531 réponses à ce sujet

[KDD-0063]

Egermano wrote...

I actually like the idea that very high EMS could enable conventional victory when going the refuse way. But I like ME3 multiplayer, so I'm biased as that would give a whole lotta reason to grinding N7 ranks.

For me, I don't really think this is a good idea.

Making conventional warfare possible or relevant would require at least some rewriting of the crucible plot and a complete overhaul of the ending.

In other words, making conventional warfare relevant would require Bioware to invalidate their precious artistic integrity and space magic, which they refused to do.

Because if all four options are real, even if conventional victory is possible, I might as well choose destroy at that point. Why not? Would be fewer casualties anyways.

[Computim]

Grifman1 wrote...

Jenonax wrote...

Who knows? But the fact is we didn't even try. We had no plan, no strategy, nothing. What on Earth would we have done if we didn't have the Crucible? Not that i'm advocating the fact we rely on a DEM, but the fact that we don't even try to win conventionally and instead relied on a dangerously ambiguous magic machine we had literally just found is totally unacceptable and nothing about the EC has changed my mind.

Actually a number of conventional battles were fought and lost.  The humans, Asari and Turians all fought conventional naval battles against the Reaper fleets that attacked their homeworlds and in every case lost those battles.  In every case the Reapers were able to successfully land their forces.  So you are wrong in saying in saying it was never tried.

This was also the first cycle where the Citadel didn't become the gateway of destruction though.  There was more preparation in this one, the galaxy, possibly synthetics and organics, were actually united.

..the end cutscene after the credits still tells me that, even if though we lost the war, we crippled the slow building reaper armada so much that they were wiped out sometime after, if not at the end of this cycle.

[kittysox]

Conventional ending is about as realistic as a synthethic made to stop wars between organics and synthethics. It should be possible to defeat the reapers with plans and technology handed down over millenia. I mean where did the plans and the idea of the crucible come from? Was it always meant only as a device to communicate with starkid or did the Protheans and those before design it as an acutal weapon or are we all just indoctrinated and following a plan laid out by the reapers, with only the illusion of truth and free will?

Modifié par kittysox, 27 juin 2012 - 11:48 .

[Grifman1]

KDD-0063 wrote...

Only in the third game suddenly people say that the reapers are completely unstoppable.

Because they pretty much are

[IanPolaris]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Computim wrote...

I'm inclined to believe that, although not possible in THIS cycle, that choosing the rejection ending resulting in a conventional war that was so different than usual and probably resulted in the loss of the citadel, and the Citadel Kid, which would have crippled the main driver of the Reapers, that there really was no future war... I believe, based on the final scene after the credits with the woman and the child that "They fought the war so we didn't have to" means the reapers are gone via conventional means... the crucible didn't work according to Liara, it's in the beacon, so there was obviously a conventional confrontation. It's a bittersweet victory.. but still 'conventional'.

Mike Gamble stated on Twitter that the subsequent cycle beat the Reapers by using the Catalyst/Crucible--i.e., learning from our cycle's mistake in refusing to use it.

Which is a big reason why a lot of people (including me) consider the 'reject' ending a big "FU" by Bioware.

-Polaris

[CaliGuy033]

Computim wrote...

..the end cutscene after the credits still tells me that, even if though we lost the war, we crippled the slow building reaper armada so much that they were wiped out sometime after, if not at the end of this cycle.

Yes, they were defeated by using the Catalyst--i.e., not by conventional means.

Seriously, go read Gamble's twitter.  Not that you should even really need to.  It was pretty heavily implied from Liara's speech that, "Hey, we tried this thing and it didn't work, but here are the plans and our story..maybe you can figure out how to make it work." (Which, of course, is just as simple as actually using it, instead of stubbornly refusing to do so.)

[CaliGuy033]

IanPolaris wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Computim wrote...

