258 réponses à ce sujet

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...
The simple fact underlaying this is Reaper advancement goes when Bioware says it. It is not horribly thought out, it is not overly complex. It is so simple, you are overthinking it. You cannot defeat the Reapers conventionally because Bioware doesn't want them to be defeated conventionally.

This is very true.
Bioware also, I assume does not want people to keep hating their ending.
So the thing is, adding one ending option to defeat reapers conventionally would fix lots of problems with the whole game for a significant amount of people. This thread is an attempt to show that it would not contradict anything except half a dozen lines for Hackett, who is not infallible in his judgement. I am saying that should Bioware decide that we are after all allowed to win they don't even need to retcon anything.

Unfortunately, if they can't retcon a few extra scenarios, they need to add a lot more.  The story arch that requires the Crucible to take out the entire Relay network.  The Council Races are not desperate enough to detonate Mass Relays.  They do not have enough Starships, they do not have enough arms. 

The fix you are asking for is going to be a large ordeal.  I'm just reminding people to stop hitting the wall with their heads and instead open the door and look for a bit.

[a.m.p]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Perhaps I should phrase this differently: The numbers and strengths of the Reapers and the allied fleets are undefined enough that you can justify either scenario if you want - a conventional defeat or no conventional defeat (though the latter would be a stretch), but I am firmly convinced that we should not be able to defeat the Reapers conventionally from a thematic and narrative viewpoint. The game tells us they are of  a kind that makes such a thing impossible, and I am in full agreement with that.

You are a reasonable person with a thought through opinion on this problem, so I'd like to ask you this: what do you think is the theme here? More importantly, what is the message of this ending we've been given? How would a costly conventional (or semi-conventional) victory contradict it?

[The Angry One]

See here's the thing, if BioWare didn't want the Reapers to be defeated conventionally, why have the Turians resist at all?
Why have their fleet bring down capital ships and deny them strategic resources?
Why say that the Krogan troops are pushing back Reaper forces? Why fill the codex to the brim with effective anti-Reaper strategies?

Why give us false hope, and why concentrate everything on a Reaper off-button when that's the exact thing they said they wouldn't do?

[Noelemahc]

However, when people are struggling to grasp the basic concept of an enemy's plans that was not shown to have proper direction for obvious reasons, it becomes almost insulting to watch people squirm around here, hoping that light will pierce the clouds for you.

That's the thing. The ending TRIES to explain that direction to us. Since accepting "this ending is crap, this game sucks, let's all go get wasted instead" is too easy and some of us had already done it, we instead attempt to rationalize it. How it could theoretically make sense and how would Shepard and Co deal with it if it was so.

In short, perform the Decon/Recon that the game's authors originally set out to do (and succeeded in doing in ME1 and ME2, but stopped halfway through Decon in ME3 for no apparent reason).

Also, I literally just talked to EDI and she mentions that the Reapers are trying to lure the leaders of the resistance onto the superstructures so they can indoctrinate them. That doesn't sound like overwhelming force to me.

Forgot to comment on this earlier. Half of EDI's dialogue can be used as critique of the game's ending without changing a single word. Go load up a save when she's just downloaded into Dr. Eva's body, have that discussion about self-determination and getting second opinions. A eye-opener, that one.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 30 avril 2012 - 02:21 .

[Subject9x]

incinerator950 wrote...
It is, and even though I know its a waste of time, I can go put on my old Uniform and play Armchair sailor with the rest of you.  However, when people are struggling to grasp the basic concept of an enemy's plans that was not shown to have proper direction for obvious reasons, it becomes almost insulting to watch people squirm around here, hoping that light will pierce the clouds for you.  

Which before anyone asks, while I tolerate the endings, the Crucible was indeed a bad plot device.

I could overlook many mistakes the writers made about the Reapers if they had at least acknowledged important stuff from ME1. One of my biggest gripes was the Reapers apparent stupidity of their own technology - things like locking down relays, taking the Citadel immediately (like in ME1), and so on. There are so many people here who post that the reapers are unstoppable, but then trip over themselves trying to cover these holes. If the reapers are unstoppable, then why aren't they actually unstoppable?

you don't have to answer, these questions are for anyone to answer
but answer if you'd like.

[The Angry One]

incinerator950 wrote...

