258 réponses à ce sujet

[Artemillion]

Interesting article ) Thanks )

[a.m.p]

@Artemillion
Thanks for reading.

ThomaswBloom wrote...
I thought the simon says mini game from ME1 was better.  The ME 3 version was better than the ME2 hacking games though.  Simply because the hacking games were overused.  And lets not get started on the ME2 scanning, anyone who didn't edit the game files to have a million or two of each resource after their first playthrough has saintlike patience.

I didn't mind ME2 hacking, tbh.
And while at first I got tired of all the mako-riding, last year I made a decision to do every single sidequest and pick up every single random thing on every planet. Halfway through that playthrough I already loved mako-riding.

[Noelemahc]

Mako-riding was fun for three reasons.

It got you distracted from the fact that most dungeons and opponents are recycled from a very very small pool ("I WILL DESTROY YOU!" and "ENEMIES EVERYWHERE!" included), let you feel like you're doing actual effort for the extra cool loot and moneys and T.A.C.O.'s you're getting*, and it let you look at that jaw-droppingly pretty scenery. And we loved it. Wanna know why? Because the loot was worth it. Because the game had loot. It had a comprehensible experience-gaining system.  Because the scenery WAS pretty. Because it was an RPG. And because it was a 1980s movie. IT's obvious the effect was intentional -- as ME2 and ME3 are a 1990s and 2000s movie, respectively, and it shows. Not to their advantage.

Back on topic:
The problem with the evasion minigame was that is was just that - a meaningless minigame. You could not enter ship-to-ship dodge-and-weave combat a-la Infinite Space or Gratuitious Space Battles, you could not be treated to a short animation of them lazoring the Normandy until dead (which may or may not fail depending on how pissed off Joker is ATM and how much you upgraded the Normandy), you could not... anything, actually.

There's been a lot of moments where I felt that ME3 would've done better if outsourced to ATLUS, or Obsidian, or even those people that made Amalur, It's a hackenslash and it has dialogue trees more complex than ME3, for crying out loud!
______________
* - Totally Arbitrary Collectable Object, a wonderful term used in Anachronox to refer to random doodads the protagonist could collect for some abstract reward. They were, IIRC, trophies with "TACO" engraved on them. It's a handy shorthand for stuff like "collect all the medals", "collect all the feathers", "find all the packages", etc, so prevalent in sandbox games as filler.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 01 mai 2012 - 05:21 .

[a.m.p]

On a tip from The Angry One a few pages back I went into the Apien Crest to explore planet descriptions.

Here are some highlights:

1) That asteroid she mentioned. Apien Crest / Gemmae / Pheiros:

The Reapers sent a substantial force to Gemmae's system but found that the turians were capable and prepared to defend their armada's fuel source. Warning messages say the Reapers are still present in the system, awaiting reinforcements. At present, the turians can still refuel--but only because they committed forces here that could otherwise have defended Palaven.

2) The planet farthest from the star in the turian home system. Apien Crest / Trebia / Datriux:

Scans indicate the Reapers did not destroy the surface facilities. It is possible they either did not see them as a threat, or plan on using them for their own purposes. A few Reaper destroyers serve as a skeleton crew here, backed by a capital ship in case the turians attempt to retake the planet.

Note numbers holding a planet in an occupied area.


3) A big turian colony in a nearby system. Apien Crest / Castellus / Digeris:

Today, the turian fleet holds Digeris in a stalemate. The Reapers, concentrating on Palaven and elsewhere, sent a relatively light force to take the planet, which the turians repelled. The turians stand guard at Digeris while the Reapers travel throughout the system, destroying targets of opportunity until reinforcements arrive.

4) Occupied planet in the same system.  Apien Crest / Castellus / Fiax:

A large Reaper force of capital ships and destroyers can be seen on sensors here, having chased off Fiax's defenders. Interestingly, they seem to have captured several of the orbital stations intact rather than turn them to slag.

Again, quoting for numbers. And for the "chased off defenders" part.

It should probably be noted that these entries are meant to be read when first going to Menae in the first act.

Modifié par a.m.p, 01 mai 2012 - 06:46 .

[beyondsolo]

a.m.p wrote...

beyondsolo wrote...
To be honest, the more I think about the Reaper war the less sense it makes to me. Now, I really, really want it to make sense, but every solution I fill in for a problem creates a bunch of other problems.

You’re definitely not alone in this.

I know that there is a lot of speculation about how current-cycle ships can still travel across the galaxy in this and that many years, but from a military and logistic point of view this is useless

True. Have my personal speculation thread about all that. With reapers roaming the galaxy this is simply not possible.

About reaper strategies. They were sacrificed not so much to cinematic effects but to the crucible plot. Which required the reapers to be very powerful, organics to be very weak, and the war to go on for months.
This does not make sense.
Either the reapers have to be weaker, or organics have to be stronger. Or there is no war.

As for how to desing the conflict better, Raynulf here has written something very interesting on that topic.

