913 réponses à ce sujet

[a.m.p]

Solmanian wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

While I do like your idea of an uncertain future, I suspect that many of those wanting closure would be dissatisfied with such an approach, and part of my suggestion is to make the ending in the long run (hundreds of years) functionally similar to the existing ones, in case Bioware means to continue telling the story of the universe. Which requires to be able to win. So there.

For it to be functionally similar, it means no more relays. But the realays survival seems to be the main motive for most of the people who insist on a conventional victory. So what are you planning to tell them? Considering an ending where the relays aren't destroyed would never be canon.

I noted in my original post that if the rumors (originating in twitter PR) that in some endings (probably the control one) the rebuilding of the relays is completely likely, are true, that would make for a functionally similar ending. Few hundred years later relays are still around and the reapers are probably still out there somewhere. The difference would be definitely smaller than between synthesis and everything else. (still have no idea how they can possibly make a sequel now that they introduced synthesis, short of making it non-canon).

Also we, and maybe even the writers, don't know what the time frame for ME4 will be. It could be the near future, a few decades down the road, or maybe a milenia. If we choose the centuries long ending, we tie it down, forcing something in ME4 plot that should be loose for optimal development. I also think most players would like to meet their squadies in ME4, see how they turned out, maybe even recruit one or two, I personally want to meet garrus and get his "eyepatch of power". If the game will be set centuries down the line, most of them will be dead. You'll be lucky to encounter grunt the battlemaster, or liara the matriach, or maybe some of them went the javik way and went into stasis for whatever reason...

I assumed that the RGB choice among other things was there to allow to minimize the variables to import into whatever comes next and that would only work centuries down the line.

A near future sequel featuring old squadmates, even putting aside the problem of some people choosing to gift everyone with glowing green circuits, would still be near-impossible to pull off. They say they had what, several thousand variables in me3? Even if they drop everything minor that was resolved during me3, they still have an exponentially grown set of variables to implement. Because stuff happened.

And if they decide to make one version of the story canon, I imagine that would severely damage anyone's desire to meet Grunt or Garrus.

Modifié par a.m.p, 13 avril 2012 - 01:15 .

[the slynx]

a.m.p wrote...

I think having an option to have a failed attempt to fight conventionally, or maybe for a conventional victory with larger sacrifices than the sacrifices that we would get if we chose one of the three options.

That last one is exactly what I am proposing. It's not an instant victory, it's just a way to break the tide of the war. The war itself would go on for an unknown period of time, with countless more casualties and whether all reapers are eventually killed, or they at some point retreat, there will never be a certainty that there aren't more out there. Some of the proposed scenarios on the first page include Shepard themselves having to die. Some people say it should cost us our squad. The price is up for debate.

As you know, I definitely agree that the consequences of a refusal option, even with some unconventional use of the Crucible/Citadel, should be significant. This sort of a victory may not be impossible, but it shouldn't be easy.

I'm really curious why so many people focus the costs on the Normandy crew, which is such a tiny sliver of the galactic community as to be inconsequential.

Is that just as an emotional reminder of the cost of the action? What's the equivalence people draw between billions of deaths across years of fighting, and, you know, Garrus bites it? Personally, I'd toss Garrus out an airlock if I thought it would defeat the Reapers, and I rather like the guy. (Which is I guess what Somanian was referring to earlier.)

As to your point on the next page about the endings minimising the variance, I recall some senior BioWare designer suggesting further ME games would take place before, rather than after the events of ME3. Personally, I'd prefer it that way, but I know that's not a unviersal opinion. My favorite Halo games were the ones outside the main story arc, too. (And as much as I love BioWare's storytelling for its immersion, all designers should look at the narrative structure and endings of Reach and ODST to get some inspiration.)

Solmanian wrote...

The idea that the reapers came with an ultra elaborate
scheme, just so they could give shepard 3 ways to kill himself is more
than paranoid. If you don't think the catalyst is simply trying to kill
shepard but is trying to use the crucible in some master plan that win
the war for the reapers: why would they need shepard for it? there realy
isn't anything he can do that they can't send some indoctrinated fellow
like TIM to do for them...

