5087 réponses à ce sujet

[delta_vee]

Except wouldn't the natural renegade tendency be towards Control, if it were sufficiently established as possible?

Edit: oh, fer cryin out loud!

Modifié par delta_vee, 01 juin 2012 - 12:31 .

[Jorji Costava]

I think the reason the Geth were tacked on to destroy was in order to fit with their take on the singularity. The writers actually wanted us to believe that the inevitable conflict with synthetics was a legitimate issue. "If you destroy the Reapers without destroying all synthetic life, how will you prevent the synthetics that currently exist from wiping out all organic life?" To my ears, this question is as silly as asking "If ancient aliens didn't exist, then how did they build everything?", but I believe the writers' intent was to get us to really be on board with the singularity idea.

[delta_vee]

And that, to my eyes, is another symptom of the dissonance caused by that fundamental decision to alter the central conflict in the final minutes - a decision I still cannot wrap my head around, no matter how much I pick the game apart.

[Taboo]

Patrick Weekes believes that Control is in line with what the Illusive Man wanted (SHOCKING).

I've never really seen the Illusive Man as a benefactor to anyone. In fact he reminds me of something I would have read in an Ayn Rand novel. It's really all about him.

[drayfish]

Wow. That was some trippy synchronicity. I was just typing the name 'Italo Calvino' into the tedious post that I'm planning to inflict upon you all momentarily, refreshed the page of this thread, and saw that his very name was referenced by CulturalGeekGirl... I'm hesitant to add too much more to the Indoctrination Theory speak (them's perilous waters and my fading Santa Claus-style hope has already dwindled so) but I'm starting to think this thread at least has some kind of mainline to my subconscious if not Shepard's: The Princess Bride (hilarious, Hawk227); Harbinger waiting for an Egg McMuffin (wonderful, KitaSaturnyne); Shepard as a moth (...okay, I've never thought of that before ed87, but I like it).
 
You make a nice point osbornep – there is something extra-specially repugnant about the specificity of the sacrifice we're compelled to make in the Destroy ending. Whether in the guise of IT or cold hard reality we have to weigh the validity one life against the other and verify one more worthy than the other. We become the Reapers ourselves. At no point can that be a winning scenario.
 
I actually don't mind the idea of the destruction of Earth being the price to pay, for much the same reasons as have already been expressed. Having there be a price, without it being so overtly a 'Sophie's Choice', allows the ending to have an ominous weight, but not one soured by racism. And in such a case I would find a nice irony to the whole 'Take Back Earth' tagline that's been propelling us forward (and that currently seems ground into the dirt in the nihilistic ends we have). 
 
The destruction of Earth would be emblematic of our (I hesitate to use the word, but:) outgrowing our traditional notions of home and identity. The planet would be a cradle from which we have emerged, ready to stretch ourselves out into the stars.

Modifié par drayfish, 01 juin 2012 - 11:20 .

[frypan]

Its been a lively thread the last day or so. Both synthesis and IT have reared their problemtic heads again. Nice to see we are back onto something I can wrap my head around. Like Drayfish though, I find myself actually more willing to choose Green thanks to CultureGeekGirl, purely on a the ground it is the least upleasant. Kinda like jumping out a window during a fire - without knowing which floor you are on. Could be good, could be very bad, but its better than the other options.

Unless of course your crewmates turn up to put the fire out first. Garrus in a fireman outfit might make a few folks swoon though...

With the ending established as fundamentally broken, how do people  feel about the idea that the third game should be viewed as an ending, something put forth by one of the devs at least. Putting aside the issue of newcomers being thrown in medias res, I'm thinking more of the third game as the final chapter or act. This is someting we havent really touched on in this thread, but it has immense significance for how discordant or superflous we view the ending.

In some ways, I find ME3 as a third act is an idea that deals with other issues with the game, even if it doesnt fix everything. A case in point is the exploration and conversations. Having come off a playthrough of the first two games, I actually started skipping planet descriptions in ME3, especially as some planets were the same as ME2. Similarly, lesser conversations worked for me as there was less requirement for exposition - the world was laid out and now we were fighting through it for what we cared about.
 