I'm inclined to believe that, although not possible in THIS cycle, that choosing the rejection ending resulting in a conventional war that was so different than usual and probably resulted in the loss of the citadel, and the Citadel Kid, which would have crippled the main driver of the Reapers, that there really was no future war... I believe, based on the final scene after the credits with the woman and the child that "They fought the war so we didn't have to" means the reapers are gone via conventional means... the crucible didn't work according to Liara, it's in the beacon, so there was obviously a conventional confrontation. It's a bittersweet victory.. but still 'conventional'.

Mike Gamble stated on Twitter that the subsequent cycle beat the Reapers by using the Catalyst/Crucible--i.e., learning from our cycle's mistake in refusing to use it.

Which is a big reason why a lot of people (including me) consider the 'reject' ending a big "FU" by Bioware.

-Polaris

I don't see it as a "FU" as much, but I do see it as Bioware clearly signaling that, hey, you can be stubborn and do your own thing, but you're not going to get a happy ending for your cycle.

[Hyrist]

Zelto wrote...



Personally I would suggest that it is only the game play within ME 3 that suggest it. And I personally think they the reapers numbers where inflated in ME 3 to make that possible.

Vigil say's it took the reapers years to wipe out the protheian planets and centuries before they completed the harvesting and retreated. Yet in ME 3 it took them months, sorry but personnally that doesnt add up. Either they were taking it easy before or there is suggenly a lot lot more reapers than in just one cycle previously

It would still take years to wipe out the curent Civilization, though placing all bets on the Crucible and failing to activiate it would likely expidite the process.

It did not take them 'months' to harvest Earth. They were only getting started when the counter-attack was launched.

However you do have to remember that the Protheans also played a War of Attrition, meaning they were stalling the reapers at every turn, playing a 'long haul' game they could not win. So they prolonged their suffering.

It probably did take centuries to take over the Galaxy agian in the Reject ending, you never get a clear indication of the time  that passed.

So no, I don't beleive the Reaper's numbers were inflated one bit. The Galaxy is an abo****ely gigantic place. A force that "Darken[s] the Sky of all worlds." Still has quite a lot of  ground to cover.

[Simocrates]

The fact that Hackett said we used a lot of the galaxy's resources to build the Catalyst and then the Catalyst turns around and says you have wasted the majority of your resources to get to this point while still being outnumbered and outgunned should be enough indicator that no, you cannot win conventionally. Perhaps if the Turian Councillor didn't dismiss your claim about the Reapers you would have built a fleet powerful enough to defeat them conventionally. But you didn't so stop being pedantic, entitled tools the lot of you.

[Computim]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Computim wrote...

..the end cutscene after the credits still tells me that, even if though we lost the war, we crippled the slow building reaper armada so much that they were wiped out sometime after, if not at the end of this cycle.

Yes, they were defeated by using the Catalyst--i.e., not by conventional means.

Seriously, go read Gamble's twitter.  Not that you should even really need to.  It was pretty heavily implied from Liara's speech that, "Hey, we tried this thing and it didn't work, but here are the plans and our story..maybe you can figure out how to make it work." (Which, of course, is just as simple as actually using it, instead of stubbornly refusing to do so.)

Mike Gamble also said the Indoctination theory  held merit, that we shouldn't throw our games away, that they weren't changing the ending (...not sure how adding a 4th ending, making the mass relays not rip apart in cutscene, having the Normandy's engines NOT fall off in FTL...etc isn't changing it either), and about 300,000 other tweets of contradictory nature.. I go by, if it's in the game, it's canon haha.  I disregard the tweets.. been there done that.  They argued for weeks that if it wasn't in the game it wasn't 'canon'.. so I do too now haha.

It's just his opinion in this case, and more often than not since this whole thing started, it'll either change or be contradicted within a week.

I'm just glad the ending dispelled that silly rumour about the existence of Space Magic

[Fdmatt]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

It's not tautology if they say one thing but constantly display another.

Helios969 wrote...

This^

 

They did not come anywhere close to "consistently displaying" that it was possible.  They consistently displayed that it was NOT possible.  

If you played through these three games and at any point felt, "Man, Bioware seems to be consistently telling me that I can beat this enemy conventionally!!!", you were doing some pretty serious mental gymnastics.

But hey, I'll give you a shot.  Go ahead and explain to me where Bioware "constantly" displayed that you could conventionally beat the Reapers.