I don't think the notion is (or should be) that the Reapers came up with this elaborate scheme to get Shepard to choose for them, although given how confused the final moments are (how lightly guarded the transport beam is, the absurd elevator moment, etc.), I think you can forgive people for thinking this. I think it's more likely the Reapers are trying to make do with a bad situation. They (somehow) failed to stop the attachment of the Crucible, and are left in an awkward position. Sky Kid says the attachment has changed what he's capable of, which may well be an admission that his functions haven't so much been expanded as compromised. (Remember, he says he himself can't engender one of the three choices he presents.) Perhaps he doesn't kill Shepard because he no longer can. (Or because the writers weren't sure how to plug that convenient plot hole.)

Regardless, from what Shepard's heard, I think from his perspective it makes sense to maintain doubt about the veracity of Sky Kid's claims, or about whether or not the entire truth is being imparted, regardless of how convoluted a trap it may be. Shepard has no indication that Sky Kid is compelled to be truthful at this juncture. The Reapers have never been helpful to this point, and have used just about any tactic they could to defeat him. A Shepard who isn't wary at that point probably wouldn't make it past the first half of ME1.

If we do accept Sky Kid's talk, he makes the point that the Illusive Man would be incapable of performing any of the choices because he's already being controlled. That's an interesting detail that gets no explication. Why wouldn't he be able to? Some sort of security function similar to indoctrination detection, like Prothean VIs? Does the device somehow measure intentions? (That last point reminds me of China Mieville's Embassytown.)

[a.m.p]

torudoom wrote...

If we do accept Sky Kid's talk, he makes the point that the Illusive Man would be incapable of performing any of the choices because he's already being controlled. That's an interesting detail that gets no explication. Why wouldn't he be able to? Some sort of security function similar to indoctrination detection, like Prothean VIs? Does the device somehow measure intentions? (That last point reminds me of China Mieville's Embassytown.)

*Wild speculation mode on*
That just brought me to an interesting question. The codex entry on harvesting tells how humans are put into camps and sorted into suitable and unsuitable for reaper-making. The suitable ones are processed, the rest are either disposed of, huskified or indoctrinated and planted back into the camps. Indoctrinated only after being rejected.

So... indoctrinated individuals can't be used for reaper-making?

Which brings us to another question. Is the, let's call it indoctrination field, something the reaper conciously controls? Or does it just happen to everyone in range and he only gives the specific directions to his thralls? The derelict reaper was probably not conscious, but the field was still there and without specific directions it drove cerberus staff insane. In Arrival on the other hand, people were presumably getting specific instructions from good old Harbinger through object Rho and were very focused and active.

If the two above ideas are true, that makes for some interesting reaping tactics on species they mean to turn into reapers and could explain why there were still sane survivors on earth months later. They didn't want to spoli their human goo supply.

*Wild speculation mode off*

[the slynx]

a.m.p wrote...

*Wild speculation mode on*
That just brought me to an interesting question. The codex entry on harvesting tells how humans are put into camps and sorted into suitable and unsuitable for reaper-making. The suitable ones are processed, the rest are either disposed of, huskified or indoctrinated and planted back into the camps. Indoctrinated only after being rejected.

So... indoctrinated individuals can't be used for reaper-making?

Which brings us to another question. Is the, let's call it indoctrination field, something the reaper conciously controls? Or does it just happen to everyone in range and he only gives the specific directions to his thralls? The derelict reaper was probably not conscious, but the field was still there and without specific directions it drove cerberus staff insane. In Arrival on the other hand, people were presumably getting specific instructions from good old Harbinger through object Rho and were very focused and active.

If the two above ideas are true, that makes for some interesting reaping tactics on species they mean to turn into reapers and could explain why there were still sane survivors on earth months later. They didn't want to spoli their human goo supply.

