505 réponses à ce sujet

[dragonflight288]

Sun Tzue: He who tries to defend everything will ultimately defend nothing.

Sun Tzu: If you know your capabilities but not your enemies, you job is half done. If you know your enemies strengths but not your own, you job is half done. If you know both your strengths and weaknesses as well as your enemies, but have yet to do anything, your job is only half done.

Sun Tzu: When forced into a corner and desperate, man will become a vicious tiger.

Sun Tzu: Strike where the enemy is weak, avoid where they are strong.

Taken from the Art of War. Greatest military genius in history says in war, it's impossible to save everything, defeat is certain for the unprepared, tactics are imperative (I like Hackett's style)

Garrus: You have to respect an enemy before you can defeat them. If you have no respect for them, you don't know what they're capable of. (taken from random dialogue with a soldier in the lounge)

Conventionally, and without the Crucible, defeating the Reapers is impossible. Everything all the races had was gambled on the Crucible. Not using it is taking everything everyone sacrificed to get it to earth and onto the Citadel was for nothing.

[Funkdrspot]

I'm going to quote another thread
http://social.biowar...ndex/12850067/1

F00lishG said...
Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

Modifié par Funkdrspot, 29 juin 2012 - 09:03 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

I didnt think the catalyst was tricking me because its still an AI. it has a program to follow. just because it looked like the kid to me didnt change anything

[Joccaren]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote... When shepard flies off at the end of ME1 its implied that the council is ready to work towards preparing for the reapers or that humanity will prepare for them in the absense of the council (depending on which of the two endings you get)

Keep this in mind, I will bring it up later.

Shepard leaves to look for some way to stop them. (Pretty sure the paragon dialogue is exactly that)

He does not go in search of a magical superweapon, however. A way to stop them can come from anywhere, and not just a magic bullet.

The concept of the armies of the galaxy NEEDING rallying was only introduced in the SECOND game because it ignored the implications that the end of the first game SHOULD have had. the coverup thing they used in 2 was really stupid and a case of ****ty writing so they could keep the story of 2 simple and easy to work with, and it bit them in the ass when it was time to make 3.

Yep. No argument here. ME2, however, should have been about getting the Galaxy prepared for a way to stop the Reapers. As you said, ME2 was where they NEEDED rallying, but not where the idea of a rallied galaxy defeating the Reapers was introduced.

Theres plenty of setup for ME2 to have been about finding some way to stop the reapers. it was never going to be about building an army until ME2 RETCONNED it.

1. See the top part of this post. ME2 WAS about building an army. Was it about Shepard going around and personally training each individual soldier? No. But ME2 was implied to be about preparing for the Reaper threat. ME2 Retconned this and made it a useless story piece, rather than a "We are preparing to stop the Reapers" piece.
2. I'm still seeing the implication that the only "Look for a way to win the war" sort of thing that can ever occur is to go out looking for an ancient superweapon. So, when we were looking for ways to win WW2, we were searching in deep underground caverns for the equivilent of the nuke just lying around? Or were we learning more about our enemy, their strengths, their weaknesses, where to hit, how to hit and coming up with strategies to defeat them?
A slightly different twist on the Collector base issue could have been that it contained vital information about the Reapers, or several Prothean worlds with this information. This isn't some big superweapon, this is just what we know about the Reapers, where their weaknesses lie, and eventually finding some way to stop them.

Also if we're going to start comparing thanix to reaper fire, bear in mind that the reapers have a much higher sustained rate of fire than us, and greater shields.  it takes several dreadnoughts and sustained fire to take one soverign class reaper down, but one reaper can destroy a dreadnought.

According to ME3 numbers. Keep in mind this could have been written entirely differently. In ME2 The Normandy takes out the Collector ship in 2 shots. Note how massive the Collector ship is compared to the Normandy. It also utilises Reaper technology, as does the collector base, yet 1 Frigate manages to take it down without being hit [Except by the explosion thanks to Joker's "Lets watch the view" flying].

Check this out:  (quoted from ME wiki)
*snip*
that means that with every fleet allied together we only have at max 85 dreadnoughts in all our fleets, plus the destiny ascension depending on your choice in ME1.  This is ignoring the fact that throughout the game the fleets do actually lose a few dreadnoughts.  One thousand reapers would be enough to overpower 85 dreadnoughts with thanix cannons, and theres far more than a thousand reapers in the battle.  most Smaller ships cant put a dent in reaper ships above a destroyer class, if that.

