149 réponses à ce sujet

[Cypher_CS]

huh?

[biiskit]

That was only possible because Sovereign's shields dropped after Shepard killed the Sovereign controlled Saren husk.

[MisterJB]

First of all, there is a huge difference between defeating one Reaper conventionally and defeating the entire fleet. Conventionally.

Second, Sovereign was not actually defeated conventionally. First, Shepard had to destroy its avatar where it had uploaded most of its consciousness. Somehow, that injured Sovereign's mind which lead to its shields going down. The Alliance and Council fleets seized that opportunity and destroyed it.

[MrTijger]

Uh, by wiping out a good portion of 2 Alliance fleets and drawing power away from Sovereign via the final Shepard battle, yes.

Never mind that taking out a Reaper on Rannoch takes concentrated fire from nearly the entire Quarian fleet. Also, its noted in the codex that you need 3 dreadnoughts concentrating fire on one Reaper to be able to do serious damage.

So, yeah, you might be sick of the argument but I havent found any evidence that contradicts it.

Modifié par MrTijger, 14 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[fchopin]

I wish people played the games before criticising them.

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

The Reapers simply aren't consistent. They have whatever abilities they are required to have, and whatever numbers they are required to have.

The question therefore should not be "can the Reapers be beaten conventionally" but "would a conventional victory over the reapers be a satisfying ending."

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

You all have fair points but what about the Reapers that get decimated at the beginning of the battle to take back Earth, I figure that was proof we could have ignored the crucible entirely and still won.

I appreciate I'm probably coming at this from an unusual angle, but you don't need "proof". Mass Effect is a work of fiction, the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally if the game was designed to allow the reapers to be beaten conventionally. Since the entire game is about building up your conventional military assets, I personally think it would have been a better ending.

In-character precedent is irrelavent here.

[Han Shot First]

That was one Reaper which had been temporarily stunned and lost its shields when Shepard destroyed its avatar. The Reaper fleet above Earth was massive and wasn't handicapped by the same distraction that undid Sovereign.

Reapers can be killed by conventional means. In fact depending on your EMS score you can see an a Reaper being destroyed early on in the battle with Sword. But, it takes the equivalent of the firepower three or more dreadnoughts to bring down a single Reaper dreadnought. The Reapers have a significant qualitative edge over the Council civilizations, and have sufficient numbers that when the Reaper fleet is concentrated (as it was above Earth) the civilizations of the galazy do not have a significant enough quantitative edge to offset Reaper technological superiority.

Sword was never going to outright triumph over the Reapers without the deployment of a superweapon. The best it could hope for was causing enough damage and buying enough time for Hammer to do its job, and for the Crucible to fire.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 avril 2012 - 05:19 .

[kalle90]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...
The question therefore should not be "can the Reapers be beaten conventionally" but "would a conventional victory over the reapers be a satisfying ending."

Well it is a pretty good image that Reapers and Shepard's ships go head to head, they approach each other firing and then BANG! Reapers are dead and Shepard's troops won, credits roll. Unless you have too little war assets in which case Reapers win and credits roll.

I rather take the current ending and that's saying something.

[Kalas82]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

 Please explain to me what the hell this is then! BEATEN CONVENTIONALLY

The funny part bout that statement is that some folks accept a space-magic-wand (crucible), without any logic attached to it, and  Space-God (without any logic attached to it) but get into nerd-rage-mode as soon as someone trys to tell them that "beaten conventionally" might make a little bit more sense..and would`ve been lightyears away from the ridiculous stuff we see atm. in the game.
Feels sometimes like talking to one of those religious-fundamentalists lalalalalalogicwhatnamesolalalalalasensebahlalalalaidonthearyoulalalalaimalwaysrightlalalalalabutitswritteninmyfunnybooklalalala

[fchopin]

Obi-Wan Old Ben Kenobi wrote...

fchopin wrote...

I wish people played the games before criticising them.

I have, I was going to use the battle in Space as an example but then it wouldn't be clear as to what  I was refering to.

Also: making assumptions is one of the most dangerous things you can do, on any subject. 

How can you not know that the shields were down if you played the game?
 
It is even shown in cinematics.

[crazyrabbits]

MisterJB wrote...

First of all, there is a huge difference between defeating one Reaper conventionally and defeating the entire fleet. Conventionally.

There's also a difference between two Alliance fleets taking on one Reaper, and conceivably every single fleet in the galaxy (including some with upgraded weapons engineered from the aforementioned Alliance-Reaper battle) taking on multiple Reapers.

[Han Shot First]

Mass Effect is a work of fiction, the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally if the game was designed to allow the reapers to be beaten conventionally. Since the entire game is about building up your conventional military assets, I personally think it would have been a better ending.

The writers could have gone for that angle, and it might have worked.