I agree that the difference in raw military strength between organics and Reapers is too great for the war to be anything other than a massacre. BioWare missed out on a huge opportunity when they subscribed to technological stagnation of the organics's armed forces. With the defenders equipped with Reaper-derived technology, something earlier cycles had no access to, BioWare could have easily explained a longer conflict and they could have focused their attention manipulating the story from there onward.

For example, while holding their ground against the Reapers defending forces would suffer major defeats due to treason (delusional opportunits or indoctrinated traitors) or at first irreconcilable differences between oragnics, something that would slowly and painfully turn the tide in the Reapers' favor. And only from there on would Shepard actually manage to gather support by making everyone work together to achieve victory as a united force that would kick the Reapers back into darkspace, a result much more fitting with the theme of the series.

Ah well, one can dream....

[Mortehl]

Am I missing something with this? I am fairly certain that while the reapers appear around every 50k years to wipe out advanced civilizations, it is never explicitly stated that a reaper is created? I mean what happens if an entire cycle occurs with no species passing a proto-ape stage?

If you look at the space battle cut scene you can see a blast from a dreadnought takes out a tentacle. These guys are not as invulnerable as they make themselves out to be. In fact that point is stressed repeatedly. The majority of knowledge that powers galactic civilization is reaper produced. I see plenty of opportunities for FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt for those unfamiliar with the acronym) planted and constantly reinforced by the reapers.

One needs only look at how much Prothean data and artifacts survived to realize that. Now tie this information in with the fact that the Protheans talk about data they found from the previous cycle (name slips my mind). Yes, the reapers are powerful but they are in no way omnipotent.

I believe there was a top number of 4,000 reapers in existence during the "earth" cycle, and that attrition over the years takes its' toll. If you make some leaps based on this analysis, you can see how important it would be to pin down the "Turean" race, and sow the seeds of a "Cerberus" movement during each cycle.

[Psychlonus]

Wulfram wrote...


...Unless you're saying the Reapers don't have brains, they'll be using strategy and tactics.too...

...here's an interesting historical parallel: it wasn't until 1997 that a computer chess program was able to defeat a human world chess champion in a match. As for the details, lets just say that the world champ at the time, Garry Kasparov, was estimated to be accurate to 13 moves ahead (that means 13 pairs of moves..because a move is defined as when both players have made their move). So in 1996 they programmed the computer to search as many 14 move combinations as it could at each  point in the game..but sometimes more or less depending on the situation. It was capable of evaluating 100 million positions per second. It was also programmed with countless of Kasparov's past games. It was soundly defeated. After the match, the world champ commented that he could figure out the program's priorities but the computer couldn't figure out his. A year later, the computer was upgraded to twice the previous search speed and greater move depth and was the 259th most powerful supercomputer in the world. It won...but there were some interesting factors. For one, the champ was affected by fatigue...for two, the human programmers intervened. They re-programmed the computer mid-match when they figured out that the champ had figured out the programming again!!! So after the second match, Kasparov remarked "humans beat me".

So essentially, Kasparov was defeated by a synthetic/organic hybrid...

Modifié par Psychlonus, 01 mai 2012 - 07:49 .

[beyondsolo]

Mortehl wrote...

Am I missing something with this? I am fairly certain that while the reapers appear around every 50k years to wipe out advanced civilizations, it is never explicitly stated that a reaper is created? I mean what happens if an entire cycle occurs with no species passing a proto-ape stage?

If you look at the space battle cut scene you can see a blast from a dreadnought takes out a tentacle. These guys are not as invulnerable as they make themselves out to be. In fact that point is stressed repeatedly. The majority of knowledge that powers galactic civilization is reaper produced. I see plenty of opportunities for FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt for those unfamiliar with the acronym) planted and constantly reinforced by the reapers.

One needs only look at how much Prothean data and artifacts survived to realize that. Now tie this information in with the fact that the Protheans talk about data they found from the previous cycle (name slips my mind). Yes, the reapers are powerful but they are in no way omnipotent.

I believe there was a top number of 4,000 reapers in existence during the "earth" cycle, and that attrition over the years takes its' toll. If you make some leaps based on this analysis, you can see how important it would be to pin down the "Turean" race, and sow the seeds of a "Cerberus" movement during each cycle.

Reaper superiority in space combat is an established fact since Mass Effect 1's battle of the Citadel. Of course they're not omnipotent, but they have the fleets of the organics beat in any respect. Unfortunately, this was by no means a necessary development of the narrative. BioWare could have evened the odds either in Mass Effect 2 or between Mass Effect 2 and 3. Unfortunately, they didn't, which leaves us with absolutely outmatched defenders.

As for the creation of Reapers, we witness the creation of one on the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2 and even the means how it's done. Granted, it doesn't look like a real Reaper, but it is clearly identified as one. When a cycle doesn't bring forward a species worth archiving then no Reaper is created. The Prothean cycle is an example of that. The Collectors were left behind to act as agents of the Reapers, probably providing information on the current cycle based on their actions (though their purpose is my speculation here).

