531 réponses à ce sujet

[Jenonax]

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.

[antares_sublight]

It seemed to me that Refusal lef to a conventional victory in the next cycle. At least, that's what I thought BioWare was pointing toward, since the message shown from Liara's device is that they 'built the Crucible, but it didn't work'.

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.

For me, it's reasonable that conventional victory is not obtainable without any sort of inside knowledge of reaper weaknesses or vulnerabilities. However, I feel it should be *possible*, given the right knowledge and tools.

[sp0ck 06]

Oransel wrote...

There is no proof about this being impossible except for several people thinking it is impossible. That is the problem for me. After ME1, yeah I'd say it is impossible. After ME2, same. But after all I have seen in ME3 with Reapers being incredibly weak... Yes, they can be just shot.

How many Sovereign class Reapers did you see taken out in all of ME3?

Incredibly weak?  It took an entire fleet several seconds of sustained fire to kill a single Reaper Destroyer that was on the ground, probably with lowered shields.

Not to mention the fact that Reaper ships do not need to refuel, have all the time in the world, and have nothing to protect.  You have no leverage in fighting them, whereas the Reapers can just systemically destroy one planet after another until you commit to action.

[RogueBot]

No, I don't think so.

Does that mean I think the endings where you "win" should go against the themes of the whole series, as they currently do? No. But I don't think a conventional victory should be possible.

[IanPolaris]

Allan Schumacher wrote...
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 am happy to oblige you:

1.  Shepard (and Humanity as a whole) in Mass Effect makes a career out of doing "the impossible".  Sure on the surface it would seem there is no way and no chance to defeat the reapers without a plot device...but we already know the Reapers are not invincible and not invulnerable.  Why could it not be that the impossible is merely highly improbable?

2.  How things are presented matter.  The catalyst clearly didn't favor the 'destroy option' for example and clearly favored and argued for the 'synthesis' option, but was willing to go along with Shepard.  Yet it throws a temper tantrum when Shepard won't play ball which actually lets the Reapers win?  It seems like when you see it in real time, that it's not the Catalysts that are losing their temper but the people that wrote him.  The fact you get a fade to black with NO exposition highlights this feeling.....also the fact that you get 'reject' by shooting a hologram (that can't possibly be harmed by bullets) also seems petty especiall to those that watched 'understated nerdrage'.

3.  Your War Assets should matter.  This goes back to the old complaint about how none of your choices seem to matter here.  I could accept that for this cycle, victory is not possible unless one plays ball with the Catalyst.  However, how you lose should be shown and it should make a huge difference for the next cycle.

4.  Why did you (I think it was you if not I apologize in advance) insist that the next cycle used the crucible anyway (even after Liara said it didn't work).  Without this, then reject is a lot easier to take (a pyhrric victory if you like), but with it, it sure SEEMS like Bioware telling us, "See only those willing to play the game our way can in fact actually beat the reapers...which seems completely contrary to the Shepard we grew to know in ME1 and ME2).

5. Why can't the next cycle at least potentially be able to beat the Reapers conventionally without making compromises?  If they get Liara's full warning early and are already a technological civilization (the Yahg for example), 50,000 years is a LONG time...and Reaper tech doesn't improve but the tech of a living civilization does.  Given that amount of lead time, I'd be astonished if the Reapers weren't curb-stomped perhaps even in Dark Space.  Why reject this possibility out of hand?

These things are (in part) why a lot of us are reading the rejection ending...badly.  It's not that we are upset with the option but HOW it is done and the statements and such that have come along with it.

Clearer?

-Polaris

[CaliGuy033]

I know this is going to shock the OP, but believe it or not, there's actually no such thing as a Reaper. There is no way to gauge whether "conventional victory" is possible, other than what the writers tell us.

When the writers repeatedly tell you through the dialogue and other information that conventional victory is not possible.......it's not possible. They get to decide.

[Lord Goose]

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

[Calibrations Expert]

Sure, 9000 EMS might beat the Reapers, but it's impossible to get 9000 EMS. There is not enough power in the known galaxy.

[7he Island Head]

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 think the disappointment comes from two things. Firstly the whole story revolving around a space magic generator (the Crucible) that no one knows anything about or what it does. Secondly all the missions are about building a convention army or acquiring war assests to fight the reapers conventionaly. It seems like all of Shep's efforts were a waste of time, because it comes down to him chosing options only present to him in the last few minutes of the game, involving a mysterious machine that you only help build indirectly.

I feel like the plot got pulled into to different directions, a noncoventional and conventional war effort, this made the ending unsatisfying for the ending is based in the nonconventional war effort, while the journey is based on the conventional wareffort. You don't even see the Crucible getting built.

Modifié par 7he Island Head, 27 juin 2012 - 07:42 .

[Jonathan Shepard]

Hudathan wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

Over 9000 is always the answer?

[CaliGuy033]

Lord Goose wrote...

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

That future cycle used the Crucible.  This has been made explicitly clear by Mike Gamble (and frankly, shoudl have been pretty damn clear just by watching the end sequence).

Is using the Crucible a "conventional victory"?  Didn't think so.

[Hudathan]

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

You first.

Extended Cut, you lose.

