531 réponses à ce sujet

[TamLin]

Well, the VI on Ilos did say that if all the civilizations of the galaxy join together even the reapers should be afraid. Seems like an unambiguous hint that the rEApers can be defeated by conventional means if Shepard could gather enough allies... Shame that the writers decided to change that in ME3.

Modifié par TamLin, 27 juin 2012 - 09:31 .

[MrRag]

Anything would be better than a deus ex machina ending, even an unrealistic ending. The Crucible should have been a weapon against the Reapers, not a space magic machine. The Catalyst should have been an object, some sort of power source. It was all good until the starchild showed up.

[fchopin]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

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?

No, it is not realistic to expect to win conventionally, if it was possible then the reapers would have been defeated before by other races much more advanced than us.
 
If we could win conventionally then the reapers were not what they were interpreted to be in the last two games.
 
Realistically the reapers should have beaten us even before we could build the crucible if they new we were building it.

[NA1]

STOP. SAYING. CONVENTIONAL. When you have no idea what it even means.

Conventional does not mean straight-up guns-blazing firefights. Conventional does not mean going down in flames. Conventional does not mean simply 'fighting' the reapers in space combat.

Bloody hell people. Go learn your war.

[CaliGuy033]

NA1 wrote...

STOP. SAYING. CONVENTIONAL. When you have no idea what it even means.

Conventional does not mean straight-up guns-blazing firefights. Conventional does not mean going down in flames. Conventional does not mean simply 'fighting' the reapers in space combat.

Bloody hell people. Go learn your war.

Conventional means not using the Catalyst.  It was made clear that not using the Catalyst means the Reapers win.  That's the writers' choice.  The fans don't get to pontification on whether that's "really true" or not.

[CaliGuy033]

M25105 wrote...

The idea is if you took the writers out of the equation and let the things run its course, would conventional victory be possible? Damn straight it would, at a high cost in manpower sure, but we could still kick their ass and win this war without having to suck up to some space kid.

Listen to what you are saying.  "Let the things run its course."  What does that mean?  This is not real life.  It is a fake story.  There is no "course."  If the writers don't tell us what happens, nothing happens.  Okay?  

The writers decided: conventional victory is not possible.  That's the end of the issue.  There's nothing else.  If I'm writing a story and I tell you that the sky is green in my story, you don't get to wonder whether the sky is really blue. I just told you--it's green.  That's it.  

[Zelto]

fchopin wrote...


No, it is not realistic to expect to win conventionally, if it was possible then the reapers would have been defeated before by other races much more advanced than us.
 
If we could win conventionally then the reapers were not what they were interpreted to be in the last two games.
 
Realistically the reapers should have beaten us even before we could build the crucible if they new we were building it.

The previous cycles stood no chance because

a) They didnt know they were coming
The reapers shut down the relays
c) The reapers captures the citidel and had all of the infomation where the were etc.

This cycle only stood a chance because of the protheans managing to hide a small number of survivers last time and then corrupting the keepers

[Qeylis]

fchopin wrote...

No, it is not realistic to expect to win conventionally, if it was possible then the reapers would have been defeated before by other races much more advanced than us.
 
If we could win conventionally then the reapers were not what they were interpreted to be in the last two games.
 
Realistically the reapers should have beaten us even before we could build the crucible if they new we were building it.

So, Joker didn't kill Soveriegn with a gun?

NA1 wrote...
STOP. SAYING. CONVENTIONAL. When you have no idea what it even means.
Conventional does not mean straight-up guns-blazing firefights. Conventional does not mean going down in flames. Conventional does not mean simply 'fighting' the reapers in space combat.
Bloody hell people. Go learn your war.

Don't be a jerk.  You know what we are saying, and so does everyone on this thread.  We don't need a military history class to talk about Sci-Fi!!!

Modifié par Qeylis, 27 juin 2012 - 09:54 .

[tonnactus]

If the reapers were really that strong that they couldnt be defeated conventionelly,it would be nonsensical to use the citadel as a trap anyway.

But its far to much for bioware writers now to remember what they established as lore in previous games.

Modifié par tonnactus, 27 juin 2012 - 09:51 .

[Qeylis]

Zelto wrote...

fchopin wrote...


No, it is not realistic to expect to win conventionally, if it was possible then the reapers would have been defeated before by other races much more advanced than us.
 
If we could win conventionally then the reapers were not what they were interpreted to be in the last two games.
 
Realistically the reapers should have beaten us even before we could build the crucible if they new we were building it.

The previous cycles stood no chance because

a) They didnt know they were coming
The reapers shut down the relays
c) The reapers captures the citidel and had all of the infomation where the were etc.

This cycle only stood a chance because of the protheans managing to hide a small number of survivers last time and then corrupting the keepers

Good points.  This cycle had more info than any other cycle.  The Reapers faced a larger fleet than any other known cycle.  We had way more information than any other cycle.  If any cycle could have beaten them conventionally (gun to gun for the purposes of this thread), it would have been us.

[Rip504]

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible. That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

We see with our own eyes,Reaper ships fighting more then 1 of our ships and winning. But that means nothing and we can win conventionaly,because we have killed a few Reapers. Even though they have killed way more of us,then we have of them.

Modifié par Rip504, 27 juin 2012 - 09:56 .

[NM_Che56]

Jagri wrote...

Master Che wrote...

Jagri wrote...

Not impossible it is however improbable. That said why risk it when the enemy leader presents himself and offers the proverbial "easy button"?