This brings up another problem: one half of the purpose of the Reapers is to archive organic species in Reaper form so they're not lost forever when they're wiped out to make room for new species. However, the selection process as to which species is archived and which isn't seems to be arbitrary. The Reaper archive has more gaps than it has entries if we consider that the Protheans were deemed unworth of preservation and they were the most powerful species of their cycle.

[a.m.p]

Mortehl wrote...

Am I missing something with this? I am fairly certain that while the reapers appear around every 50k years to wipe out advanced civilizations, it is never explicitly stated that a reaper is created? I mean what happens if an entire cycle occurs with no species passing a proto-ape stage?

No, it's never explicitly stated. As I said there is zero information about previous cycles.

If you look at the space battle cut scene you can see a blast from a dreadnought takes out a tentacle. These guys are not as invulnerable as they make themselves out to be. In fact that point is stressed repeatedly. The majority of knowledge that powers galactic civilization is reaper produced. I see plenty of opportunities for FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt for those unfamiliar with the acronym) planted and constantly reinforced by the reapers.

One needs only look at how much Prothean data and artifacts survived to realize that. Now tie this information in with the fact that the Protheans talk about data they found from the previous cycle (name slips my mind). Yes, the reapers are powerful but they are in no way omnipotent.

I believe there was a top number of 4,000 reapers in existence during the "earth" cycle, and that attrition over the years takes its' toll. If you make some leaps based on this analysis, you can see how important it would be to pin down the "Turean" race, and sow the seeds of a "Cerberus" movement during each cycle.

We really are getting mixed signals from ME3, aren't we?
We talk to Javik who says that they lost because of the trap working and their uniformity and then talk to Hackett who tells us we can't win and the crucible is the only option. And then we talk to Hackett some more and he says that if we don't find the catalyst, we'll go to Earth and take our chances anyway.

On the bright side, ambiguity allows for interpretation. Even at this point a conventional win wouldn't really contradict anything but Hackett's speeches.

Modifié par a.m.p, 01 mai 2012 - 08:04 .

[Noelemahc]

For example, while holding their ground against the Reapers defending forces would suffer major defeats due to treason (delusional opportunits or indoctrinated traitors) or at first irreconcilable differences between oragnics, something that would slowly and painfully turn the tide in the Reapers' favor. And only from there on would Shepard actually manage to gather support by making everyone work together to achieve victory as a united force that would kick the Reapers back into darkspace, a result much more fitting with the theme of the series.

That was actually the game that most of us were expecting, I think. It's sort of sad that instead they decided to go for the mounting inevitability of predestined fate and the unwinnable horrors of a badly-balanced war. There's a trope for that one, too.

I believe there was a top number of 4,000 reapers in existence during the "earth" cycle, and that attrition over the years takes its' toll. If you make some leaps based on this analysis, you can see how important it would be to pin down the "Turean" race, and sow the seeds of a "Cerberus" movement during each cycle.

Good points. It's told to us that they already had issues with the previous cycle because the Turian equivalent - the Protheans themselves - crushed all the other races either into dust or into submission, and thus has a humongous united force to strike back with. Which was the only reason they lost, as well, as their tactics and military doctrine was homogenized.
It's rather sad that the assimilation of Reaper tech by our cycle's militaries was overlooked by the writers (or was it deliberate?) in order to go down the road to the anvilicious outcome with the Crucible.

The implication was that since so little remained of the Innusannon, they were less successful -- we are repeatedly shown examples of artefacts from way earlier races surviving for long, and judging from the Leviathan of Dis, Reapers themselves are hella hard to decompose, as it was still capable of indoctrination after this ungodly amount of time.

[beyondsolo]

Noelemahc wrote...

For example, while holding their ground against the Reapers defending forces would suffer major defeats due to treason (delusional opportunits or indoctrinated traitors) or at first irreconcilable differences between oragnics, something that would slowly and painfully turn the tide in the Reapers' favor. And only from there on would Shepard actually manage to gather support by making everyone work together to achieve victory as a united force that would kick the Reapers back into darkspace, a result much more fitting with the theme of the series.

That was actually the game that most of us were expecting, I think. It's sort of sad that instead they decided to go for the mounting inevitability of predestined fate and the unwinnable horrors of a badly-balanced war. There's a trope for that one, too.

That is another thing that annoys me to no end, partially because of the "artistic integrity" statement. If you look at Mass Effect 3 as art, you can't help but find that it fails because it's in no way thematically current. Both the inevitable fate of the galaxy and the forever correct, unchangeable rationale of the Catalyst are outrageously outdated modes of thinking that haven't been prevalent topics in innovative and relevant writing in decades, if not in centuries. /off-topic rant

As for the problem with dimensions described in the link you posted, BioWare went for the overly visible conflict. The cinematic experience in Mass Effect games is strongly built on the visible (as there are very few other media that help building it unless you pull some avantgarde stroke of genius). But let's be scientific here for a moment. BioWare's writers--or maybe designers of visuals--are largely sacrificing any attempt at coherent physics to visual aesthetic of violence.

