531 réponses à ce sujet

[Aquilas]

Oransel wrote...

Bad fiction.

This says it all.  The writers are the Gods of ME.  In fact, this is my last post in this thread; I can't improve on Oransel's comment.  C'ya guys.

Modifié par Aquilas, 29 juin 2012 - 10:48 .

[Helios969]

Space is enormous.

The volume of the Milky Way is ~10^12 LY’s, that’s 1,000,000,000,000 (1 trillion cubic LY’s).  At 30 LY/day, it would take one Reaper 91,324,200 years to scour the galaxy, not factoring in how long it would take their sensor technology to scan a cubic LY of space and the star systems within.  If they have 10,000 ships all capable of the maximum 30 LY/day speed, it would take Reaper forces 9,132 years to completely assess every cubic LY of space in the Milky Way Galaxy.  That discounts scanning time, time it takes to defeat a given force, harvest a given population, and “allow them to ascend.”  They would also have to keep a given force and/or populations from slipping through their net of ships to resettle a world already harvested…or have to start anew.  In principle it would be impossible for the Reapers to harvest every member of an advanced race.  You could play hide-and-go-seek indefinitely, making their primary motivation of harvesting advanced races to make way for the young ones largely unattainable.

(Someone should run my numbers and make sure I didn't make a mistake.)

[JBPBRC]

If conventional victory is truly impossible it should've been explained and expanded upon more.

Not just Hackett going "NO ITS IMPOSSIBLE." Or Starchild going "SO BE IT."

There never should've been a "Miracle of Palaven" Codex entry, there should've been a "Tragedy of Palaven" entry. And so forth. Make it BLEAK. Warhammer 40k this thing! GRIMDARK! NO HOPE! Make the Cain bounce off the Destroyer, not OHKO the thing! Poison the atmosphere of Tuchanka! Turn Thessia into a nightmarish deathworld of Banshees! Even, dare I say it, huskify some of our companions (unless we play our cards right to the most excruciating detail). Make us do what the Protheans did and sacrifice worlds for harvesting to get time to regroup and rebuild. Have Shepard influence the choice of which planet must die to give the others more time. Burn Thessia so Palaven remains secure? Sacrifice Earth to strengthen Citadel defenses? Vice versa?

Loss. Tragedy. Hopelessness.

Make it actually seem like using the MacGuffin Crucible is the ONLY way to win, not half-heartedly build the Crucible in the background while we dither around solving the galaxy's problems and blowing up Destroyers.

THAT approach is what should've been used to truly make the Reapers seem unbeatable. Using the Crucible would be far more palatable if we had been given a much larger sense of scope of the Reapers straight-up trolling everything.

[Iozeph]

Is a conventional victory possible? I believe so. Yet should we believe canon as we're told to, then the majorities of Mass Effects one through three should never have happened. Shepard and the Normandy and every character we've ever invested in should be never met and long past gone. Why so?

The bloody Star child is why. According to him he was/is the creator and effective ruler of the reapers. He is the citadel, lives within it, and from it controls the relays. So, from the start why bother with Eden Prime when all he ever needed done was to have the entirety of the reaper fleet called in? Why the need for Harbinger? Why the need for Sovereign? For Husks? Why any warning whatever? He's been with us from day one.

I see Mass Effect one opening with Anderson and Hacket speaking as Shepard stares out of a window before an alarm is sounded. The next we see is a cut scene where a reaper fleet flashes into near Citadel space as well as near the relay to Eden Prime. 'What is it? Who are they? What do they want?' Panic follows. Destruction sweeps through the wards, the presidium, etc... Explosions- plenty of those of course!  Roll credits. 

Two opens much the same way, another fifty thousand years later.  Another five minute introduction, another war weary soldier- it's still Earth- yet with a Planet of the Apes flavouring to it- Our hero? Lance Lot Link: Citadel Spectre. More explosions, no warnings, a robo squid slips on a banana peel as it lands on another far flung colony. Doom! Fire! Roll credits.

Three- three opens with the lights flickering on in the citadel. The star child shouts- 'Yoohooo?' No answers. "Right, then,' Breaks the fourth wall, 'That's a wrap! Roll credits!'