I still have an issue with the way conversations were presented, and believe that there should have been more opportunity to experience through conversation the effects of the war, but in general, viewing the game as a third act allowed more focus on action, even if that action needed to have more meaning inherent to the themes of games.

I may get myself garroted for saying that in retrospect I liked this, but must state it only applies when viewing the three games together. It might be worth gettting the opinions of people more knoweldgable on the tripartite structure of film and the like though. More traditional structural issues like a ring cycle dont really apply or have to be shoehorned in clumsily in my opinion, so I am not aware how much of this exposition vs action should apply to the third act.

EDIT: eargh, the destruction topic is still live,. Should stay relevant, so I might bring this one up later.

Applying relevance to post..."destruction of geth is bad, mkay."

Modifié par frypan, 01 juin 2012 - 01:28 .

[delta_vee]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I've never really seen the Illusive Man as a benefactor to anyone. In fact he reminds me of something I would have read in an Ayn Rand novel. It's really all about him.

That, I think, is mostly an outgrowth of the forced descent into unadulterated villainy imposed on TIM in ME3. I suspect it was justification for fighting Cerberus all the time, which in turn I suspect was driven by a desire for variety in enemies. Still, it undid so much hard work done in ME2 to give his character a measure of nuance. We weren't allowed to agree with him at all, to any degree, in the third game - which leads to the cognitive dissonance around and suspicion of the control option at the end (which wouldn't be so immediately rejected circa ME2, I think).

drayfish wrote...

The destruction of Earth would be emblematic of our (I hesitate to use the word, but:) outgrowing our traditional notions of home and identity. The planet would be a cradle from which we have emerged, ready to stretch ourselves out into the stars.

Poetic as that sounds, it could only achieve that tone if the destruction were a gradual one, a la Robots and Empire. Destroying Earth at a stroke would still be a holocaust, and leave no room for anything but grief.

Imagine if the price of Destroy were to inflict upon Sol what was done to Haestrom's star? Humanity would be required to evacuate, but on a pace which wouldn't necessarily kill billions - and you'd be at the mercy of the rest of the galaxy, which might make those previous Council decisions worth something...

frypan wrote...

With the ending established as fundamentally broken, how do people feel about the idea that the third game should be viewed as an ending, something put forth by one of the devs at least. Putting aside the issue of newcomers being thrown in medias res, I'm thinking more of the third game as the final chapter or act. This is someting we havent really touched on in this thread, but it has immense significance for how discordant or superflous we view the ending.

In short, I think that view only works if the relays didn't explode. That feeling of all the player's hard work at making peace (or at least securing temporary allies) was undone at a stroke.

It's quite common to begin tying off loose ends before the climax of the primary plot, especially in larger works with a great number of subplots. Some are left for epilogues and codas, but I find the jeopardy inherent to most climaxes often encourages a certain proportion of the protagonist's outstanding concerns are addressed beforehand. And leaving too many threads to be addressed in the climax often makes for a convoluted, unwieldy mess (my one real complaint with Perdido Street Station, for example).

Until the madness of the Ten Minutes, this was seemingly the route ME3 was taking, most notably with the FOB conversations. These were a way to give codas to each character's personal storyline, so that Shepard would be (relatively) unfettered when it came time for the expected (or at least suspected) sacrifice. Cue Starbrat, cue freakout, cue relays going boom and all our efforts turned to ash.

Modifié par delta_vee, 01 juin 2012 - 01:47 .

[edisnooM]

@frypan

I have heard that idea proposed before, and I don't there is anything wrong with you liking it. Personally I think that there were endings throughout ME3, Conrad Verner's story had an end (if he was alive), the Genophage story had an end, etc, so it is true to an extent that the game was an ending.