Let's be clear here. Everything combat related in Mass Effect is limited by the fact that sensors are limited by the speed of light. Which means that targets a hundred million kilometers away (which is peanuts in space) will already cause a major lag in sensor feedback. Therefore, the enemy can effectively jump you in FTL before you even know they left their last known location. In order to construct a feasible combat scenario and prevent horrendous plotholes that defy both real and canon physics, the writers would have to invent and entire logic of space combat and build everything from there. That's not how BioWare did it. BioWare always started from the idea of what would look cool.

This leads to a number of problems which can be illustrated with in-game scenes. In Mass Effect, all space combat occurs at point blank range in spite of the vast dimensions and possibilities involved. Pretty much every space battle in the game is an example of that.

The orbital bombardment of the Reaper on Rannoch would have killed Shepard and everyone in the vicinity. Even if we assume that the accelerator slugs from the quarian ships which are fired from thousands of kilometers away don't impact with the force of 30 kilotons TNT equivalent, the bare fact that the bombardment is enough to "mortally wound" a Reaper suggests that the force is at the very least in the kiloton range. Shepard is so close to the impact that the forces involved would have killed him. The shockwaves generated by the displacement of air alone would have swept him/her away like a lego figure.

Those are only two symptoms of a much larger issue here, one that I believe truly distinguishes strong from weak science fiction. In strong science fiction the writers have a concept around which they build their plot. That concept is inextricably tied to the events that occur and technologies can't just be traded for one another. I'd largely put Mass Effect 1 in this category. In weak sci-fi, namely in space operas, the narrative and the supposedly underlying concept are connected only loosely or not at all, which means that the narrative can be constructed largely independently of the concept, or the writers attempt to fit the concept to work with the narrative--both of which tend to lead to plotholes and inconsistencies. I'd place Mass Effect 3 in this category.

I can't fathom why BioWare abandoned all the logic and lore they established in Mass Effect 1 in favor of fancy visual stuff in Mass Effect 3.

Modifié par beyondsolo, 01 mai 2012 - 09:09 .

[incinerator950]

beyondsolo wrote...

I agree that the difference in raw military strength between organics and Reapers is too great for the war to be anything other than a massacre. BioWare missed out on a huge opportunity when they subscribed to technological stagnation of the organics's armed forces. With the defenders equipped with Reaper-derived technology, something earlier cycles had no access to, BioWare could have easily explained a longer conflict and they could have focused their attention manipulating the story from there onward.

For example, while holding their ground against the Reapers defending forces would suffer major defeats due to treason (delusional opportunits or indoctrinated traitors) or at first irreconcilable differences between oragnics, something that would slowly and painfully turn the tide in the Reapers' favor. And only from there on would Shepard actually manage to gather support by making everyone work together to achieve victory as a united force that would kick the Reapers back into darkspace, a result much more fitting with the theme of the series.

Ah well, one can dream....

During the first game my largest hunch was the Reapers were going to have the upper hand in almost everything.  Even with Reaper Tech, in ME 2 I also had the prediction Bioware would keep the unstoppable cuttlefish idea.  

[Byronic-Knight]

**WARNING, MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT INCOMING**

I do apologise, but this is mainly due to my absence from the internetz for the past two days and therefore my only just now seeing this thread. 

(also, thanks for the credit/mention)

Ieldra2 wrote...

But I don't agree that a conventional victory should be possible against them. It took the whole quarian fleet to take out a Destroyer-class Reaper. 

 

A) It was only the Heavy Fleet that took out the Destroyer on Rannoch: masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Destroyer (scroll down to the Encounters section)

I always find the choice of words interesting in this discussion---not agreeing a conventional victory should be possible is completely different from agreeing a conventional victory would be possible. 

a.m.p wrote...

David7204 wrote...

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?

If either of them told us that there was a prothean reaper (or reapers), then it would be an established fact. They don't, so all we're left with is in-universe speculation that there was no prothean reaper. Out of two cycles we have information about one most likely produced no reapers. Which really puts into question the whole 20000 reapers theory.

Relevant speculation from EDI concerning the Human Reaper at the end of ME2:

"It appears that a Reaper's shape is based upon the species used to create it." 

"However, it is clear that the Collectors are merely pawns. The technology and ability needed to create this Reaper is not their own. It is likely that different species construct each Reaper. In this case, The Collectors provide the labour." 

"The Reapers subdued the Protheans long ago. Probability suggests they attempted to create a Prothean Reaper and failed. Over time, they adapted the Protheans to suit their needs---changed them---turned them into workers---tools for the Reapers." 

Noelemahc wrote...

The very fact that Sovereign needed geth help indicates Reapers are less powerful than is commonly thought.

Well, there was also only ONE of Sovereign, with no fighter cover, so he used the geth. Capships can't fight effectively without fighter cover, anyone who's ever played a space sim will tell you that. Wing Commander also teaches us that one crafty fighter can disable several capships if he's crafty enough and can produce ammunition out of thin air =P

In ME3, the Reapers use the Collectors' Oculi as fighters, to variable results -- they've been shown in ME2 to have issues with tight cornering and their only advantage over fighters of any galactic race is strength in numbers. They're like the husks among ships, easily killed, marginally weak, but very numerous.