Unfortunately, if they can't retcon a few extra scenarios, they need to add a lot more.  The story arch that requires the Crucible to take out the entire Relay network.

NOTHING in the story arc of Mass Effect requires the destruction of the relay network.

The Council Races are not desperate enough to detonate Mass Relays.

That's why Shepard is there, to make the hard decisions they can't.
At least, that's why I thought Shepard was there.

They do not have enough Starships, they do not have enough arms. 

Why? Because Walters says so?
Get a better writer and make it so they do.

The fix you are asking for is going to be a large ordeal.  I'm just reminding people to stop hitting the wall with their heads and instead open the door and look for a bit.

Fixing the wasted potential of the entire game would require a rework from the ground up, yes.
But adjusting the ending would be simpler and workable with just a few changes.

[a.m.p]

incinerator950 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...
The simple fact underlaying this is Reaper advancement goes when Bioware says it. It is not horribly thought out, it is not overly complex. It is so simple, you are overthinking it. You cannot defeat the Reapers conventionally because Bioware doesn't want them to be defeated conventionally.

This is very true.
Bioware also, I assume does not want people to keep hating their ending.
So the thing is, adding one ending option to defeat reapers conventionally would fix lots of problems with the whole game for a significant amount of people. This thread is an attempt to show that it would not contradict anything except half a dozen lines for Hackett, who is not infallible in his judgement. I am saying that should Bioware decide that we are after all allowed to win they don't even need to retcon anything.

Unfortunately, if they can't retcon a few extra scenarios, they need to add a lot more.  The story arch that requires the Crucible to take out the entire Relay network.  The Council Races are not desperate enough to detonate Mass Relays.  They do not have enough Starships, they do not have enough arms. 

The fix you are asking for is going to be a large ordeal.  I'm just reminding people to stop hitting the wall with their heads and instead open the door and look for a bit.

Why?

A few cutscenes and cinematics are more than enough to make it a perfectly valid option. Maybe one additional less defeatist line for Hackett.
As for relays - let's assume they want to continue the story after ME3 (can't see how, whit the difference between synthesis and everyting else). There have been some EC rumors about the control ending allowing to rebuild relays.

So a few hundred years down the line (no way a sequel could be done sooner, too may variables) such an ending would be functionally similar to control. Relays are operational and reapers may be somewhere out there.

[Noelemahc]

NOTHING in the story arc of Mass Effect requires the destruction of the relay network.

I think he meant that if BW has already planned out ME4, it may require the destruction of the relays as a plot point. I accept that it is possible, although one could still invent ways the Reapers can do it as vengeance on the galaxy for being destroyed. They probably don't want to go quietly into the night as much as we do.

And, of course, that still doesn't preclude the necessity for an ACTUAL, JANUWINE, "Reapers Win, You Suck" ending. Not a game over screen where both ME2 and Arrival had full-length cutscenes (in ME2's case, rather epic ones, too).

Modifié par Noelemahc, 30 avril 2012 - 02:30 .

[The Angry One]

Mass relays are part of the flavour and feel of Mass Effect.
Mass Effect without mass relays is like Stargate without stargates, Star Trek without the Federation or Bablyon 5 without Bablyon 5 (and there has been Babylon 5 without Babylon 5, and those series suuuuuucked).

[incinerator950]

The Angry One wrote...

NOTHING in the story arc of Mass Effect requires the destruction of the relay network.

That's why Shepard is there, to make the hard decisions they can't.
At least, that's why I thought Shepard was there.

Why? Because Walters says so?
Get a better writer and make it so they do.

Fixing the wasted potential of the entire game would require a rework from the ground up, yes.
But adjusting the ending would be simpler and workable with just a few changes.

With the kind of ending we got, it does.  The Relays expunge the energy released by the Catalyst.  The best way to do that is in the form of a wave.  You know, the endings. 

Sorry Angry, Opinion doesn't change fact.  Shepard is there to stop the Reapers based on the availibility of Linear Plot, not how to conventionally put Stars into Super Nova, detonate Nuclear Warheads at close range, and make hard choices that entire Commands structures are refusing to do.  The same reason why Shepard willingly Surrendered to the Alliance, the same reason why Shepard is adamant about saving Earth over the entire Galaxy equally.  