But one of my problems with the idea put forward that it is one giant ending is it makes the Crucible that much worse. It means that we don't just get the surprise super weapon in the beginning of the final game, apparently we get it during the end of the story.

I feel like if they wanted to go this way, ME2 should have ended with them having the super weapon plans and have all the players established on the field, and the final game should have been wrapping everything up instead introducing new things into the mix.

Anyway it's just my opinion, there's really no need to go spreading it around. :-)

[frypan]

delta_vee wrote...

SNIP - although there is some stuff in the destruction of Earth that relates to the third game as a third act/

It's quite common to begin tying off loose ends before the climax of the primary plot, especially in larger works with a great number of subplots. Some are left for epilogues and codas, but I find the jeopardy inherent to most climaxes often encourages a certain proportion of the protagonist's outstanding concerns are addressed beforehand. And leaving too many threads to be addressed in the climax often makes for a convoluted, unwieldy mess (my one real complaint with Perdido Street Station, for example).

Until the madness of the Ten Minutes, this was seemingly the route ME3 was taking, most notably with the FOB conversations. These were a way to give codas to each character's personal storyline, so that Shepard would be (relatively) unfettered when it came time for the expected (or at least suspected) sacrifice. Cue Starbrat, cue freakout, cue relays going boom and all our efforts turned to ash.

I was mainly trying to limit myself to the issue of pacing and exposition, as the plot issues are even more important and in have also been discussed. I think you nailed it correctly, plot-wise, when stating that the ending was about Shepherd vs Reapers, and any extraneous developments with geth, synthetics, or even the destruction of Earth are simply unnecessary.

This is the issue with the destruction of the Earth, particularly when examining the Earth as part of a trilogy. For two games, it didnt even figure except for serving as a wonderful view in the Luna mission - so eloquently described by Drayfish. It is already marginalised, and only brought to the fore in the third game - almost, I feel, because the devs felt  newcomers needed that hook to become interested. Making its fate somehow central to the conclusion is a odd as synthesis, at least when viewing the game in the context of all three.

If it must be used, the destruction would be best to just happen no matter what Shepherd does - a symbol of humanity casting off the old and embracing the new - and validation of minor issues such as humanity aggressively expanding through the marginal reions of space. We in effect become those creatures of the stars, unique among the races of the galaxy for having no home.

EDIT Marker's note - citation of Drayfish post required here. Marks deducted. 

Of course, with no relays that too is largely stuffed.

The key though is that Earth doesnt matter, and the centrality it plays in ME3 creates a thematic disjunction with the other two games. Even in the current game format this is a problem, as suddenly the game centres around this planet that has no central location in the game - we even have the bizarre removal of the citadel to its environs.

As an aside, maybe this is why we find the idea of destroying Earth less distressing than killing the Geth. We already left Earth behind, so the loss is no real loss. This also explains some feelings I had about the final battle in London. We've seen the Citadel, Omega, and al those beautiful exotic worlds. The wreckage of Big Ben feels so small and insignificant and after all that, a relic of a past that was once important, but is now just that, a relic.

Modifié par frypan, 01 juin 2012 - 04:00 .

[frypan]

edisnooM wrote...

I feel like if they wanted to go this way, ME2 should have ended with them having the super weapon plans and have all the players established on the field, and the final game should have been wrapping everything up instead introducing new things into the mix.

Anyway it's just my opinion, there's really no need to go spreading it around. :-)

#with exclamatory joy#

That is a great idea.  Having the key to Reaper destruction in the collector base would have made much more sense than Mars. We knew that place had been around a long time, and what better place to hide it than at the galactic core, behind the Omega relay.

...offers cigar, and voucher for free flourescent drinks at Purgatory.

[KitaSaturnyne]

frypan wrote...

Its been a lively thread the last day or so. Both synthesis and IT have reared their problemtic heads again. Nice to see we are back onto something I can wrap my head around. Like Drayfish though, I find myself actually more willing to choose Green thanks to CultureGeekGirl, purely on a the ground it is the least upleasant. Kinda like jumping out a window during a fire - without knowing which floor you are on. Could be good, could be very bad, but its better than the other options.