 

On the other hand---given the fact that you (can) have the Geth forces [the same that did all the fighting in the battle of the Citadel, (nearly) destroyed the Destiny Ascension in said battle, (nearly) obliterated the Quarian fleet, and is generally considered the strongest fleet in the galaxy outside the Quarians] on your side  at this point, which includes the small geth fighters, like you escape the dreadnought in with Legion (which, again, you never see during the final battle)---the Reaper forces only have the Oculi as fighter cover, and given the possibility of having both Alliance/ex-Cerberus fighters (which are shown during the final battle) and the aforementioned Geth fighters, either of which appear to be able to hold their own against them (if not outright dominating them, since, as you mention, their only real strength are numbers), the larger ships should have no problem concentrating on the Reapers themselves. 

a.m.p wrote...

Thank you for this. I attempted to argue something similar a while ago but for some reason people are adamant that only four dreadnaughts can kill one sov-class.
If anything, the thanix cannons should allow smaller ships more firepower, so the real question is how many cruisers do we need to kill one sov-class.

 


That is the real question, considering a cruiser is shown taking two legs off a capital ship: 

www.youtube.com/watch

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Starships#Cruisers

a.m.p wrote...

How to deal with a couple thousand reapers?

Few examples:
1) Noelemahc's favourite cyberwarfare
2) My favourite FTL torpedoes
3) Everyone elses favourite antimatter weapons and nukes
3) Most importantly Raynulf's favorite 'use citadel to lock down relays' idea and use reaper divide and conquer strategy against reapers
And anything else less stupid than an off button.

Might sound crazy, but get behind them seems at least somewhat reasonable considering the fact that every time you see one fire their gun it is always a single point within a(n) (estimated) 100°/120° arc in front of them, and from what you see of them in the approach to Earth, they aren’t all that accurate. You never see a Reaper firing even diectly to the side, let alone behind them. Once you’re up in Starkid domain, if you look, you can see that the fighting has become largely disorganised, and it is therefore conceivable that somebody could hit one in the back. 

a.m.p wrote...

And how could possibly a conventional victory not be Shepard's story, when Shepard was that uniquly positioned person with connections that allowed them to gather all these forces?

This. 

Shep did what (s)he could in gathering the armies, uniting the galaxy and whatnot. In many ways the ending we have been given is less about Shepard and more about how the choice (s)he makes affects the galaxy (or, more negatively---but the view I take---Shepard suddenly being granted devine status to assert his/her will on the galaxy). In the same way, a conventional victory is about the galaxy as a whole---especially given the fact that Shepard is cut-off from the final battle at the end by going up to the Citadel. 

Rather than being about Shepard's microcosmic struggle, it expands and pulls back to reveal the macrocosmic battle going on. It still involves Shepard, and that final fight certainly wouldn’t exist the way it does without Shepard, but at the end it becomes about what Shepard is fighting for, rather than Shepard's fight. 

It's bascally that shot right before the Catalyst fails and you get your magic elevator ride, where you’re sitting with Anderson and just watching, because, at this point, at you’re physical position and perspective, that is all you can really do, aside from talking to Hackett every now and again.

It is still Shepard’s story because (s)he set the stage, assembled all the pieces, but since (s)he’s separated from the fight itself at the end by going to the Citadel, there isn’t much that can be done in the way of participation. It is those that had depended on you to bring them together that you now depend on to perform the task you gathered them for.

It isn’t about Shepard directly, but Shepard was necessary for it to be achieved. 

ThomaswBloom wrote...

I thought the simon says mini game from ME1 was better.  The ME 3 version was better than the ME2 hacking games though.  Simply because the hacking games were overused.  And lets not get started on the ME2 scanning, anyone who didn't edit the game files to have a million or two of each resource after their first playthrough has saintlike patience.

See, I am in the minority on this topic. I really liked all the hacking/bypass and scanning in ME2. 

I’ve gone through about ten times by now, and I still enjoy scanning planets. 

a.m.p wrote...

We really are getting mixed signals from ME3, aren't we?
We talk to Javik who says that they lost because of the trap working and their uniformity and then talk to Hackett who tells us we can't win and the crucible is the only option. And then we talk to Hackett some more and he says that if we don't find the catalyst, we'll go to Earth and take our chances anyway.

On the bright side, ambiguity allows for interpretation. Even at this point a conventional win wouldn't really contradict anything but Hackett's speeches.

Very true, particularly that last sentence. That goes back to what I say above about people saying "There shouldn’t be an option for conventional victory."

There isn’t really anything that says it isn’t possible except for Hackett’s semi-defeatist negativity/semi-I-don’t-want-to-send-my-soldiers-into-battle-if-I-can-help-it realism and the writers wanting to cram the unnecessary plot-device that is the Crucible into the narrative as a panacea for the Reaper threat. 