Unfortunately, you need more then one Writer.  You need graphics designers, the VA's, the audio team.  To fix any form of damage done, you need a larger group of people to actually do it besides the one guy who says This is what happened.  Don't forget someone like Casey Hudson. 

That we can agree on. 

I'm very sleepy right now. 

[a.m.p]

JBPBRC wrote...

What's this nonsense about a Quarian Fleet and whether or not it can destroy Reapers?

Best solution would've been to arm every ship with TONS of Cains, so we could have both Cains AND Fleets on hand to blast the Reapers into the next cycle.

I love smudboy's videos.

Who doesn't? They are therapeutic.

The Angry One wrote...

Mass relays are part of the flavour and feel of Mass Effect.
Mass Effect without mass relays is like Stargate without stargates, Star Trek without the Federation or Bablyon 5 without Bablyon 5 (and there has been Babylon 5 without Babylon 5, and those series suuuuuucked).

It would help a lot if they stopped the back and forth PR and actually said at least whether the relays are all gone in all endings or not. I mean it's not like EC is going to have some big plot twists to keep secret until release.

[incinerator950]

Subject9x wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...
It is, and even though I know its a waste of time, I can go put on my old Uniform and play Armchair sailor with the rest of you.  However, when people are struggling to grasp the basic concept of an enemy's plans that was not shown to have proper direction for obvious reasons, it becomes almost insulting to watch people squirm around here, hoping that light will pierce the clouds for you.  

Which before anyone asks, while I tolerate the endings, the Crucible was indeed a bad plot device.

I could overlook many mistakes the writers made about the Reapers if they had at least acknowledged important stuff from ME1. One of my biggest gripes was the Reapers apparent stupidity of their own technology - things like locking down relays, taking the Citadel immediately (like in ME1), and so on. There are so many people here who post that the reapers are unstoppable, but then trip over themselves trying to cover these holes. If the reapers are unstoppable, then why aren't they actually unstoppable?

you don't have to answer, these questions are for anyone to answer
but answer if you'd like.

It's called availibility and story plot.  How much easier is it to make the Citadel the center of remaining commerce when it is already available, when Illium was written off as contested or taken by Reaper forces.  Omega, taken by Cerberus.  How much more would you have to write and create when there are no better Illusions of Safe Haven left.  They're not unstoppable because they're not invincible.  If an Asteroid can destroy an indestructable Mass Relay, any form of plot writing or bad flash animation can take out a large Cuttlefish Dreadnought.  

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

JBPBRC wrote...

What's this nonsense about a Quarian Fleet and whether or not it can destroy Reapers?

Best solution would've been to arm every ship with TONS of Cains, so we could have both Cains AND Fleets on hand to blast the Reapers into the next cycle.

I love smudboy's videos.

Who doesn't? They are therapeutic.

The Angry One wrote...

Mass relays are part of the flavour and feel of Mass Effect.
Mass Effect without mass relays is like Stargate without stargates, Star Trek without the Federation or Bablyon 5 without Bablyon 5 (and there has been Babylon 5 without Babylon 5, and those series suuuuuucked).

It would help a lot if they stopped the back and forth PR and actually said at least whether the relays are all gone in all endings or not. I mean it's not like EC is going to have some big plot twists to keep secret until release.

I've taken the liberty of ignoring their PR.  The irony is while ME has had its atmosphere with the Mass Relays.  The intro to ME has clearly been about lableing the actual process of Dark Energy Transfer into the Mass Effect.  

So, the flavor of ME is not its Relays, its Mass Effect Fields.  Yes, please laugh now.  You all need one.

[a.m.p]

incinerator950 wrote...

I've taken the liberty of ignoring their PR.  The irony is while ME has had its atmosphere with the Mass Relays.  The intro to ME has clearly been about lableing the actual process of Dark Energy Transfer into the Mass Effect.  

Well, I keep an eye on it. Because if they are indeed backtracking on the dark age to the point of rebuilding relays,  a conventional ending could be easily written in, if they so choose.

Modifié par a.m.p, 30 avril 2012 - 02:55 .

[Wulfram]

a.m.p wrote...

Not that I know of, apart from the aforementioned outrun six space squids minigame, which I tend to not take into account. But if we confine all reapers to the homeworlds and take into account that the war went on for months then we barely get enough to fit the ME2 group shot.