*Wild speculation mode off*

The more I try to tease out what indoctrination is, the less sense it makes to me. The mechanics by which it occurs completely elude me. I don't think there is an actual answer to any of this stuff; indoctrination should just be renamed 'ambiguous plot mechanic that does whatever.' You might recall that was a big part of why I disliked IT in the first place. 

I remember indoctheorists suggesting that the Prothean VI couldn't detect Shepard's indoctrination because he wasn't actually indoctrinated, but was undergoing the early stages of the process that led to indoctrination. And that the early stages of the process that led to indoctrination had effects that were similar to actual indoctrination (and had to, because otherwise you couldn't prove he was undergoing indoctrination via dreams and hallucinations), which clearly hadn't begun yet.

To use an analogy: you don't have cancer until you go through process that creates cancer, which has the exact same effects as cancer, but can't be detected, because it isn't cancer. It boggles the mind. (Not like HIV-AIDS, because the former's effects are markedly different from the latter's.) 

So: I officially tap out of engaging in discussions of indoctrination. Its logical contortions give me the heebie-jeebies. If I sit down and try to suss out the underlying logic, I'll be up all night, and I have to work tomorrow morning.

Anyways, sorry to derail the thread there a bit.

More to the point: have you seen any feedback from mods/developers that this stuff (not the above stuff, but thread stuff) is being processed as anything other than chatter among the tribe? I keep hoping for an indication from someone with an offical-sounding title that they're aware of our ungraceful pawing towards ending reconciliation.

[a.m.p]

@torudoom

Yeah, I'm just fooling around with strange ideas at this point.

Though you'll have to admit, indoctrination is not nearly as multifunctional a plot device as the crucible.

More to the point: have you seen any feedback from mods/developers that this stuff (not the above stuff, but thread stuff) is being processed as anything other than chatter among the tribe? I keep hoping for an indication from someone with an offical-sounding title that they're aware of our ungraceful pawing towards ending reconciliation.

I don't have a twitter account and that's where the feedback seems to be happening at the moment. As far as I can tell, nothing conclusive is going to be said until EC comes out.
Which is a very strange decision. I understand keeping quiet about the game before It's released. But back-and-forth PR about an epilogue DLC? It's not like there's some major plot twist coming, that they don't want to spoil for people.
Just .

Modifié par a.m.p, 13 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[the slynx]

a.m.p wrote...

Though you'll have to admit, indoctrination is not nearly as multifunctional a plot device as the crucible.

Argh. A browser malfunction just ate my reply when I clicked 'submit.' I'm going to rehash what I already typed, but without much effort, so this won't be too interesting.

Indoctrination and the crucible are equally indeterminate, so it's a matter of harmonious convergence, or perhaps intelligent design, that they ultimately connect via the Sky Kid and his comments. Another reason to dislike him.

I don't have a twitter account and that's where the feedback seems to be happening at the moment. As far as I can tell, nothing conclusive is going to be said until EC comes out.
Which is a very strange decision. I understand keeping quiet about the game before It's released. But back-and-forth PR about an epilogue DLC? It's not like there's some major plot twist coming, that they don't want to spoil for people.
Just .

(Joke about Twitter I can't remember, and which probably wasn't funny any way.)

That is baffling. I'd think they'd want to waylay criticism as efficiently as possible, and communication seems a reasonable way to do so. Maybe in response to backlash about BioWare 'lies?' Who knows.

Recent press releases suggest there won't be any further options, but recent unofficial comments via social networking sites suggest there may be. I'd really like to understand which it is, to know whether time spent here is worth it or not. (Any mods want to shed a light here?) If there's a possibility that another option is a viable route, I want to continue to help make the case behind it as sound as possible.  And to continue to create a reasonable, modular, defensible and adaptable scenario for it that can be plugged in with minimal effort or adaptation.

If it's not going to happen, well, I should go back to doing something else with my time.

Like toying with the Skyrim creation tools. I've gotten pretty good at making lumpy, poorly lit caves with clipping issues, non-functional navmeshes and no working exits. Or I guess I could go back to picking at that manuscript on my laptop.