Whevever I have through the endings and see the Star child I see the textbook example of a serial murderer, given his head for a such a long time- never confronted, never caught, such that he craves for nothing more than a challenge -the one soul out there capable of catching him and ending his spree. That the only reasoning we have for Mass effects one through three only is that
the starchild needed Shepard- just as Moriarty needed Holmes.

He's lonely- must be so, for why else should he actually give the galaxy enough warning that every cycle they've time enough for mounting some sort of defence- no matter how meagre? Why when he could simply cut communications to the citadel, vent the atmosphere, leave the Galaxy in the dark and end them effortlessly- EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.?

But he doesn't. We get three much longer games to essentially reach the same conclusion. And given those endings in Mass Effect three- even after the
extended cut- they reek even more heavily of dungeon master's fiat. More a quasi-interactive narrative where it's more the DM reading at you than to you. Roll dice when called to but otherwise set back, shut up, and listen.

DM - "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah blah blah. You've a device before you."

Gamer- "Oooh! How does it-"

DM- "Nevermind that. No time..."

Gamer- "Look... Well what about the room- how does it...?"

DM- "Shut it, you..." Frosty staring all around* "Right. Moving on... The device has three buttons; Red, Blue, Green. Press one of them."

Gamer- "But shouldn't we-"

DM- "No."

Gamer- "Hmmm... One of them, you say?"

Dm- *sighs* "Yes."

Gamer- "Only the one then?"

DM- "Yes, yes. Hurry it up, would you?"

Gamer- "But what if we-"

DM- "No."

Gamer- "But there must be some other wa-"

DM-"No! No,no,no,no.no." *Shakes fist* "And just who's running this goddamn game then, hey?"

Gamer- ". . ."

Gm-  "Oh come now. Just press one of them, would you? It's cool! I swear it!"

Gamer- "Hell to that and you. You've kept me here all evening- no movie, no soda, no pizza... This scenario was rubbish from the start. I'm done."

DM- "But...  But w-w-wait! This is the fate of the universe here."

Gamer- "Cheers."

DM-"But the red... The blue...." *Sounds of a door slamming shut in the distance.*

DM- *Sweeps his screen to the floor- hurls several many sided dice at the wall and shakes furiously* "SO BE IT! THE CYCLE CONTINUES! I REIGN SUPREME!!!... ... ... ... AGAIN! HA, HA, HA!" Holds his fingers to his forehead in an L shape. "HA! LOOOOOOOSER!"

So truly, either it's that, a horrible ending suffered at the hands of Dungeonmasters Mac and Casey, or the ending needs a change to allow an option for a more conventional battle to be fought and won.

Modifié par Iozeph, 29 juin 2012 - 02:03 .

[Abram730]

Yes, just nerf the crucible a bit.. All it needs to do is disrupt quantum entanglement and knock every organic and synthetic out in the solar system sphere. Organics start to wake up, but reapers are damaged and can be defeated conventionally. Their internal order and oneness has broken down.
This extends the game into many games.

[FlyingSquirrel]

The only way I could see defeating the Reapers without the Catalyst is if EDI and the geth somehow managed to reprogram the Crucible in a way that avoided the negative consequences of Destroy, Control, or Synthesis while still putting an end to the Reapers' attacks and harvests. And I'm not sure that's really a conventional victory either.

If the question is about conventional ground and space battles, then no, I don't think the Reapers could be defeated that way. The implication in Priority: Earth seems to be that they're throwing almost everything into this one battle, and they're still struggling to get the upper hand. I don't see how they could do that on every single planet that the Reapers occupy with the casualties they'd be taking - to put it simply, they'd run out of people before the Reapers would.

Modifié par FlyingSquirrel, 29 juin 2012 - 02:26 .

[kathic]

1) All other cycles resisted conventionally.
2) They clearly create more than 1 reaper a cycle or else they would likely all die out. I imagine a cycle could kill at least 1 reaper.
3) The reapers have significant forces that are not just their own squid ships.