Kids these days love easy buttons.

to get the "easy button" you have to amass war assets and get the whole damned galaxy on your side to build the crucible. 

Fetch quests and scratching backs or humps

Which surprisingly many people just needed a few words from Shepard to throw their support behind it. When everyones existence is at stake and someone says "Hay everyone do this to survive!" then I am pretty sure alot of people are going to do just that.

[SiberETP]

I'd like to chime in here. In conversations like this, staistics are often brought up as a reason why wining without the Catalyst/Crucible is unrealistic, because someone else would have done it in a past cycle. The arguement goes that if that war could be won, then it would have been in the past. And I agree. We need a crucible in this story, but we don't need the catalyst.

The crucible can be viewed, thematically, as the contributions of all past cycles to winning the war. And that's important. Each cycle _isn't_ a completely separate event isolated from the others, there's a lasting build-up of knowledge and preparedness building. This cycle _is_special_. I could list a number of reasons, and they're important reasons, but the opportunities are there in ME1 and ME2 to have built on. The crucible, as a concept of all the past cycles contributing to our current victory, could still have been there without needing to be a physical object.

[Ridwan]

Rip504 wrote...

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible. That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

What? It didn't take a billion lives lost to kill of Sovereign you know. In fact he would've been wasted quite fast if it wasn't for the Geth armada he brought with him. And the cut scene as the ships enters Earths system shows how the reapers take losses.

[Qeylis]

Rip504 wrote...

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible. That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

Had we destroyed the Citidel, their Command and Control, ("I control them") they would have at least been in disarray, if we were lucky, their shields might be down (like with Saren).  Soveriegn didn't last long once his shields went down.  So, the odds would have shifted dramatically.  No more Billion to one kill ratio.  Maybe thousand to one, but we could handle that.

[BalianOfIbelin]

I wrote an alternate ending with conventional warfare, please check it out and let me know what you think:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Modifié par BalianOfIbelin, 27 juin 2012 - 10:00 .

[Ridwan]

Where did the billion to one notion come from?

[Zelto]

Rip504 wrote...

One dead Reaper. Billions of lives lost. Do the math. Conventional victory is a Joke.

They have Killed Billions and have taken multiple worlds in a short period of time. So a long war is a joke. They have killed Billions,we have killed what? If we are extremely lucky, maybe 10 Reapers.

So if they Have killed more then 10 billion people,which seems very plausible. That is 1 Reaper for every 1 billion dead. How is that in our favor? How is losing life at an alarming rate proof for conventional victory? It took the majority of our forces to board the Citadel,not retake Earth.

Earth is under Reaper control until the Crucible is fired,and by this time most of our forces have been lost. As hinted at in the EC. All of the life already lost,the countless ships we see blowing up etc.

We see with our own eyes,Reaper ships fighting more then 1 of our ships and winning. But that means nothing and we can win conventionaly,because we have killed a few Reapers. Even though they have killed way more of us,then we have of them.

Civillian casualties are irrelivent (Sorry). Its millitary losses that matter so the billions dead dont really come into it

[tonnactus]

SiberETP wrote...

I'd like to chime in here. In conversations like this, staistics are often brought up as a reason why wining without the Catalyst/Crucible is unrealistic, because someone else would have done it in a past cycle.

One simple question: Why the citadel trap was needed in the first place if the reapers are unbeatable conventionelly anyway?

The protheans were the first that sabotaged this trap,so no,previous races couldnt concentrate their fleets and were easy victims.

[Dusen]

Jonny110 wrote...

In ME1 I believe vigil says the reasons the reapers took control of the citadel and shut down the mass relays was to stop them from being overrun, suggesting that it is perfectly possible. However, I am remembering this from a while back....

That whole idea of the Reapers shutting down the relays was entirely lost in the mess of story that was ME3.

[Dean_the_Young]

TamLin wrote...

Well, the VI on Ilos did say that if all the civilizations of the galaxy join together even the reapers should be afraid. Seems like an unambiguous hint that the rEApers can be defeated by conventional means if Shepard could gather enough allies... Shame that the writers decided to change that in ME3.

That's really not what Vigil was saying.

Vigil was saying that not even Sovereign could overwhelm the galaxy. But Sovereign was just the Vanguard, a single Reaper.

[SiberETP]

tonnactus wrote...

SiberETP wrote...

I'd like to chime in here. In conversations like this, staistics are often brought up as a reason why wining without the Catalyst/Crucible is unrealistic, because someone else would have done it in a past cycle.

One simple question: Why the citadel trap was needed in the first place if the reapers are unbeatable conventionelly anyway?

The protheans were the first that sabotaged this trap,so no,previous races couldnt concentrate their fleets and were easy victims.

I am in complete agreement.

[Qeylis]

BalianOfIbelin wrote...

I wrote an alternate ending with conventional warfare, please check it out and let me know what you think:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Its very long, what I read of it is much better.  When I get time, I will finish it.  Thank you for all the work you put into it.

[Spartas Husky]

It should have been the top of the rewards. That through effort, and time you could have defeated them. Simply implying otherwise breaks one of the original foundations of Mass Effect.

[Gaelem]

Yes it is. But plot forces you to miss it.
1) IM comes up with a way to block signals, so you can stop the troops.
2) Tactics show you can fire at the beam weapons to hurt them
3) Likely means earth dies but hey it's a choice.
Really when Reapers pulled back to Earth, my first thought was blow up the Earth relay.