Seriously.  Do it.  I'd love to hear what you can concoct. 

Well for starters how about the Turian fleet which absolutely cut the invasion force apart until a couple ships broke through to Palaven and they were ordered to retreat. I'll quote the codex when I grab my computer.

In the meantime why don't you concoct an excuse for saying that the Crucible is the only way to destroy the Reapers when even up to its delievery Kasumi states nobody has any clue what it'll do! Does that make sense to you? How bout Liara saying after Mars that using the Crucible without knowing what it would do would be like a child playing with a loaded gun. Well looky lou we end up doing just that. I acknowledge that we're debating within a constructed narrative here but there's difference between taking the writer's hamfisted plot guidance adnd pulling the wool off your eyes and examining the brass tacks.

[Grifman1]

blacqout wrote..

Also, don't forget that the Reapers were prevented from jumping to the Galaxy through the Citadel and accessing all the galactic records. They had the element of surprise kind of taken away, which again gives this cycle an edge that the Protheans lacked.

Except that they didn't believe Shepard and were stll surprised.

And the two year delay in the invasion, in which the cycle could study Reaper tech and derive some very real improvements to weaponry and the like.

Except that they didn't use the time because they didn't believe Shepard.

This cycle had a lot of advantages that the previous ones probably lacked.

Which they refuse to use, sadly enough.

[CaliGuy033]

Fdmatt wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

It's not tautology if they say one thing but constantly display another.

Helios969 wrote...

This^

 

They did not come anywhere close to "consistently displaying" that it was possible.  They consistently displayed that it was NOT possible.  

If you played through these three games and at any point felt, "Man, Bioware seems to be consistently telling me that I can beat this enemy conventionally!!!", you were doing some pretty serious mental gymnastics.

But hey, I'll give you a shot.  Go ahead and explain to me where Bioware "constantly" displayed that you could conventionally beat the Reapers.

Seriously.  Do it.  I'd love to hear what you can concoct. 

Well for starters how about the Turian fleet which absolutely cut the invasion force apart until a couple ships broke through to Palaven and they were ordered to retreat. I'll quote the codex when I grab my computer.

In the meantime why don't you concoct an excuse for saying that the Crucible is the only way to destroy the Reapers when even up to its delievery Kasumi states nobody has any clue what it'll do! Does that make sense to you? How bout Liara saying after Mars that using the Crucible without knowing what it would do would be like a child playing with a loaded gun. Well looky lou we end up doing just that. I acknowledge that we're debating within a constructed narrative here but there's difference between taking the writer's hamfisted plot guidance adnd pulling the wool off your eyes and examining the brass tacks.

You didn't come anywhere close to answering my question.  Please show me where Bioware CONSTANTLY indicated that conventional victory was possible.

And to be very, very clear: citing a specific battle in which a fleet held its ground for a little while does not even remotely support the proposition that the ENTIRE Reaper forces can be conventionally defeated. 

[Edrick1976]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

I like having a refusal choise however I dont think it should be an instante failure if you do. I still dont understand why even if you have a perfict score of 100% and have done everything correct that you cant win the game with out that dam space child. BioWare was just being in my opinion lazzy and stuborn (not to mention giving everyone the big F*&K YOU to everyone who disagreed with with the one ending) buy not letting people win the game like that.

Modifié par Edington, 28 juin 2012 - 12:00 .

[AllergevKev]

Sometimes you guys make me sad

[Fdmatt]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

It's not tautology if they say one thing but constantly display another.

Helios969 wrote...

This^

 

They did not come anywhere close to "consistently displaying" that it was possible.  They consistently displayed that it was NOT possible.  

If you played through these three games and at any point felt, "Man, Bioware seems to be consistently telling me that I can beat this enemy conventionally!!!", you were doing some pretty serious mental gymnastics.

But hey, I'll give you a shot.  Go ahead and explain to me where Bioware "constantly" displayed that you could conventionally beat the Reapers.

Seriously.  Do it.  I'd love to hear what you can concoct. 