In fact, there’s plenty to say---given the numerous examples of lore (thannix cannons/Reaper code/anti-matter weapons/IFF/Cain being able to one-hit a destroyer/etc.) people have pointed out simply are forgotten about, retconed out to make the Crucible necessary, or are otherwise under- (or simply un-) utilised---that conventional, or at the very least semi-conventional victory is feasible. Though, as has been pointed out many times, not without substantial losses from all the fleets involved, and the subsequent need to do a sweep of the remainder of the galaxy. However, it was pretty well established that the bulk of the Reaper forces (including Harby) were at Sol, meaning that if you win that battle, the rest would be. . . not easy---let’s say "less difficult" to deal with. 

Modifié par Byronic-Knight, 02 mai 2012 - 05:02 .

[Noelemahc]

Great post, Knight, sums up the issue rather nicely, I should say. It's still beyond my understanding why this rather uncomplicated train of logic managed to escape from its rails and out of BioWare's sight.

There isn’t really anything that says it isn’t possible except for Hackett’s semi-defeatist negativity/semi-I-don’t-want-to-send-my-soldiers-into-battle-if-I-can-help-it realism and the writers wanting to cram the unnecessary plot-device that is the Crucible into the narrative as a panacea for the Reaper threat.

And that's a wrap.

[Noelemahc]

A promising thread on Reaper sanity.

[incinerator950]

Byronic-Knight wrote...

That is the real question, considering a cruiser is shown taking two legs off a capital ship:

This. 

Shep did what (s)he could in gathering the armies, uniting the galaxy and whatnot. In many ways the ending we have been given is less about Shepard and more about how the choice (s)he makes affects the galaxy (or, more negatively---but the view I take---Shepard suddenly being granted devine status to assert his/her will on the galaxy). In the same way, a conventional victory is about the galaxy as a whole---especially given the fact that Shepard is cut-off from the final battle at the end by going up to the Citadel.

Very true, particularly that last sentence. That goes back to what I say above about people saying "There shouldn’t be an option for conventional victory."

There isn’t really anything that says it isn’t possible except for Hackett’s semi-defeatist negativity/semi-I-don’t-want-to-send-my-soldiers-into-battle-if-I-can-help-it realism and the writers wanting to cram the unnecessary plot-device that is the Crucible into the narrative as a panacea for the Reaper threat. 

In fact, there’s plenty to say---given the numerous examples of lore (thannix cannons/Reaper code/anti-matter weapons/IFF/Cain being able to one-hit a destroyer/etc.) people have pointed out simply are forgotten about, retconed out to make the Crucible necessary, or are otherwise under- (or simply un-) utilised---that conventional, or at the very least semi-conventional victory is feasible. Though, as has been pointed out many times, not without substantial losses from all the fleets involved, and the subsequent need to do a sweep of the remainder of the galaxy. However, it was pretty well established that the bulk of the Reaper forces (including Harby) were at Sol, meaning that if you win that battle, the rest would be. . . not easy---let’s say "less difficult" to deal with. 

Going to hammer at this one.  First, a Cruiser was shooting off the Limbs of a Reaper for the same reason a Cain one hit a Destroyer:  Movie Effect Barrier Strength.  The reason we use Four Dreadnoughts is because that is the lowest number given with understandable strength.  We have been given more crap numbers in TNT to understand for a single Dreadnought or Reaper Capital, we have not been given the strength for every other weapon or Cruisers and Frigates.

Reaper code has only been able to help assist in understanding Reaper process logic.  It has not shown being able to hack a Reaper, and only Cerberus has found out how to manipulate Reaper signals to affect Husk Forces. 

It is not well established that the Bulk of the Horde was in the Sol system.  You had one Prothean VI telling you that they are consolidating Power, for all we know, they managed to pull two full sectors and managed to reinforce their position.  Like everything that should have been elaborated, they didn't to give to the surmise you needed the Crucible. 

There hasn't been a single Thanix Cannon or Anti-Matter weapon mentioned outside of Codex entries, and Nuclear Weapons mentioned outside of two conversations.  Warp Bombs and Fission explosives once again mentioned only for the Codex, and when we are discussing any of these codex entries, they explicitely refute that these weapons are an instant compatibility to level the playing field.  Only being slightly more effective then the leading brand Kinetic Cannon. 

It's not about Conventional Victory being possible, they don't want it.  Conventional Victory will be possible if they rewrite the current story to not heavily abuse the Crucible or lack of Arms buildup and preparation for three years.  Since thats unlikely to happen, it's not. 

[a.m.p]

Noelemahc wrote...

A promising thread on Reaper sanity.

Shhh. In this thread we pretend reapers aren't dumb.

incinerator950 wrote...
During the first game my largest hunch was the Reapers were going to have the upper hand in almost everything.  Even with Reaper Tech, in ME 2 I also had the prediction Bioware would keep the unstoppable cuttlefish idea. 
opposite situation

It's funny, because I got (in ME2) the opposite impression. We got all that exposition on reapers being dependant on organics for reproduction, we basically shot down a reaper pawn every two minutes in collector levels, we got this awesome reverse-engineered cannon, so I assumed they were consciously bringing reapers down from unfathomable machine gods to a big alien fleet, so that beating them would not sound stupid, and that was the main reason I didn't mind all that development.