Anyways, keep slogging away at those objections people present. You're doing good work here. Soon Solmanian will be online, and the two of you can compete to see whose post word count can break the forum first.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

I was just replaying various bits of ME3.
About this "Hackett knows no way we could win conventionally".

Before assault on TIM base you can ask Hackett - "What if we don't find the Catalyst info on Cerberus base?", Hackett answers - "Then we take fleets to Earth and take our chances". So he believes its not completely hopeless - otherwise why just throw everything away at fight that doomed from the start?
Though he then says "but I am sure we will find it". Just more to that "Hackett is colluding with Cerberus" conspiracy theory

Modifié par Ingvarr Stormbird, 13 avril 2012 - 04:50 .

[a.m.p]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

I was just replaying various bits of ME3.
About this "Hackett knows no way we could win conventionally".

Before assault on TIM base you can ask Hackett - "What if we don't find the Catalyst info on Cerberus base?", Hackett answers - "Then we take fleets to Earth and take our chances". So he believes its not completely hopeless - otherwise why just throw everything away at fight that doomed from the start?
Though he then says "but I am sure we will find it". Just more to that "Hackett is colluding with Cerberus" conspiracy theory

What conspiracy theory? When did that happen?

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

a.m.p wrote...

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

I was just replaying various bits of ME3.
About this "Hackett knows no way we could win conventionally".

Before assault on TIM base you can ask Hackett - "What if we don't find the Catalyst info on Cerberus base?", Hackett answers - "Then we take fleets to Earth and take our chances". So he believes its not completely hopeless - otherwise why just throw everything away at fight that doomed from the start?
Though he then says "but I am sure we will find it". Just more to that "Hackett is colluding with Cerberus" conspiracy theory

What conspiracy theory? When did that happen?

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11350202

[a.m.p]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11350202

1) Hands off Hackett, Hackett is awesome. Not his fault he was made into a "we can't win" megaphone.
...
2) Still makes more sense than the starchild.

[Ingvarr Stormbird]

To be fair, Lance Henriksen did play "intelligent villains" and very well, too

[a.m.p]

Ingvarr Stormbird wrote...

To be fair, Lance Henriksen did play "intelligent villains" and very well, too

I've just realized that Hackett actually is the third man in that very first conversation in me1, when they talk about making you a spectre and you stare out a window.
The things you learn when turning on subtitles.

Modifié par a.m.p, 13 avril 2012 - 07:36 .

[a.m.p]

More on the FTL plotter reprogramming. (My first posts here and here)

This CDN article says:

A video of the separatist group Facinus celebrating the Vallum Blast surfaced today. Footage shows noted separatist Kihilix Tanus praising pilot Vamire Squaron for his successful aiming of a private vessel and ejecting from it before it accelerated to its hyperlethal speed. The conversation implies that Squaron bypassed the ship's safety protocols by installing an improvised FTL plotter, using an archaic design no longer in service throughout Citadel space.

This is actually a major CDN storyline. Will see if there's more.

EDIT: And more there is:

Two reporters from the Sirenum Scopuli Network have attempted to re-create the scenario necessary to cause another Vallum Blast. Faking their credentials with high-resolution omni-tools, they managed to charter the private vessel MSV Zothera and fly it into orbit; there, a computer expert claims he set its coordinates for the city of Regeris but was stopped by the ship's hardcoding. "FTL plotters are all about safety, and you need a very specific skill set to bypass them," says Serus Lilix, who handled the piloting. "It's like finding a particle physicist who can also build a locomotive." Primarch Idus Valen was asked in press conference today about the incident and he praised the reporters for their work. He declined to comment on the specific differences between the reporters' tactics, those of Vamire Squaron, and the failed [Earth local date] February 23rd hijacking now attributed to Facinus, saying "I'd rather not broadcast an instruction manual on what Facinus has learned."”

Modifié par a.m.p, 14 avril 2012 - 09:43 .

[a.m.p]

Going to give it a bump so people keep voting.