Well for starters how about the Turian fleet which absolutely cut the invasion force apart until a couple ships broke through to Palaven and they were ordered to retreat. I'll quote the codex when I grab my computer.

In the meantime why don't you concoct an excuse for saying that the Crucible is the only way to destroy the Reapers when even up to its delievery Kasumi states nobody has any clue what it'll do! Does that make sense to you? How bout Liara saying after Mars that using the Crucible without knowing what it would do would be like a child playing with a loaded gun. Well looky lou we end up doing just that. I acknowledge that we're debating within a constructed narrative here but there's difference between taking the writer's hamfisted plot guidance adnd pulling the wool off your eyes and examining the brass tacks.

You didn't come anywhere close to answering my question.  Please show me where Bioware CONSTANTLY indicated that conventional victory was possible.

And to be very, very clear: citing a specific battle in which a fleet held its ground for a little while does not even remotely support the proposition that the ENTIRE Reaper forces can be conventionally defeated. 

And you didn't come close to answering mine.

[CaliGuy033]

Computim wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Computim wrote...

..the end cutscene after the credits still tells me that, even if though we lost the war, we crippled the slow building reaper armada so much that they were wiped out sometime after, if not at the end of this cycle.

Yes, they were defeated by using the Catalyst--i.e., not by conventional means.

Seriously, go read Gamble's twitter.  Not that you should even really need to.  It was pretty heavily implied from Liara's speech that, "Hey, we tried this thing and it didn't work, but here are the plans and our story..maybe you can figure out how to make it work." (Which, of course, is just as simple as actually using it, instead of stubbornly refusing to do so.)

Mike Gamble also said the Indoctination theory  held merit, that we shouldn't throw our games away, that they weren't changing the ending (...not sure how adding a 4th ending, making the mass relays not rip apart in cutscene, having the Normandy's engines NOT fall off in FTL...etc isn't changing it either), and about 300,000 other tweets of contradictory nature.. I go by, if it's in the game, it's canon haha.  I disregard the tweets.. been there done that.  They argued for weeks that if it wasn't in the game it wasn't 'canon'.. so I do too now haha.

It's just his opinion in this case, and more often than not since this whole thing started, it'll either change or be contradicted within a week.

That's fine, but what you just said isn't in the game.  The final sequence does nothing to imply that a future cycle beat the Reapers "conventionally."  It tells you that they were beaten, and without specifically saying how, it heavily implies that they were beaten using the Crucible.

[SpiderFan1217]

Here to answer question:

No, conventional victory is not possible. You are told many times ingame that it is not.

[shurikenmanta]

I've made the comparison to a flea taking down Godzilla. Not impossible per se, but so insanely difficult that it may as well be.

I would have no problem with a conventional victory being possible at, say, 500000 EMS. That'd more or less be what you need to reach technological and military parity with the Reapers.

[Grifman1]

vivaladricas wrote...

Damn a lot of acceptance here. If something like this happened would hate to be on the pessimistic side peoples team. Going in thinking your going to lose and saying "oh well" is kind of sad to me. Cause Hackett said so? Walters? I mean come on guys this isn't exactly going to ever win an award for literary genius. Drew K's dark energy plot was actually pretty darn good cause it had more purpose than turning people into purple barney machines

So, you're saying Hitler was right in insisting Germany still could have won WW2 even when the Allies/Russian were on the Rhine and Oder rivers at the beginning of 1945?  it was just a matter of being optimistic and fighting harder?  Reality never enters the picture?

[BurkSeven]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Maybe a more pertinent question is:

Is it acceptable that conventional victory is not obtainable?

It's one thing to want to be able to win conventionally. But is the disappointment with it not being possible fed more from the fact that someone wanted it to happen but didn't, or because it realistically doesn't make sense?


I was on the record a couple months ago stating that I agreed with the notion many posters had that refusing the reapers should have been a viable option, but I was also clear in stating that I'd have it result in failure because in my opinion it makes it a more interesting choice. So I'm just asking this to get a better understanding from those that are disappointed.

When you have done absolutely everything you possibly can in the game, gotten everything done PERFECT, every war asset, every person working together, no disadvantages, full paragon/what have you...