[KingZayd]

Aquilas wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Talk to an exterminator.  Seriously.  We've been trying to make cockroaches extint since forever, but one of the two (human, roach) has been around since the Cambrian Age.  Of the two, I know which one I'd put money on to survive until the sun burns out (and it's not the human).

Unless the ants/roaches can wipe out the humans, this analogy is pointless.

I'm pretty sure I've read they can survive a nuclear winter. So clearly they're like the Asari: Playing the long game, and letting humanity destroy itself.

Ummm...the Reapers don't want us to destroy ourselves while they wait us out.  They want to destroy us themselves, and most actively with much alacrity.  In fact, it's their reason for being.  Again, bug analogy=fail.

Guys.. I wasn't being serious. You don't really think I believe cockroaches are waiting for us to wipe ourselves out, do you?

[TudorWolf]

There's nothing special about our cycle, we squandered nearly every advantage we were given. Why should we succeed where countless other civilizations didn't?

Modifié par TudorWolf, 29 juin 2012 - 04:56 .

[mrcanada]

Oransel wrote...

According to the lore. I'd say yes, it is possible, though very unlikely. 9000 EMS should be a victory with heavy casualties, in my opinion.

To those who say that conventional victory is impossible because Hackett said it. Hackett is incompetent old moron who lost 2  fleets in relatively avoidable situation. 

To those who say that conventional victory is impossible because it violates ME lore. Guess what? ME3 have already violated lore by turning Reapers into retarded squids who can be shot from roof with Cain gun. 

What I wanted to see in the first place: Shepard and Anderson up there near control panel, sharing last words, Citadel opens, Crucible fires - what happens next is up to your EMS. Sure it would still be Deus Ex Machina (Crucible) and weak writing, but that was alright way to finish the series with noone complaining. 

Starkid violated the lore, literally raped the plot to the point where now everything is possible. Synthesis is exactly as impossible as conventional victory, yet it happens.

Actually, yes.  If ME3 proved anything, it's that the Reapers are not as omnipotent as once thought.  Every facet of the Assault on Earth plan went off without too much of a hitch.  Hackett's flagship is never even remotely threatened, nor are any of the other flagships.  We are shown this.  

Is it said that the Reapers are unbeatable?  Yes, but it also said the Omega 4 relay was a suicide mission and we survived that.  Shepard beats the odds and the Reapers are not as strong as once believed.  The game proves this.

[mrcanada]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

infraredman wrote...

I think the EMS should have at least had influenced this ending. Low EMS = liara's probe talking. High EMS = another result. Perhaps shepard at least gets word out to destroy the citadel (and therefore destroy the catalyst that controls the reapers). What happens to the reapers if the catalyst is destroyed? Do they continue the cycle without it's influence? It doesn't have to be a positive outcome --- though considering tragedies and comedies are as old as ancient greece I so no reason why a happy ending is any more "artistic" than a sad ending --- both are conventional. I am not so sure why BW is so insistant that one option couldn't be "happy" it wouldnt' degrade anything....but even so an ems defeat/tragedy coudl be possible to. Hundreds of years of war and perhaps humanity and the races all die, but maybe also there are no reapers for the next cycle to have to fight. So the VI talking wouldn't say "we tried, but failed" they would say "we bought your future with our lives".

I think it's a fair reason for disappointment to feel that the refuse ending isn't as fleshed out or depicted in the way that you would have liked.

Having a good talk with wysterra about it, obviously it's possible for the current implementation to be perceived as a slight, without actually wanting it to be a way to win the war.  That sucks.  Wish that hadn't happened for him.

I do think it's better to still have the choice, but if someone feels it's not done well enough and it would have been better to do not add it (and even add to the other endings), that's fair and a fair criticism to boot.

I respect this quote very much.  An acknowledgement of the communities concerns goes a long way.

[Emphyr]

hI,
I see new topics are created after this one about the same subject .In this topic there are several really good arguments and discussions and thoughts about it. Even a BW dev joined.

Seeing more new topics opened this must be something that really intriges people.
I am gooing to bump this one in case the ppl who joined the new topics about it havent seen (ore missed) this one.

Take Care

[savionen]

kathic wrote...