[M0keys]

Just a bump to let you guys know that Grub's 7 endings are complete, and now he's working on character resolution.

[the slynx]

M0keys wrote...

Just a bump to let you guys know that Grub's 7 endings are complete, and now he's working on character resolution.

That guy's endings are enormous. How much time does he spend on this stuff?

[a.m.p]

torudoom wrote...

That guy's endings are enormous. How much time does he spend on this stuff?

A lot more than necessary, like most of us, I guess.

I've made that thread on FTL hacking that I promised to make.

[Dean_the_Young]

As to the OP, nearly twenty pages later...

No. An option to say no and predictably lose, perhaps, but not a conventional victory.

A conventional victory would defy the pressure and narrative weight of the trilogy, as well as the explicit framework set up in ME3. The Reapers don't simply out-tech us: they out number us as well in the decisive areas. The Reapers don't merely outnumber us dreadnaught for dreadnaught, but dreadnaught for fleet as well.

The whole of Sword and Shield was only going to be enough to secure the Crucible, not defeat the Reapers... who aren't even all at Earth in the first place. Consistently and repeatedly throughout the game, all the relevant military experts and especially Hacket have agreed that a conventional victory is impossible, and nothing in the end-game gives any basis to change or challenge that conclusion. Sword is enough to break open and cover a force landing on Earth, and Shield is enough to cover the Crucible for some limited time, not even together are not enough to beat a thousand Reaper dreadnaughts.


Now, does that mean an option to refuse to choose shouldn't be elaborated on? Of course not: the Crucible being destroyed could be an impressive non-conventional game over. But that ending should accept what was established... and that would be the inevitable extinction of this cycle. At best, the next cycle uncovering a copy of Liara's probes could make some hope that the next cycle just might succeed.

[the slynx]

a.m.p wrote...

A lot more than necessary, like most of us, I guess.

I've made that thread on FTL hacking that I promised to make.

Noted. Scanned it quickly; looks good. Will take a serious look at it soon, and will respond to your Reaper personality/control thoughts in the other thread in due course.

The poll results thus far: It's a little sad to me that only around 56 - 60 per cent of people think a (semi) conventional refusal option would fix the problem. 

Part of me can see their point. I was sitting there thinking about how many sore plot points and other wrinkles remain with a refusal option, and it's probably half a dozen significant ones or more, as I see it. For those who didn't like the finale, I can see not thinking this is enough to patch things up. I can see wanting a compromise from BioWare, even if it's unlikely.

And the inevitable other hand: the talk from the developers is that those scenes aren't going away, and that they're proud of them. That's a fair enough attitude from the creators. That means that if fans want to get something workable along those lines, we've got to make a few compromises too. I see the ideas being discussed here as the best chance of that. It's a bit sad these ideas haven't been able to convince more people. I wonder what the main objection is.

Also, the six per cent of people who are fine with the endings seems low to me. I suspect the people who didn't like the endings are having the most problems just leaving the series, and are disproportionately hanging around on the forum. I think if you haven't played the first two games, the endings would be less jarring and you'd be less inclined to sit down and suss out their implications, and thus, less likely to find objections.

[a.m.p]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As to the OP, nearly twenty pages later...

No. An option to say no and predictably lose, perhaps, but not a conventional victory.

A conventional victory would defy the pressure and narrative weight of the trilogy, as well as the explicit framework set up in ME3.

That is a valid argument and the only one I can not really argue against.
Thing is, it's subjective.
I and so it seems a number of other people did not really read that pressure and weight as "we are helpless before them". I can not speak for the others but I personally thought up until London that all that "we don't even know what it does" was foreshadowing for a "it's a reaper trap, you're on your own" plot twist. Because the crucible was way more convenient (and forced) than any plot device should be allowed to be.

So for me the focus, and the meaning and weight was the struggle between the entire galaxy and the force threatening the entire galaxy, not the building the wonder-weapon to save everyone by pushing a button. And while not exactly even, I never had the impression that struggle was hopeless.