Unless of course your crewmates turn up to put the fire out first. Garrus in a fireman outfit might make a few folks swoon though...

"Hey ladies, anyone wanna calibrate my extinguisher?"

frypan wrote...

With the ending established as fundamentally broken, how do people  feel about the idea that the third game should be viewed as an ending, something put forth by one of the devs at least. Putting aside the issue of newcomers being thrown in medias res, I'm thinking more of the third game as the final chapter or act. This is someting we havent really touched on in this thread, but it has immense significance for how discordant or superflous we view the ending.

In some ways, I find ME3 as a third act is an idea that deals with other issues with the game, even if it doesnt fix everything. A case in point is the exploration and conversations. Having come off a playthrough of the first two games, I actually started skipping planet descriptions in ME3, especially as some planets were the same as ME2. Similarly, lesser conversations worked for me as there was less requirement for exposition - the world was laid out and now we were fighting through it for what we cared about.
 
I still have an issue with the way conversations were presented, and believe that there should have been more
opportunity to experience through conversation the effects of the war, but in general, viewing the game as a third act allowed more focus on action, even if that action needed to have more meaning inherent to the themes of games.

I may get myself garroted for saying that in retrospect I liked this, but must state it only applies when viewing the
three games together. It might be worth gettting the opinions of people more knoweldgable on the tripartite structure of film and the like though. More traditional structural issues like a ring cycle dont really apply or have to be shoehorned in clumsily in my opinion, so I am not aware how much of this exposition vs action should apply to the third act.

EDIT: eargh, the destruction topic is still live,. Should stay relevant, so I might bring this one up later.

Applying relevance to post..."destruction of geth is bad, mkay."

ME3 being the third act is kind of how I approached the game at first, so I think I went in with the attitude that it was an experience where everything was wrapping up. The problem the game ends up having, however, is that it wraps the most important themes and events up way too soon. Prematurely, if you will. And the central conflict of the story, defeat the Reapers, ends up wrapped up as last and least important of all of them.

Again, the keyword is 'premature'. Like Garrus' fire extinguisher.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 01 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[Sable Phoenix]

Eh. My entire too-wordy point was that, for me, Destroy is the least loathsome of three loathsome options. At least it doesn't make me feel like I'm going to vomit.  I was writing about my purely visceral response, outside any higher intellectual concerns.  If other people feel the emotional pull towards another one, that's fine too. It doesn't make any of them less nebulous, or Thematically Revolting.

Modifié par Sable Phoenix, 01 juin 2012 - 02:36 .

[frypan]

Actually methinks Garrus would prefer to be on the ladder - it has reach, if not flexibilty.

Interesting idea on the premature wrapping up of plot lines, as if I try and put Palavan, Thessia, Rannoch and Tuchanks in any order, none really ends up any better than the order the devs used.

It almost makes me think they should have been tackled how the player preferred, rather than structured the way they were. None really seemed to depend on the other, and so abandoning the linear structure really wouldnt have lost anything.

Letting the player decide where they want to fit each into their own construction of the narrative might have made better sense - and allowed the kind of story customisation we so desperately wanted. It would have also been familar from the first games, just with added urgency.

However I'm sure we've been over this before, and there may have been problems constructing the game this way.

[edisnooM]

@frypan

Cheers, I like the glowy blue ones. Makes me feel all Paragony.

I always thought it was weird that they didn't do anything about stopping the Reapers in ME2. Shepards last line in ME1 was that the Reapers were coming and s/he was going to find a way to stop them, but then in ME2 it's more like:

"We've got to stop the Collectors."

"Umm... what about the Reapers?"

"Plenty of time for that later chums." (In Adam West's voice of course)

[frypan]

I didnt mind going after the collectors, they were evil enough to feel like a taster for the main fight - kind of like the Uruk Hai and Saruman in the second LOTR.

