout the series. I must've not been paying attention or something then.
And anyway a happy ending, one where everything is perfect and the Citadel is fine and the Relays are fine and Shepard lives and his squad lives, would undermine every other ending, as it'd make every ending bar that one suck.
That would go against the theme of the series where you have to make a hard decisions. That's not a hard decision, that's an easy one.
Not only that, if it was achieved by anything other than the Crucible it'd be even worse.
Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 12 avril 2012 - 04:53 .
And anyway a happy ending, one where everything is perfect and the Citadel is fine and the Relays are fine and Shepard lives and his squad lives, would undermine every other ending, as it'd make every ending bar that one suck.
That would go against the theme of the series where you have to make a hard decisions. That's not a hard decision, that's an easy one.
Not only that, if it was achieved by anything other than the Crucible it'd be even worse.
Curious: what do you think of alternate endings that do use the Crucible in some form, but which are costly (e.g. long, bloody war, Shepard lost, etc.) in their implications?
If you mentioned this earlier in the thread, I apologise. It's getting fairly lengthy at this point.
And anyway a happy ending, one where everything is perfect and the Citadel is fine and the Relays are fine and Shepard lives and his squad lives, would undermine every other ending, as it'd make every ending bar that one suck.
That would go against the theme of the series where you have to make a hard decisions. That's not a hard decision, that's an easy one.
Not only that, if it was achieved by anything other than the Crucible it'd be even worse.
Curious: what do you think of alternate endings that do use the Crucible in some form, but which are costly (e.g. long, bloody war, Shepard lost, etc.) in their implications?
If you mentioned this earlier in the thread, I apologise. It's getting fairly lengthy at this point.
By that do you mean if the Crucible weakened the Reapers?
Well they'd still be able to Indoctrinate people, and even weakened their losses wouldn't be as much of a hard hit to them as the losses they could make.
And anyway, if it nerfed even those aspects of them, then it's just a long version of the destroy ending. I don't see how ending haters could want that. And if it didn't destroy the relays it'd just be a longer but better version of the destroy ending, undermining the destroy ending.
And anyway a happy ending, one where everything is perfect and the Citadel is fine and the Relays are fine and Shepard lives and his squad lives, would undermine every other ending, as it'd make every ending bar that one suck.
That would go against the theme of the series where you have to make a hard decisions. That's not a hard decision, that's an easy one.
Not only that, if it was achieved by anything other than the Crucible it'd be even worse.
Umm, try thinking from the Shepard's point of view, don't break the character. Even if refusing the starchild will ultimately result in "best ending", how hell Shepard could know about it? In fact, everybody pretty much said over and over that its impossible, its pointless, etc. So how it makes it "easy decision"? Its only easy if Shepard magically can realize that he is a videogame character and look on the internet what all 4 choices will do. It's not easy for player either unless player already spoiled about what will happen in all cases after he will choose or refuse to choose.
However, I understand that if fourth ending will be ultimately the "perfect" or "better" outcome than 3 endings already present, it will make some players who accepted 3 original endings feel bad - they will think that they've been cheated since there is suddenly better choice which in practice invalidates theirs.
That's why I always proposed to make 4th outcome "not an ending" - war still continues, outcome will not be known (however, its neither gloating "Reapers will win har har har"). You simply given enough closure and decision/friends/LI epilogues in this context. And you still have hope that you will win. But you can not be sure that you will win, and what ultimate cost.
I think this type of ending does not invalidate 3 original endings making them "worse" or "pointless". Think it about this balance of like "Warden dies heroically" vs "Warden Survives" in DA:O - you could live, and "get your girl", etc, but at the cost of unknown price of bringing something even more sinister in this world.
Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 12 avril 2012 - 06:01 .
Retour en haut
If Anderson or Hackett were there, I would urge them to not lose faith in the ability of the armies gathered. 