But when I start looking at it objectively and analyzing the lore, I become even less convinced. To create that 'reapers are unbeatable' impression chunks of lore have to be ignored or retconned, characters have to behave like idiots and I don't even get to call them out on that in-character.

I wouldn't argue that there are some pretty good arguments against conventional victory too, but most of those are based on speculations, that are based on circumstantial evidence. Real reaper numbers? Unknown. Real allied numbers? Highly confusing. The strategic situation in the galaxy just before the fleets went to Earth? Even more confusing.

So this question is basically up to one's personal belief or disbelief in the "reapers can't be beaten" statement.

That's why a lot of people came up with a compromise between my compromise and the existing endings. To use the citadel-crucible-catalyst-reapers connection in some way to even the odds for the fleets. Lots of examples in my second post of this thread.

Would something like this destroy the pressure and weight of the trilogy for you too?

[a.m.p]

torudoom wrote...


The poll results thus far: It's a little sad to me that only around 56 - 60 per cent of people think a (semi) conventional refusal option would fix the problem. 

Part of me can see their point. I was sitting there thinking about how many sore plot points and other wrinkles remain with a refusal option, and it's probably half a dozen significant ones or more, as I see it. For those who didn't like the finale, I can see not thinking this is enough to patch things up. I can see wanting a compromise from BioWare, even if it's unlikely.

And the inevitable other hand: the talk from the developers is that those scenes aren't going away, and that they're proud of them. That's a fair enough attitude from the creators. That means that if fans want to get something workable along those lines, we've got to make a few compromises too. I see the ideas being discussed here as the best chance of that. It's a bit sad these ideas haven't been able to convince more people. I wonder what the main objection is.

Also, the six per cent of people who are fine with the endings seems low to me. I suspect the people who didn't like the endings are having the most problems just leaving the series, and are disproportionately hanging around on the forum. I think if you haven't played the first two games, the endings would be less jarring and you'd be less inclined to sit down and suss out their implications, and thus, less likely to find objections.

Near 60% is actually more than I had expected, considering how much this compromise would leave not fixed - which is basically all the really big plot holes.
I myself would obviously prefer a full rewrite, but a 'no' option is as much as I think is achievable in this situation.
As for the 6%, you're right, it's an accurate percentage among people who care enough about the series to be here and vote in polls. I consider the fact that part of them wouldn't mind this addition a very good thing.

Modifié par a.m.p, 15 avril 2012 - 02:57 .

[Dean_the_Young]

a.m.p wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

As to the OP, nearly twenty pages later...

No. An option to say no and predictably lose, perhaps, but not a conventional victory.

A conventional victory would defy the pressure and narrative weight of the trilogy, as well as the explicit framework set up in ME3.

That is a valid argument and the only one I can not really argue against.
Thing is, it's subjective.
I and so it seems a number of other people did not really read that pressure and weight as "we are helpless before them". I can not speak for the others but I personally thought up until London that all that "we don't even know what it does" was foreshadowing for a "it's a reaper trap, you're on your own" plot twist. Because the crucible was way more convenient (and forced) than any plot device should be allowed to be.

If you didn't read that, then you weren't reading between the lines. Every 'conventional' victory against the Reapers has come against individual reapers, on their own, and accompanied by unsustainable circumstances. An entire fleet for Sovereign, a one-of-a-kind Thresher Maw on Tuchanka, and an entire fleet conducting orbital bombardment to beat a single destroyer on the ground, where it is weakest.

But when I start looking at it objectively and analyzing the lore, I become even less convinced. To create that 'reapers are unbeatable' impression chunks of lore have to be ignored or retconned, characters have to behave like idiots and I don't even get to call them out on that in-character.

Not really.

I wouldn't argue that there are some pretty good arguments against conventional victory too, but most of those are based on speculations, that are based on circumstantial evidence. Real reaper numbers? Unknown. Real allied numbers? Highly confusing. The strategic situation in the galaxy just before the fleets went to Earth? Even more confusing.