That said, linking the collector base with ME3 is a stellar idea - even if it is simply to provide the location of the catalyst ruins through some flummery about a lost base and the importance of humanity. We would have left ME2 with a specific goal for ME3, even if we didnt know what it meant.

Not sure if that would have taken the Guff out of the MacGuffin, but it would have helped.

EDIT: I like the purple drinks...cos I like purple, but I did chug down a red drink before fighting Kai Leng.

Modifié par frypan, 01 juin 2012 - 02:57 .

[edisnooM]

@frypan

Oh the Collectors were fine villains, and I liked ME2, it just felt odd that the Reapers seem to be on the back burner. To use the LOTR reference, in Two Towers we still have Frodo and Sam heading to Mordor so the story kept progressing to the goal, but in ME2 I felt like they they took a bit of a detour.

However we were told the Collectors were agents of the Reapers (though that made me wonder why they hadn't been working with Sovereign) and they were attacking the colonies so stopping them made sense.

The urgency with which they were presented kind of perplexed me though. We were told that they were planning to attack Earth, but how they were going to pull that off with one (maybe two from what Vega said) ship I never quite understood.

[Seijin8]

@edisnooM: Assuming it isn't a plot black hole (big assumption), then there's only a few possibilities I can think of:

1) The Collectors had enough military power to harvest the million or so humans needed, directly from Earth. Clearly, this level of power was not on display at their base, but they had no reason to expect attack on the other side of the Omega 4 relay, so they may simply have the majority of their forces elsewhere.

2) The Collectors had some other way of attacking that did not involve direct military action. Maybe the purpose of the baby Reaper was to be able to drop it covertly near a major city and "pied piper" away enough people to build a true Reaper. The Collector ship could hide out in the solar system somewhere, waiting for the signal to pick up the next batch of converts. Frankly, I am not sure how this would work if it meant having to bypass the Earth fleets covertly with such a large and dangerous package, but I suppose there could be a way.

3) The Collectors were going to be "spent" to achieve this goal, their own casualties considered irelevant. The ship would land, disgorge an enormous force of husks and collectors, who would spend their lives gathering up humans in the wake of the seeker swarms, and then the ship would get away as swiftly as possible to the Omega 4 relay. This seems an absurdly low% military action though.

EDIT: lotza spellin mistaks

Modifié par Seijin8, 01 juin 2012 - 04:10 .

[frypan]

Seijin8 wrote...

@edisnooM: Assuming it isn't a plot black hole (big assumption), then there's only a few possibilities I can think of:

1) The Collectors had enough military power to harvest the million or so humans needed, directly from Earth. Clearly, this level of power was not on display at their base, but they had no reason to expect attack on the other side of the Omega 4 relay, so they may simply have the majority of their forces elsewhere.

2) The Collectors had some other way of attacking that did not involve direct military action. Maybe the purpose of the baby Reaper was to be able to drop it covertly near a major city and "pied piper" away enough people to build a true Reaper. The Collector ship could hide out in the solar system somewhere, waiting for the signal to pick up the next batch of converts. Frankly, I am not sure how this would work if it meant having to bypass the Earth fleets covertly with such a large and dangerous package, but I suppose there could be a way.

3) The Collectors were going to be "spent" to achieve this goal, their own casualties considered irelevant. The ship would land, disgorge an enormous force of husks and collectors, who would spend their lives gathering up humans in the wake of the seeker swarms, and then the ship would get away as swiftly as possible to the Omega 4 relay. This seems an absurdly low% military action though.

EDIT: lotza spellin mistaks

Hah, I just have this image of a "covert" drop with a monstrous human reaper screaming through the atmosphere, crashing to earth in a huge explosion, and pretending nothing is amiss.

Perhaps it wears a hat, or a false moustache?

Your third idea sounds fun in execution though, and while a potential Dieppe, it would be in keeping the idea of the Collectors as disposable tools.


EDIT: By the way, I keep trying in a not so subtle manner to turn the conversation towards a discussion of Reaper strategy, but nobody bites alas. I suspect our Shepherds would enjoy a catch up after the war with beer, bull and scar comparisons. 