I prefer to keep the reapers numbers down as much as possible.  Even with say 100 capital ships - giving them parity in numbers with a united galaxy - they've got the technological superiority for conventional victory to still be effectively impossible.  The more you add to that number, the harder it becomes to justify there being an actual war going on.

[Subject M]

a.m.p wrote...

Subject M wrote...

Reapers behave according to classic space opera cinematics. Thats why some people get the impression of that they can be defeated conventionally. The reason they can not be is because that is not their function in the narrative. If it was a more "realistic" portrayal, the reapers would use tactics that would correspond to an intelligence several orders of magnitude above that of our heroes. The only way to have a hope of defeating such a foe would be to have something of at least comparable intelligence a and power on your side. With the geth dyson sphere out of the picture, there is no such force.

That's why I'm using the cutscenes only to determine how many reapers there are in Sol and don't analyze their combat tactics (which are classic space opera cinematics kind of silly).

The problem with writing something that is several orders of magnitude above human intelligence is that the writers themselves are human. They tried and obviously failed because we have to construct whole theories that explain why the reapers aren't actualy morons. The narrative is broken. Could be fixed somewhat by stating that there aren't that many of them and they are spread thin.

Of course it is impossible to explain how a super-intelligence arrives at decisions and views things, but they could easily have made the reapers act much smarter and dangerous then they did. No doubt the reapers have a plan for most scenarios. I was fully expecting them to move in groups so that none of them could be piced of by superior numbers, that they would cyber-warfare and sabotage the crap out of their opposition, lay in ambush when sword arrived, predict every move and detonate some type of charges/mines scattetring allied ranks etc. Simply "Its a trap!!".

Modifié par Subject M, 30 avril 2012 - 05:04 .

[Noelemahc]

In fact, for all the TALK about cyberwarfare, none of it actually happens when Shepard is around, and the only mention we get in detail is when EDI tells the gripping story of the seven zettabytes of pr0n that she DDOSed Cerberus with. This bothers me somewhat. Not the pr0n, the lack of ECM/ECCM/EECM anywhere. Normandy's Reaper IFF is also never used in ME3 towards any end whatsoever, even though theoretically that would mean we could board Harbinger if we wanted to, and frell stuff up.

- they've got the technological superiority for conventional victory to still be effectively impossible

But that's the point. Their superiority can theoretically be trumped by a mass charge, it IS a matter of how many of them there are.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 30 avril 2012 - 05:27 .

[Subject9x]

Noelemahc wrote...

In fact, for all the TALK about cyberwarfare, none of it actually happens when Shepard is around, and the only mention we get in detail is when EDI tells the gripping story of the seven zettabytes of pr0n that she DDOSed Cerberus with. This bothers me somewhat. Not the pr0n, the lack of ECM/ECCM/EECM anywhere. Normandy's Reaper IFF is also never used in ME3 towards any end whatsoever, even though theoretically that would mean we could board Harbinger if we wanted to, and frell stuff up.

- they've got the technological superiority for conventional victory to still be effectively impossible

But that's the point. Their superiority can theoretically be trumped by a mass charge, it IS a matter of how many of them there are.

oh I railed about that in another thread about Geth capacity for Cyberwarfare. Gaining the Geth as an ally would pretty much turn the tide because they have all the tools to deompile and understand reapercode syntax, gaining that advantage you could play havoc with reaper systems and junk.

[PsyrenY]

We can armchair admiral the battle all we want, the fact is that Bioware wanted to write the battle to be unwinnable conventionally. Even if you find some kind of codex loophole that states "but if the Alliance did X, dead Reapers!" Bioware could simply retcon it away and close it.

Instead of living in fanfic-land, better to live in the story that Bioware wants to tell. (Or not, and return your copy of the game.)

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

I've taken the liberty of ignoring their PR.  The irony is while ME has had its atmosphere with the Mass Relays.  The intro to ME has clearly been about lableing the actual process of Dark Energy Transfer into the Mass Effect.  

Well, I keep an eye on it. Because if they are indeed backtracking on the dark age to the point of rebuilding relays,  a conventional ending could be easily written in, if they so choose.

I don't recall the high EMS endings stating the Crucible discharge would destroy technology.  I heard the catalyst six times, I'm not deaf like my friend.  