The Reapers have more dreadnaughts than we have fleets and dreadnaughts. Organic dreadnaughts measure in the hundreds, not thousands. Reaper forces are complimented by many more destroyers than Dreadnaughts. Reaper attacks have paralyzed and shut down most organic colonies and logistic capabilities, while forces are being beaten back on all fronts.

So this question is basically up to one's personal belief or disbelief in the "reapers can't be beaten" statement.

Personal belief or disbelief doesn't change what is: the Reapers are wiping out colonies faster than the organics can evacuate, and the organics aren't winning any ground or space wars against the Reapers. Organic capabilities amount to slowing down the Reaper concentrations, not reversing them.

Would something like this destroy the pressure and weight of the trilogy for you too?

If you're asking 'is it contrary to the story and lore', then yes. A convention victory is contrary to setting.

[M0keys]

torudoom wrote...

M0keys wrote...

Just a bump to let you guys know that Grub's 7 endings are complete, and now he's working on character resolution.

That guy's endings are enormous. How much time does he spend on this stuff?

Lots!

[a.m.p]

Dean_the_Young wrote...
If you didn't read that, then you weren't reading between the lines. Every 'conventional' victory against the Reapers has come against individual reapers, on their own, and accompanied by unsustainable circumstances. An entire fleet for Sovereign, a one-of-a-kind Thresher Maw on Tuchanka, and an entire fleet conducting orbital bombardment to beat a single destroyer on the ground, where it is weakest.

Or I read between the other lines that stated how everything that could be equipped with thanix cannons was equipped with thanix cannons; where Hackett said that if I didn't find the info on the catalyst, we'd take our chances at Earth anyway - presumably to hit their base of operations with all those forces I've gathered; and most importantly this cycle was unique not because it was building the crucible - others did that, but because it still had control of the relay network and could actually unite and fight, and that's something that had not happened before, and my favourite prothean kept reminding me of that.

I ask you this. If the reapers are powerful enough to obliterate the defenses of the whole galaxy to a point where we've lost if we don't fire the crucible, in mere months and without access to the citadel, why did they take centuries to deal with the protheans, even though the protheans were isolated in their clusters with little to no ability to maneuver or get reinforcements?

But when I start looking at it objectively and analyzing the lore, I become even less convinced. To create that 'reapers are unbeatable' impression chunks of lore have to be ignored or retconned, characters have to behave like idiots and I don't even get to call them out on that in-character.

Not really.

Actually yes. The above fact about the protheans and this here as an example. Characters behaving like idiots - Hackett putting his trust into this piece of higly advanced technology nobody understands. Not like every other piece of advanced technology conveniently left lying around the galaxy turned out to be a reaper trap, right?

The Reapers have more dreadnaughts than we have fleets and dreadnaughts. Organic dreadnaughts measure in the hundreds, not thousands. Reaper forces are complimented by many more destroyers than Dreadnaughts.

Exactly what I'm talking about. For my argument about the protheans I have a number - at least a century.
All attempts to approximate reaper numbers are based on the age of the Leviathan of Dis (that is uncertain itself), the assumption that every 50000 years they find a species suitable for a sov-class reaper (of the two cycles we have information about one was unsuitable) and that they never before suffered significant losses (although we know that at least one civilization in the past had a gun that could one-hit kill them and damage planets in the process).

Reaper attacks have paralyzed and shut down most organic colonies and
logistic capabilities, while forces are being beaten back on all fronts.

Are they? My war assets screen claims allied forces are winning battles in key locations. Hackett is building the crucible in such a way that reapers can't find it even though they have indoctrinated spies everywhere. Just before the assault on TIM's base the situation in the galaxy is stable enough for me to go build up my legend through DLC.

If you're asking 'is it contrary to the story and lore', then yes. A convention victory is contrary to setting.

I was asking whether finding a way to weaken or disorient, but not kill the reapers by exploiting their connection to the starchild and then fighting them, weakened, with the armada you've gathered for a long period of time would still be unacceptable for you. I assume the answer is yes?

Modifié par a.m.p, 15 avril 2012 - 06:32 .