Modifié par frypan, 01 juin 2012 - 04:45 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

frypan wrote...

EDIT: By the way, I keep trying in a not so subtle manner to turn the conversation towards a discussion of Reaper strategy, but nobody bites alas. I suspect our Shepherds would enjoy a catch up after the war with beer, bull and scar comparisons.

The Reapers don't seem to even have a strategy. They just kind of fly in en masse, swarm the homeworlds and go home.

As for the defects and inefficiencies regarding their tactics, they've all been discussed before.

[frypan]

KitaSaturnyne wrote...

[The Reapers don't seem to even have a strategy. They just kind of fly in en masse, swarm the homeworlds and go home.

As for the defects and inefficiencies regarding their tactics, they've all been discussed before.

Hmm, I must have forgotten - this thread is so long and full of good stuff. Alternatively, I probably just wanted to talk about it some more.

Your summary pretty much puts paid to the necessity though - very much a boots in approach to warfare on their part, if not much fun to discuss.

[Seijin8]

Re: Reaper strategies

http://social.biowar...86/72#11968463 

My own earlier contribution to this topic with a few links to similar pages.

I know the prevailing wisdom is that the Reapers are simply stupid, but I'd prefer to think they are reacting to challenges that our limited in-game perspective doesn't allow us to witness.

EDIT:  And the relevant post is nearer to the bottom of the page... the BSN link function is not very good >.<

Modifié par Seijin8, 01 juin 2012 - 05:09 .

[KitaSaturnyne]

frypan wrote...

Hmm, I must have forgotten - this thread is so long and full of good stuff. Alternatively, I probably just wanted to talk about it some more.

Your summary pretty much puts paid to the necessity though - very much a boots in approach to warfare on their part, if not much fun to discuss.

Well, I'm hardly a war strategist, so I invite any and all who might know of a better method than the Reapers have employed to share them here.

From my point of view, their first target should be, unerringly, the Citadel. Firstly, it's theirs. Second, it's the seat of galactic power, and taking this sucker down will cause all sorts of disarray on a huge number of fronts. It wouldn't be that tough for a gigantic fleet of Reapers. Sovereign almost did it, and all he had was the Geth. Well, and a pit boss who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed for some reason. Hell, the Citadel might end up having some kind of use that hasn't even been mentioned before.

"Hey, is that the Citadel? In OUR system?"

"Yeah. Hey, why is it glowing?"

"I don't know, but it seems to be projecting some kind of energy towards us."

Kabooooooooooooooooooooooommmmmmmm.............

After that, I really have no idea. If they can shut down the mass relays (which I believe was touched upon, but the Reapers just didn't do it for whatever reason), that would help immensely with the whole divide and conquer thing. In fact, I'm inclined to believe that shutting down the relays would cripple all sorts of supply lines that would make the war impossible to win at any stage.

@Seijin8

The only plothole I find with your linked post is that by the time the Reapers strike Earth, Shepard has not killed 1.5 Reapers. He didn't kill Sovereign (though he helped an awful lot), and hadn't yet left to Rannoch or Tuchanka.

Modifié par KitaSaturnyne, 01 juin 2012 - 05:21 .

[Seijin8]

@KitaSaturnyne:  I can justify every point you make against the Reapers.  Please don't take this as meaning "I am right and you are wrong", because, God knows, the overall plot of ME3 is screwed beyond recognition, so I doubt much attention was paid to the warfighting logistics of the enemy.

Why not go right for the Citadel?  Because Sovereign died trying that.  The Reapers may not know the particulars of how this happened.  The truth was covered up by all of the Citadel races, and though the Reapers have many tools at their disposal, how many have high-level military intelligence access is probably a small number, and possibly zero.

Further, the clearest threat to their point of view seems to be Shepard - a human.  The seat of humanity's power is not the Citadel, but a little backwater rock named Earth.  It was the intervention of Systems Alliance forces that stopped the initial invasion, so the strategic focus can reasonably be shifted to Earth.