Also, looping again, you would have to change more then the ending.  Making the ending happier or practical doesn't change bad writing.  A polished turd is still a turd.  

So with minimal effort, don't expect Bioware to implement it.

[Lord Stark]

4000 Capital ships? No way. There is no way with just over a hundred Dreadnoughts in the Galaxy. I'd probably guess around 300 Capital Ships, 20,000 Destroyers.

[a.m.p]

Wulfram wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

Not that I know of, apart from the aforementioned outrun six space squids minigame, which I tend to not take into account. But if we confine all reapers to the homeworlds and take into account that the war went on for months then we barely get enough to fit the ME2 group shot.

I prefer to keep the reapers numbers down as much as possible.  Even with say 100 capital ships - giving them parity in numbers with a united galaxy - they've got the technological superiority for conventional victory to still be effectively impossible.  The more you add to that number, the harder it becomes to justify there being an actual war going on.

That is debatable. In fact, I have a 30+ page debate about that in my main thread (in the signature). All the lore is there, you just need to use it.

My favorite argument about how powerful reapers are is the prothean issue lited in the OP:

Javik says he was born long after the citadel was taken. After he takes the memory shard he tells of his own time at war: “...Year after year, battle after battle I was hunted by my own people. Until the battle of the Cronian Nebula...”. That’s not mopping up the helpless fleeing remains of a defeated people, that’s active resistance at least decades after the initial attack.
The mopping up itself according to Vigil took centuries. It doesn’t matter how good your guns or ships are. If you are stuck somewhere where the enemy can bring infinite reinforcements in and you can’t, you’re dead. If you
manage to hold out for decades regardless, it means either the enemy is not nearly as strong as we’re told, or that there aren’t that many of them.

The fundamental difference between this cycle and all previous is that we have the relay network. The relay network makes all the difference in the world. Think about isolating small parts of those 100 reapers you came up with. Traps and hit-and-run attacks. Strategy and tactics. Something no cycle before this could ever do.

Modifié par a.m.p, 30 avril 2012 - 07:10 .

[a.m.p]

incinerator950 wrote...

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

I've taken the liberty of ignoring their PR.  The irony is while ME has had its atmosphere with the Mass Relays.  The intro to ME has clearly been about lableing the actual process of Dark Energy Transfer into the Mass Effect.  

Well, I keep an eye on it. Because if they are indeed backtracking on the dark age to the point of rebuilding relays,  a conventional ending could be easily written in, if they so choose.

I don't recall the high EMS endings stating the Crucible discharge would destroy technology.  I heard the catalyst six times, I'm not deaf like my friend.  

Also, looping again, you would have to change more then the ending.  Making the ending happier or practical doesn't change bad writing.  A polished turd is still a turd.  

So with minimal effort, don't expect Bioware to implement it.

I'm not talking about technology. I am talking specifically about the relays being either rebuilt or not.

Just adding the option will not turn ME3 into a masterpiece, nobody says it would. But it would fix some of the biggest problems, while allowing to keep all of the existing endings. Compromise.

[a.m.p]

Optimystic_X wrote...

We can armchair admiral the battle all we want, the fact is that Bioware wanted to write the battle to be unwinnable conventionally. Even if you find some kind of codex loophole that states "but if the Alliance did X, dead Reapers!" Bioware could simply retcon it away and close it.

Instead of living in fanfic-land, better to live in the story that Bioware wants to tell. (Or not, and return your copy of the game.)

Fanfic land seems to produce much better stories at this time.

And until EC comes out we probably aren't going to find out what story Bioware wanted to tell, because of how confusing the last part of it was.

Seriously. People keep saying that from a storytelling perspective conventional victory should not be possible. Why? What are the themes here? What is the message? How can conventional victory contradict them?

By being very happy? What about the price of it?
What about having to keep fighting and lose more people? What about never knowing all reapers are gone?
I would gladly sacrifice Shepard/the whole squad/Earth if that is what it took to make this option sufficiently bittersweet for everyone. Nobody is suggesting an easy solution. Just a solution that would not be proposed by the enemy.

[David7204]

How the hell would Vigil or Javik know about Reaper reproduction? Vigil was intentionally isolated. Javik is just a solider, is he supposed to have a crystal ball?