1) All other cycles resisted conventionally.
2) They clearly create more than 1 reaper a cycle or else they would likely all die out. I imagine a cycle could kill at least 1 reaper.
3) The reapers have significant forces that are not just their own squid ships.

This was the first cycle where people were aware of the Reapers before it happened. This is also the first cycle where all the relays weren't shut off. This cycle isn't isolated.

The Protheans lost, but no Reapers were created in that cycle. and they probably lost a few. I can't imagine there being more than a couple hundred Reapers, there's no evidence to really show they've had flawless victories.



I'm sure it's been talked about a few times but why weren't Cains used more? It feels like that's the sort of thing that happened very commonly that makes me question Hackett. Cains can destroy Hades cannons and ground troops at the very least, but you never even see them used. At the bare minimum it would force more Reapers to land making them more susceptible to bombardment and ground-based thanix weapons.

Modifié par savionen, 30 juin 2012 - 09:38 .

[Redbelle]

savionen wrote...

kathic wrote...

1) All other cycles resisted conventionally.
2) They clearly create more than 1 reaper a cycle or else they would likely all die out. I imagine a cycle could kill at least 1 reaper.
3) The reapers have significant forces that are not just their own squid ships.

This was the first cycle where people were aware of the Reapers before it happened. This is also the first cycle where all the relays weren't shut off, also.

Keep in mind the Protheans lost, and there were no Reapers created in that cycle. It's possible they also destroyed a few. I can't imagine there being more then a couple hundred big Reapers.

As cycles continue the potential for outlying elements in the equation of Reaping can grow so that the equation alters from what it was to something unwanted by the calculator.

Or to put it another way. The dogged determination to lay a smack down on the Reapers by all free sentient beings in that galaxy cycle is so strong, that plans the Cat cannot predict are hatched which mess up his calculations on a swift and hassle free reaping.

[The Heretic of Time]

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

Oransel wrote...

Hudathan wrote...

No.

Yes.

Prove it.

You first.

The burden of proof is on the person who makes the positive claim. You say you can beat the Reapers conventionally. So it's your job to prove that you can.

[savionen]

Redbelle wrote...

savionen wrote...

kathic wrote...

1) All other cycles resisted conventionally.
2) They clearly create more than 1 reaper a cycle or else they would likely all die out. I imagine a cycle could kill at least 1 reaper.
3) The reapers have significant forces that are not just their own squid ships.

This was the first cycle where people were aware of the Reapers before it happened. This is also the first cycle where all the relays weren't shut off, also.

Keep in mind the Protheans lost, and there were no Reapers created in that cycle. It's possible they also destroyed a few. I can't imagine there being more then a couple hundred big Reapers.

As cycles continue the potential for outlying elements in the equation of Reaping can grow so that the equation alters from what it was to something unwanted by the calculator.

Or to put it another way. The dogged determination to lay a smack down on the Reapers by all free sentient beings in that galaxy cycle is so strong, that plans the Cat cannot predict are hatched which mess up his calculations on a swift and hassle free reaping.

Well, you'd also think that each cycle the Reapers get stronger. They're smarter, they have more experience and they have more numbers. Since the Protheans fought a good fight, it makes you wonder how successful they had been in the past. If there's were only 20 Reapers in the past, they're not exactly unstoppable and there's always those random elements like the Thresher Maw. Seems more like they would struggle to increase in numbers, rather than continously gaining every cycle.

Modifié par savionen, 30 juin 2012 - 09:46 .

[Gorkan86]

How many capital ships can be destroyed by a single Alliance fleet? What are your thoughts?

[Wulfram]

[question moved from another thread)

Are you saying that the reaper that is halting shepards advance that shepard used a cain to kill was not a destroyer...?

I'm saying that likely either it was not a destroyer, but a remotely controlled non-sentient support ship like the processing and troop transport ships, or that it was a destroyer, but the modification of it into an AA gun compromised it's shielding.

When we later encounter a destroyer, it requires tank mounted "Thanix missiles" (whatever the hell they are, the concept makes no sense) to take down, not a Cain.

Gorkan86 wrote...

How many capital ships can be destroyed by a single Alliance fleet? What are your thoughts?