I was half expecting at some point in ME3 Shepard (or Hackett, or Andeson, or whomever) would make this speech about how they pretend they are omnipotent but that they really aren't and that we should not fear them and we should fight them.

So for me the first big dialogue with Hackett, before I got to the codex, started making spreadsheets and arguing on forums, went like this:
Hackett: "There is no way we can beat them conventionally, commander."
Me: "What...? Why? More importantly there is the 'why' dialogue option?".

You keep saying a conventional option would require to redo the whole story. Why? All it really contradicts is Hackett's dialogue. Add one EMS check before Cronos station that would trigger a few additional lines of dialogue about how we might stand a chance after all - even if we don't find the catalyst. I mean, it's almost already there. He says if we can't finish the crucible, we will go to Earth anyway. Why would he say that if he thought there was no chance to kick the reapers off Earth without the damn thing?

Modifié par a.m.p, 02 mai 2012 - 02:05 .

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

Noelemahc wrote...

A promising thread on Reaper sanity.

Shhh. In this thread we pretend reapers aren't dumb.

incinerator950 wrote...
During the first game my largest hunch was the Reapers were going to have the upper hand in almost everything. Even with Reaper Tech, in ME 2 I also had the prediction Bioware would keep the unstoppable cuttlefish idea.
opposite situation

It's funny, because I got (in ME2) the opposite impression. We got all that exposition on reapers being dependant on organics for reproduction, we basically shot down a reaper pawn every two minutes in collector levels, we got this awesome reverse-engineered cannon, so I assumed they were consciously bringing reapers down from unfathomable machine gods to a big alien fleet, so that beating them would not sound stupid, and that was the main reason I didn't mind all that development.

I was half expecting at some point in ME3 Shepard (or Hackett, or Andeson, or whomever) would make this speech about how they pretend they are omnipotent but that they really aren't and that we should not fear them and we should fight them.

So for me the first big dialogue with Hackett, before I got to the codex, started making spreadsheets and arguing on forums, went like this:
Hackett: "There is no way we can beat them conventionally, commander."
Me: "What...? Why? More importantly there is the 'why' dialogue option?".

You keep saying a conventional option would require to redo the whole story. Why? All it really contradicts is Hackett's dialogue. Add one EMS check before Cronos station that would trigger a few additional lines of dialogue about how we might stand a chance after all - even if we don't find the catalyst. I mean, it's almost already there. He says if we can't finish the crucible, we will go to Earth anyway. Why would he say that if he thought there was no chance to kick the reapers off Earth without the damn thing?

Because Bioware doesn't want it. It's not about possibility, its about plausibility. Also, exactly how much development do you think that made a difference in ME 1 or ME 2 went into ME 3? The dialogue from the very beginning of Mars is that the Reaper force was Overwhelming and that the Catalyst is a means to defeat them, the only way.

[a.m.p]

beyondsolo wrote...

I can't fathom why BioWare abandoned all the logic and lore they established in Mass Effect 1 in favor of fancy visual stuff in Mass Effect 3.

I think I can fathom why. It wasn't cool enough. And this makes me very, very sad.

Byronic-Knight

A) It was only the Heavy Fleet that took out the Destroyer on Rannoch: masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Destroyer (scroll down to the Encounters section)

Nitpick: it wasn't even the heavy fleet. it was a few Alarei-type ships.

About getting behind reapers. There's a codex entry about that:

Knowing that the Reapers' weapons had a longer effective range than any of his own, Coronati made a short, daring FTL jump--landing his dreadnoughts in the middle of the Reaper fleet. The dreadnoughts then turned to line up their main guns on the Reapers, which also needed to turn to fire on the turians. This ploy used the Reapers' size against them--because they could turn faster, and their concentrated firepower downed several Reaper capital ships.

It is still Shepard’s story because (s)he set the stage, assembled all the pieces, but since (s)he’s separated from the fight itself at the end by going to the Citadel, there isn’t much that can be done in the way of participation. It is those that had depended on you to bring them together that you now depend on to perform the task you gathered them for.

It isn’t about Shepard directly, but Shepard was necessary for it to be achieved.

Yes.
And anyway, why does it have to be only Shepard's story? There is a whole galaxy fighting. It's not Shepard vs reapers, it's galaxy vs reapers. Shepard is simply in the middle of this and we see this through Shepard's eyes. It's as much Wrex's story, Hackett's story, captain Riley's
story, that marine's (from the citadel dock, who wanted to fight reapers) story, everyone's story. Why limit it to Shepard? Or do we really think that the player can't bear the story not revolving solely around their precious person for a moment? Do we really have to personally kill all reapers?

When I first bumped into IT all the way in the beginning of all this, I though it might work because it could mean that if Shepard gets indoctrinated and fails, then the people they have brought together would pick it up right where Shepard dropped it and finish the job. And that would be awesome.
Of course instead of that we get creepy pseudo-religious overtones.