Refusal should end with the deaths of a lot of people.

But it should also either wipe out the Reapers, or at the very least drive them back to where they came. 

Not kill everyone and everything off screen.

[CaliGuy033]

Fdmatt wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

CaliGuy033 wrote...

Fdmatt wrote...

It's not tautology if they say one thing but constantly display another.

Helios969 wrote...

This^

 

They did not come anywhere close to "consistently displaying" that it was possible.  They consistently displayed that it was NOT possible.  

If you played through these three games and at any point felt, "Man, Bioware seems to be consistently telling me that I can beat this enemy conventionally!!!", you were doing some pretty serious mental gymnastics.

But hey, I'll give you a shot.  Go ahead and explain to me where Bioware "constantly" displayed that you could conventionally beat the Reapers.

Seriously.  Do it.  I'd love to hear what you can concoct. 

Well for starters how about the Turian fleet which absolutely cut the invasion force apart until a couple ships broke through to Palaven and they were ordered to retreat. I'll quote the codex when I grab my computer.

In the meantime why don't you concoct an excuse for saying that the Crucible is the only way to destroy the Reapers when even up to its delievery Kasumi states nobody has any clue what it'll do! Does that make sense to you? How bout Liara saying after Mars that using the Crucible without knowing what it would do would be like a child playing with a loaded gun. Well looky lou we end up doing just that. I acknowledge that we're debating within a constructed narrative here but there's difference between taking the writer's hamfisted plot guidance adnd pulling the wool off your eyes and examining the brass tacks.

You didn't come anywhere close to answering my question.  Please show me where Bioware CONSTANTLY indicated that conventional victory was possible.

And to be very, very clear: citing a specific battle in which a fleet held its ground for a little while does not even remotely support the proposition that the ENTIRE Reaper forces can be conventionally defeated. 

And you didn't come close to answering mine.

You've got the burden here, man.   I don't need to answer your questions. I have countless lines of dialogue explicitly stating--in no uncertain terms--that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally.  I'm still waiting to hear what you have, other than incredibly loose implications. 

Let's make it bit simpler, even.  We are told at least 8-10 times throughout ME3 alone that the Reapers cannot be beaten conventionally.  Each time, we're told this directly and unequivocally--for instance "We cannot beat the Reapers with conventional tactics" (Hackett).  Can you point me to even ONE time where we're told the opposite directly and unequivocally?  That is, can you point me to even ONE line of dialogue, before the ending, where somebody of influence says, "The Reapers can be beaten conventionally"?

[Computim]

CaliGuy033 wrote...

That's fine, but what you just said isn't in the game.  The final sequence does nothing to imply that a future cycle beat the Reapers "conventionally."  It tells you that they were beaten, and without specifically saying how, it heavily implies that they were beaten using the Crucible.

How does it imply that?  Liara specifically says the crucible didn't work.  If I were a race that stumbled on an artifact with that kind of thing I doubt I'd go "Oh so.. we need to improve the crucible!"...

It implies neither ending any more than the other.  However, being as the recording by Liara was obviously made AFTER the battle since it implies the crucible DIDN'T work which would have been unknown before the battle, we are just as able to assume that there could be supporting evidence either way.

I'm not trying to argue with you here, I'm just saying that's what I think, evidence doesn't really point either way and Mike Gamble has contradicted himself enough to not be a reliable source of information here, and I'm happy with the endings I've now been given.. all 4 with countless permutations.  Will I trust Bioware enough to preorder their next game?  Probably not.. but am I going to get future games... most likely

[Fdmatt]

And it was stated multiple times in game that Shepard was wrong about Saren, or the Reapers, or being able to get through the Omega 4. Defying the odds is what this series has always been about.

[darthoptimus003]

yes we have done it already
the krogan turian fleet started to push them back it was stated several times and the codex also states that it can be done
i dont see why we cant have that ending with a high TMS
they wanted to incorerate MP heres how the can do it 8000 or so
but if people have it and choose not to beat them thats fine to it aleast should have been an option though