[IanPolaris]

Lord Goose wrote...

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

If you believe some of the posts and tweets coming from Bioware, this isn't so.  The next cycle plays ball and uses the catalyst.  I personally reject that notion too, but that's what I've read.

-Polaris

[savionen]

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Oransel wrote...

There is no proof about this being impossible except for several people thinking it is impossible. That is the problem for me. After ME1, yeah I'd say it is impossible. After ME2, same. But after all I have seen in ME3 with Reapers being incredibly weak... Yes, they can be just shot.

How many Sovereign class Reapers did you see taken out in all of ME3?

Incredibly weak?  It took an entire fleet several seconds of sustained fire to kill a single Reaper Destroyer that was on the ground, probably with lowered shields.

Not to mention the fact that Reaper ships do not need to refuel, have all the time in the world, and have nothing to protect.  You have no leverage in fighting them, whereas the Reapers can just systemically destroy one planet after another until you commit to action.

Reapers are also suspectible to hit-and-run tactics, can be landed on or docked with, can be destroyed by Thanix cannons, and require a MASSIVE amount of resources in order to create additional Reapers. Seriously, tally up how many people they killed in ME2, and they weren't even close to done with the Human reaper. I'd say that's a weakness.

Going head to head pew-pew probably wouldn't have worked, but it doesn't mean that a mixture of various ideas wouldn't have worked. Hack some, land on one, get a bunch of new reaper tech, find out more reaper secrets, etc. Instead it all boils down into being forced to play with Starchild.

Calibrations Expert wrote...

Sure, 9000 EMS might beat the
Reapers, but it's impossible to get 9000 EMS. There is not enough power
in the known galaxy.

I had 8700 EMS and I accidentally skipped a few side-quests...

Modifié par savionen, 27 juin 2012 - 07:35 .

[Legbiter]

The entire campaign as with regard to the Alliance is one of desperate last stands to buy time for evacuation, incessant hit & run raids to try and achieve the same as above and frantic stockpiling of resources for the Crucible.

Team organic is both outgunned, outmanned and outsmarted (except for the Crucible) the entire time.

[KDD-0063]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's hammered into your head through the course of three the third games that Reapers are unstoppable.

Fixed for you.

ME2's codex had a number of options that the council races' scientists and Cerberus are researching that can damage the reapers.

In ME1, there was still very little information about the reapers.
In ME2, we get the feeling of reapers are powerful in the stress Shepard's feeling but not much more.

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

[NM_Che56]

Lord Goose wrote...

Conventional victory is possible. In the next cycle, after people have read your message of incoming catastrophe.

You mean like the messages left by the Protheans? 

[TheLostGenius]

Admiral Hackett states in game that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Sorry guyz.

[Warrior Craess]

no it's not possible (with out a complete rewrtie of ME2 and ME3). We simply do not have the resources. We didn't spend enough time and effort in building up fleet forces to withstand an unknown number of reapers. We did not take enough time to harden or protect out infrastructure. We did not stock pile enough supplies, weapons, ammo, We did not research any new tech (aside from thanix cannons).

Basically we were sold down the river by politicians unwilling to face facts.

People can call for Asymmetrical warfare, but that's a false hope. yes we could win battles, but in the end the reapers would win.  To win an asymmetrical war requires that your enemy is divided in their desire to fight you. This division is not present in the reapers. Reapers do not have soft targets, and any area lost to them is more soldiers fighting for them. It's like fighting the zombie apocalypse when the zomebies are faster, tougher and have better weapons. 

Modifié par Warrior Craess, 27 juin 2012 - 07:39 .

[NM_Che56]

TheLostGenius wrote...

Admiral Hackett states in game that it is IMPOSSIBLE. Sorry guyz.

He ain't God.  But I happen to agree with his estimation.  Look what it took to bring down Sovereign. 

[Demon Velsper]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

 or because it realistically doesn't make sense?

One word: Synthesis.

What was that about realistically making sense? Invalid argument, the other endings don't.

[savionen]

KDD-0063 wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

It's hammered into your head through the course of three the third games that Reapers are unstoppable.

Fixed for you.

ME2's codex had a number of options that the council races' scientists and Cerberus are researching that can damage the reapers.

In ME1, there was still very little information about the reapers.
In ME2, we get the feeling of reapers are powerful in the stress Shepard's feeling but not much more.

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

Not to mention Shepard makes the impossible possible. Shepard died, but came back. Shepard defeated Sovereign when it was supposed to be impossible, defeated the Collectors when it was supposed to be suicide, etc. Saying the Reapers are unstoppable is just incredibly close-minded, especially for the sci-fi genre where the audience as well as protagonists spend their time thinking about and fixing problems new and dynamic problems.

[Oransel]

vivaladricas wrote...

So there is not one writer out there that can come up with a unconventional yet non spacebaby off button solution..... my arse.

Not Independence day style, but they are part machines and machines can be broken. They obviously aren't that bright to begin with, and that laser isn't all that fast if you can dodge it on the ground. They have code, they can certainly be hurt we saw that a few times in the series.

So yes they can, the writer choose not to allow it.

This is what I meant. Non-Crucible win should be possible.