But in order to have the Citadel civilizations defeat the Reapers conventionally, Mass Effect 2 would have had to have been a very different game. They'd have to have the Citadel civilizations narrow the technological gap between their fleets and the Reapers in that game, as Mass Effect 3 would have been too late for that. Even if Shepard recovered Reaper tech in ME3, the Citadel fleets would not have been able to go into drydock and upgrade their hulls, shielding and weaponry while the Reapers were in the process of invading. Upgrades would be time consuming and while in drydock the ships would be vulnerable, and a prime target for the Reapers. Shipyards would be among the first targets hit in an invasion.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 avril 2012 - 05:29 .

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

Han Shot First wrote...

Mass Effect is a work of fiction, the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally if the game was designed to allow the reapers to be beaten conventionally. Since the entire game is about building up your conventional military assets, I personally think it would have been a better ending.

The writers could have gone for that angle, and it might have worked.

But in order to have the Citadel civilizations defeat the Reapers conventionally, Mass Effect 2 would have had to have been a very different game. They'd have to have the Citadel civilizations narrow the technological gap between their fleets and the Reapers in that game, as Mass Effect 3 would have been too late for that. Even if Shepard recovered Reaper tech in ME3, the Citadel fleets would not have been able to go into drydock and upgrade their hulls, shielding and weaponry while the Reapers were in the process of invading. Upgrades would be time consuming and while in drydock the ships would be vulnerable, and a prime target for the Reapers. Shipyards would be among the first targets hit in an invasion.

I confess my ME lore is spotty, but I'm not sure how you go from "the Reapers have superior technology" to "the only way to defeat the reapers is to develop technology equivalent to theirs."

I mean in ME3 a Reaper is killed by a *thresher maw*. A purely organic creature with no weapons beyond those it evolved naturally. There is no scientifically plausible way that reapers can be vulnerable to animal attacks but impervious to starship weapons.

[Melra]

They can't be beaten conventionally. Sorry these are not the synthetics your'e looking for.

[Overule]

Thoughts_My_Aim wrote...

The Reapers simply aren't consistent. They have whatever abilities they are required to have, and whatever numbers they are required to have.

The question therefore should not be "can the Reapers be beaten conventionally" but "would a conventional victory over the reapers be a satisfying ending."

This. The Reapers could be pretty easily renamed "The Antagonists" at this point. Or not, seeing as how they were apparently secretly benevolent all along. Go go Casey Hudson's artistic sensibilities!

[DxWill103]

I thought it was pretty much established Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionally since ME1. If they could, I don't think they would have been able to successfully harvest civilizations for millions of years without fail

[Thoughts_My_Aim]

DxWill103 wrote...

I thought it was pretty much established Reapers couldn't be defeated conventionally since ME1. If they could, I don't think they would have been able to successfully harvest civilizations for millions of years without fail

By that logic, it shouldn't be possible to defeat them *at all*.

Assuming your protagonist is at some point required to defeat your villains, portraying those villains as undefeatable is just silly. You wind up painting yourself into a corner which you can only paint yourself out of using some very tenuous plot devices.

[AlexMBrennan]

All the examples are cases where allied forces are able to take down a Reaper with overwhelming force (one Reaper vs an entire fleet). And whilst some people have argued that it should be possible (e.g. by ramming at FTL speed), you are told at very nearly every point that conventional victory is impossible. That means that the writers have provided insufficient hand-waving, and not that conventional victory is possible.

[Menethra]

biiskit wrote...

That was only possible because Sovereign's shields dropped after Shepard killed the Sovereign controlled Saren husk.

Yep he's spot on. The barriers dropped once the saren husk died.

[SalsaDMA]

Han Shot First wrote...

Mass Effect is a work of fiction, the fleet could have defeated the reapers conventionally if the game was designed to allow the reapers to be beaten conventionally. Since the entire game is about building up your conventional military assets, I personally think it would have been a better ending.

The writers could have gone for that angle, and it might have worked.

But in order to have the Citadel civilizations defeat the Reapers conventionally, Mass Effect 2 would have had to have been a very different game. They'd have to have the Citadel civilizations narrow the technological gap between their fleets and the Reapers in that game, as Mass Effect 3 would have been too late for that. Even if Shepard recovered Reaper tech in ME3, the Citadel fleets would not have been able to go into drydock and upgrade their hulls, shielding and weaponry while the Reapers were in the process of invading. Upgrades would be time consuming and while in drydock the ships would be vulnerable, and a prime target for the Reapers. Shipyards would be among the first targets hit in an invasion.

Upgrades done to the SR-2 during ME2 were partly based on reaper tech. I can't imagine Shepard getting his ship upgraded, by his own funds, as happening while every space navy ignores the same technological breakthroughs. So Sheps ship isn't the only one receiving upgrades between ME1 and ME3. Also, regarding ME1 citadel battle, people shouldn't forget the Geth fleet assisting Sovy either, nor the element of surprise they had while being an unknown enemy with the allied races having litterally zero info on their advesories capabilities/structural-designs etc.