[Noelemahc]

And anyway, why does it have to be only Shepard's story? There is a whole galaxy fighting. It's not Shepard vs reapers, it's galaxy vs reapers. Shepard is simply in the middle of this and we see this through Shepard's eyes.

Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick, THAT IS WHY THE GAME ENDS SO ABRUPTLY! Shepard is dead, he or she sees no more story, and since he or she is never resurrected for a second time, we get no closure, because Shepard has no closure! Just like we never actually see anything that happens while he or she is dead in ME2!

I need a drink.

Because Bioware doesn't want it. It's not about possibility, its about plausibility.

Well, the problem is that the plot we have now is less plausible than the one we're proposing. And it's a rather major problem, I would say.

[You keep saying a conventional option would require to redo the whole story. Why? All it really contradicts is Hackett's dialogue. Add one EMS check before Cronos station that would trigger a few additional lines of dialogue about how we might stand a chance after all - even if we don't find the catalyst.

Here's another tidbit. Shepard never talks to the Krogans and Turians about the Crucible (outside of the Council and Victus listening in on some discussions). All talk with them is providing a military force to help TAKE URTH BACK. They don't have any issues with going into this to fight a losing fight, they don't expect a superweapon to bail them out. The Salarians are useless as anything other than guerilla fighters and sciencey types to build the superweapon, sure, but the asari can also help across all fronts (and, once she hears we don't got no Catalyst, the asari Councillor drops the call to go deal with common warfare).

Everyone but the hoo-mans is going into this with a clear understanding that it's a Bolivian Army Ending, thinking that the Crucible is a useless waste of resources that, at best, with distract the Reapers from shooting at their ships.

Modifié par Noelemahc, 02 mai 2012 - 02:49 .

[a.m.p]

incinerator950 wrote...
Because Bioware doesn't want it. It's not about possibility, its about plausibility. Also, exactly how much development do you think that made a difference in ME 1 or ME 2 went into ME 3? The dialogue from the very beginning of Mars is that the Reaper force was Overwhelming and that the Catalyst is a means to defeat them, the only way.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Dialogue.
Just add a few more lines of dialogue and the issue of "Oh my god, it's impossible!" is fixed. Then do some cutscenes and cinematics for the fourth option (they are already doing them for the other three), and that's it. At this point in time we can't say how plausible or inplausible it is, because we have almost no information about the EC.
We have that very ambiguous announcement and some highly confusing twitter PR.

All talk with them is providing a military force to help TAKE URTH BACK

Ha. By the way, yes.

Modifié par a.m.p, 02 mai 2012 - 02:51 .

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...
Because Bioware doesn't want it. It's not about possibility, its about plausibility. Also, exactly how much development do you think that made a difference in ME 1 or ME 2 went into ME 3? The dialogue from the very beginning of Mars is that the Reaper force was Overwhelming and that the Catalyst is a means to defeat them, the only way.

Well, that's what I'm saying. Dialogue.
Just add a few more lines of dialogue and the issue of "Oh my god, it's impossible!" is fixed. Then do some cutscenes and cinematics for the fourth option (they are already doing them for the other three), and that's it. At this point in time we can't say how plausible or inplausible it is, because we have almost no information about the EC.
We have that very ambiguous announcement and some highly confusing twitter PR.

No, you're right, I'm speculating again.  Normally when I speculate negatively, it comes true or most of it does, so I tend to not think about things unless its going to have an eventual impact.  

The problem is that Bioware is unlikely to put the required effort, even if ten thousand people line up to throw money at them. 

[a.m.p]

incinerator950 wrote...

No, you're right, I'm speculating again.  Normally when I speculate negatively, it comes true or most of it does, so I tend to not think about things unless its going to have an eventual impact.  

The problem is that Bioware is unlikely to put the required effort, even if ten thousand people line up to throw money at them. 

Yeah, it all does feel like the odds are about as good as for beating a fleet of giant spacesquids with no external help, doesn't it? I am fully aware of the irony here.

[The Angry One]

Another thought on Reaper numbers.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Kahje

During an investigation of a hanar diplomat in 2186, if Shepard fails to stop the indoctrinated hanar diplomat Zymandis from sabotaging Kahje's defense systems, the planet will be quickly overrun and decimated by Reaper forces.


I have a hard time believing Hanar orbital defences could repel a Reaper invasion the size of Earth's or Palaven's.
But the Reapers wanted Kahje enough to try and shut them down.

To me it suggests that the Reapers are spread thin.

Modifié par The Angry One, 02 mai 2012 - 02:58 .

[incinerator950]

a.m.p wrote...

incinerator950 wrote...

No, you're right, I'm speculating again.  Normally when I speculate negatively, it comes true or most of it does, so I tend to not think about things unless its going to have an eventual impact.  

The problem is that Bioware is unlikely to put the required effort, even if ten thousand people line up to throw money at them. 

Yeah, it all does feel like the odds are about as good as for beating a fleet of giant spacesquids with no external help, doesn't it? I am fully aware of the irony here.

I dunno whether to laugh or keep a steady face.