Once Earth is under control, bring the Citadel to Earth so that military assets do not need to be spread between two locations.

I would hazard that the Reapers are far better on offense than on defense, thus the relative success of the Victory Fleet.

(The 1.5 Reapers is Sovereign and the baby Reaper on the suicide mission)

[frypan]

@Seijin8.

Thanks for the link. I remember that now. The reason I want to revisit the topic is actually more related to the idea that any conventional war would work. No matter how it is done, the Reapers have to chase down physically every single ship or colony, a task I think is highly unlikely to have worked over time. The galaxy is, after all, very very big.

If we assume a 10,000 year cycle to go from pre-history to spacefaring, any race that can hold a club is likely to require targetting, which as you note requires them to divert a lot of resources to checking up every planet with life sustaining capabilities. Thats a lot less force to take on the job of chasing down every fleeing cruise ship or transport.

It just seems that without a catalyst style weapon the reapers have a big task in front of them, one I believe is not likely to succeed given the time scale and number of cycles involved. Its not a big deal though, their methodology in game made for spectacular stuff, just a point I keep coming back to.

[Seijin8]

Well, I can use conjecture to find answers to all of this, simply because we have so little information to go on about actual Reaper capabilities and limitations.

Javik is our best source of information on the Reaper's actual military tactics and capabilities. In his cycle, the Reapers seized the Citadel and shut down the relays, and it still took hundreds of years to bring the war to a close. The Reaper's timescale is enormous. We don't know if either the Prothean's cycle or ours is a "typical" Reaping, or if there is even such a thing. The Reapers may utilize wildly different tactics in every cycle simply to avoid the chance of strategic data having survived, so they don't accidentally stumble into a trap.

The use of the relays to cause civilizations to evolve along lines they choose is actually a briliiant concept. As various devs have pointed out, this meant that research into FTL would dead-end because it was inefficient.

With the relays closed, the Reapers know the rough locale of every scrap of colonization. Their superior speed lets them assault these places and ultimately overtake the organic civilizations before they can run. All colonies must be near the relays.

Indoctrination means that the Reapers will eventually have agents in every colony, everywhere that a viable population center exists.

We don't know that the Protheans leaving some of their people in stasis is at all uncommon. Prior cycles may have had similar allies, left over from prior Reapings. For whatever good it did them.

As far as the 10K run-up for civilizations, we have to assume a lot of things, and I know my preferred version doesn't mesh with what we have been told.

The Reapers must know how long it will take a civilization to achieve the needed technology. If something looks like it will pop up earlier than the next cycle, they visit a few asteroids on the planet and set the clock back.

I don't accept the mandatory 50,000 year cycle, either. Some Reapers must be left behind to guard against upstarts that went undetected. Sovereign could well be one of these, and his personality differences might be reflective of that duty. Sov seemed to hate all organics, and I never got the impression he planned on ascending anyone. His role might have been to patrol between cycles, keeping races from becoming too powerful.

As has been mentioned, the idea of using the rachni to begin the invasion 2000 years early is silly. But if the goal was to set the other races back long enough for the 50K mark to arrive, then it might have been a viable tactic. Why so slow to follow-up? Because Sov was somewhere else entirely, playing mop-up on another species we are never intorduced to because they were wiped out.

I assume following a Reaping that all Reapers scour the galaxy to find civilizations that are going to screw up their time-table, and deal with them in whatever way seems appropriate.

If Catalyst is honest about the Reaper's motivations, then I have to assume the Reaper's strategies are as paradoxical and contradictory as any military "hearts-and-minds" campaign, with many conflicting strategies at work. Where they draw the line may be a matter of the Reaper on-scene making that determination for themselves.

There is just so much we don't know. It makes it easy to come up with viable answers that are no doubt completely incorrect fabrications.

*Shrug* I am happy to play the warfighting "what if" game for as long as needed though