ME1 suggests 1, maybe.  And that was in highly favourable circumstances - no destroyer support, the reaper was stationary and it's shields only came down after Shepard destroyed Husk Saren

Modifié par Wulfram, 30 juin 2012 - 10:01 .

[dreaming_raithe]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I do think it's better to still have the choice, but if someone feels it's not done well enough and it would have been better to do not add it (and even add to the other endings), that's fair and a fair criticism to boot.

To be honest, I think that's a problem with ME3 at large. There's a *lot* in the game that feels like it wasn't done properly, especially relative to the previous games. Face imports really weird, dialogue choices are few and far between compared to ME2 (and even moreso compared to ME1), the journal system doesn't have anywhere near the functionality that it had in the previous games, the eyes on characters look off in weird directions all the time, and so on. All of these things worked much better in ME2 than they do in ME3. For some of the things (like character models, for instance) it feels even stranger, because ME2 on the PS3 used ME3's ending (as far as I'm aware, anyway).

The endings felt the same way--the original endings felt like they were really incomplete. The extended endings feel more complete, but they strike me as being sort of a "bare minimum" solution to all of the issues with the endings. They couldn't address the major narrative and thematic problems in free DLC, of course, but they wouldn't have had to if they had done them right the first time.

I have no doubt that budgetary and temporal concerns played a big part in so much of ME3 feeling like it wasn't done well enough, which I find really strange. If I had to wager a guess, ME3 had a bigger budget than ME2, but ME2 overall feels like the more polished experience, and also the experience that had much more care and detail put into it. There are *hints* of that polish and care in ME3, but they're drowned out by a lot of problems.

Sometimes I wish Bioware had waited a year to put out ME3 because there's so much of it that just feels unfinished, especially compared to what came before it.

[a load of stanton]

Master Che wrote...

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. 

sovereign was far stronger than other reaper capital ships as it had tentical lazers stronger shielding because he had to frontal assault the citidel to get the rest of the reaper armarda to council space vangaurd reapers are always stronger

[Gorkan86]

Somewhere on the wiki was written that the entire Second fleet was sacrificed to hold a dozen of capital ships. But i can't find the article.

[RiouHotaru]

Alright, everyone who thinks conventional victory is possible, answer this question:

Assuming the coalition fleet can somehow overcome the Reaper Fleet on Earth (hypothetical, we know it can't, Refusal proves as such).

HOW is the remainder of that fleet supposed to overcome the Reapers that occupy the entire galaxy at that point?

[savionen]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Alright, everyone who thinks conventional victory is possible, answer this question:

Assuming the coalition fleet can somehow overcome the Reaper Fleet on Earth (hypothetical, we know it can't, Refusal proves as such).

HOW is the remainder of that fleet supposed to overcome the Reapers that occupy the entire galaxy at that point?

That's about as vague as you can get, but if a 3k EMS can hold key points (relatively at least) then 10k EMS could handle a lot more.

Mix in giving Cains to ground troops, attaching them to fighters, using missiles to take out Occuli it at least seems plausible. Research dead reapers, Thanix cannons were just reverse engineered off of Sovereign. Perhaps its possible to reverse engineer their shield systems, figure out how their power sources work, or figure out more weaknesses. For being a huge battle in ME3 it's honestly not very intelligently fought, ME3 shows it to be mostly a slugfest. Usually the answer to these sort of questions in Mass Effect (or Sci-Fi in general) is aquiring more knowledge, not trying to smash things with a hammer.

Modifié par savionen, 30 juin 2012 - 10:19 .

[RiouHotaru]

Again, the remainder of the fleet versus the ridiculous number of remaining Sovereign class-ships.

Face it, conventional victory is not possible. Even the Catalyst states you're outnumbered.

[Gorkan86]

In order to destroy the "Destroyer" conventional guns is not enough, and Cain neither. Its power is incomparably small compared to the spaceships cannons.
Remember, how hard was destroying the reaper on Rannoch? And how many times the Normandy shot it in the "eye" with Thanix cannons, and he continued to move. Cain will be a mosquito bite for him. Because it much more weaker compared with Normandy's cannons. It's not even based on Thanix technology.