[Dean_the_Young]

a.m.p wrote...

Or I read between the other lines that stated how everything that could be equipped with thanix cannons was equipped with thanix cannons;

Which do not overcome the gap, as demonstrated in the game and told in the lore.

where Hackett said that if I didn't find the info on the catalyst, we'd take our chances at Earth anyway - presumably to hit their base of operations with all those forces I've gathered;

He also tells you repeatedly that the Reapers won't be beaten with conventional force.

'Taking chances' is not an assertion of viability, it's an act of desperation if the Crucible falls through.

and most importantly this cycle was unique not because it was building the crucible - others did that, but because it still had control of the relay network and could actually unite and fight, and that's something that had not happened before, and my favourite prothean kept reminding me of that.

It's also irrelevant in turning the course of the war, as even the Turians are unable to sustain operations, and the galactic war effort is going to suffer an economic collapse because it can't sustain itself.

The relays allow the galaxy to commit the resources for the Crucible. It hasn't turned the course of the war around.

I ask you this. If the reapers are powerful enough to obliterate the defenses of the whole galaxy to a point where we've lost if we don't fire the crucible, in mere months and without access to the citadel, why did they take centuries to deal with the protheans, even though the protheans were isolated in their clusters with little to no ability to maneuver or get reinforcements?

Liara tells you this: the Protheans were far more expansive.

Not, mind you, that the hundreds of years the Protheans held out was fierce fighting: it was mop up for the Reapers who had already won.

Actually yes. The above fact about the protheans and this here as an example. Characters behaving like idiots - Hackett putting his trust into this piece of higly advanced technology nobody understands. Not like every other piece of advanced technology conveniently left lying around the galaxy turned out to be a reaper trap, right?

That would be correct, which rather undermines your own point. Prothean beacons and archives, from which the Crucible comes from, were not Reaper traps.

Exactly what I'm talking about. For my argument about the protheans I have a number - at least a century.
All attempts to approximate reaper numbers are based on the age of the Leviathan of Dis (that is uncertain itself), the assumption that every 50000 years they find a species suitable for a sov-class reaper (of the two cycles we have information about one was unsuitable) and that they never before suffered significant losses (although we know that at least one civilization in the past had a gun that could one-hit kill them and damage planets in the process).

The Leviathan of Dis being a Reaper is canon, and as such does establish a 'no later than' time frame. No later, mind you: we know Reapers existed before it as well.

The Reapers don't need to create a Dreadnaught every cycle to outnumber us in dreadnaughts to fleets and dreadnaughts: with 20,000 cycles between Dis and now, even if a Dreadnaught-scale Reaper only came every twenty cycles, and there were no Dreadnaughts before Dis, then they'd still have a thousand Dreadnaughts alone.

There aren't a thousand organic dreadnaughts and fleets in the current galaxy. And that ignores the other Reaper ships that are formidable in their own right, what with taking the entire Migrant Fleet with special aiming assets to orbitally bombard a single Destroyer.


Now, the Klendagon Canon did exist... but it was also a last-act weapon, not a mainstay device every cycle builds, or can build. It fired only a single shot before being destroyed: it was not a feasible way to reduce Reaper numbers.

Are they?

Yup. Read the planet scans.

My war assets screen claims allied forces are winning battles in key locations. Hackett is building the crucible in such a way that reapers can't find it even though they have indoctrinated spies everywhere. Just before the assault on TIM's base the situation in the galaxy is stable enough for me to go build up my legend through DLC.

The key locations you fight for as N7 are strategic cites for holding the losing battle, not the major colonies or homeworlds. In all the major theatres, the 'best' the galaxy is doing is bogging down and slowing the Reapers: even Palaven is only holding the line.

I was asking whether finding a way to weaken or disorient, but not kill the reapers by exploiting their connection to the starchild and then fighting them, weakened, with the armada you've gathered for a long period of time would still be unacceptable for you. I assume the answer is yes?

Since there's no reason to believe the Reapers are dependent on the Star Child to function, yes.