A few things:
1. This could easily have been changed by the ME2 plot actually preparing for ME3. More Dreadnoughts = more firepower.
2. Somebody counted. There's only around 300 Reapers in the battle. Cinematic magic, sure, but the point stands that we have no idea how many Reapers there are, nor how many were at Earth. We've only got speculation.
3. Thanix Weaponry. Smaller ships in ME1 couldn't put a dent in Sovereign, however with upgraded weaponry they would devastate him. Also note the Sword Fight: A cruiser blows off the Arm of a Sovereign class Reaper. In addition, I believe the Codex states somewhere that 1 Cruiser can take on 1 Reaper destroyer if it gets the jump on it.

Theres alot in the codex about how combat actually works in space and how it relates to naval combat and I think thats some of the most fascinating stuff in the game.  knowledge of this is why even with the best strategies we still stand no chance at defeating the reapers.  we'd be lucky to destroy 50 sovereign class ships before losing so much of our powerful ships and fleets that we'd totally ****in lose.  The entire point of allying the fleets is to liberate earth, and that eventually becomes "We cant really do that so we're going to try to use the fleets to take back the citadel and use it on the crucible to hopefully end the war because we're out of options"

If we could only hope to take down 50 Sovereign class ships, and there are over 1000 at Earth, then we should have lasted approximately 5 minutes in the fight. Obviously we lasted a hell of a lot longer than that. We can put up a fight against the Reapers, and had ME2 not done a poor job of setting up, we could defeat them with a conventional combined fleets.
Note how we have no clue on the number of ships in the Galaxy's fleets, we have no clue on the number of Reapers and we therefore have no clue of either our own strengths, or those of our enemy. This is something a proper ME2 could have fixed, in either direction.

superior technology always beats out anything else.  The native americans outnumbered the colonists in the american midwest but we had cannons and guns so we were able to kill far more of them than they could us.  Abunch of humans going into a rainforest can kill a truckload of endangered animals because guns and superior intelligence are better than claws and agility.  The reapers are better tactitians than us because they have nothing to lose.  they dont need anything to survive OR fight, a single reaper is stronger than a single dreadnought, and theres way more of them than our best ships.  If you pay attention the fleet battle of me3 just throws abunch of occulus and fighters at eachother so there could be more shooting going on because a fighter class ship is practically useless against reapers.  it was actually kind of a silly scene tbh.

Superior Technology usually beats out anything else. For one, proper strength Thanix rather than the ME3 nerfed Thanix.
Second, the Asari were successfully defeating the Reapers with hit and run tactics, until the Reapers Zerg Rushed Thessia, and they decided to try and defend Thessia conventionally, falling back to conventional tactics that were doomed to failure.
Krogan managed to get nukes inside several Sovereign class Reapers on Palaven, and kill them from the inside.
The Turians managed to hold the Reapers off at their supply lines, sacrificing a large portion of their fleet that could be used to retake Palaven to instead defend the fuel depots against the Reaper onslaught.

There are examples of superior tactics overcoming the Reapers. it can be done. However, it would require Bioware not have either their Zerg Rush the Reapers at Earth, or not have their "You cannot win conventionally" mindset, for either to work.

And yeah, the Sword Battle was bleh. I think Bioware said somewhere they went with the more Star Wars style of the battle because it looked cooler. They do it in all the cutscenes sadly, but W/E.

[Pride Demon]

MuKen wrote...
1) They very expressly put less into this ending than the others. They are telling you not to play Shepard this way.

2) They don't give you a game completed achievement. They're flat out telling you doing this means you failed the game.

1) So less content = Devs telling you that's the wrong way to play... I disagree... Especially if you consider that technically Reject ending is the one that got the most content, since it was totally new from the ground up, while the other three only get expanded upon innesting themselves over what was already there...
I also find Shep's speech in that one to be pretty bada*s...

2) There are two reasons this is not necessarily a slap to the face:

- the first is technical: registering an achievement is more than just playing the game, there are many flags and counters involved, several of them hardcoded, so it would have required the total overhaul of several game files on top of the new things EC provides and the bug fixes it contains... That's costly (and remember the EC is free so they wouldn't be recovering it), takes time and would have thrown the size of EC through the roof...
Also some platforms may require external third party approval to the achievements, that makes the wait even longer and the cost even higher...

- the second is logical: the "game completed" achievement, aptly named "Mission Accomplished" is rewarding from doing exactly that, completing the mission started in ME1 by stopping the reaper cycle...
In Reject the cycle continues, so why do you want to be rewarded for stopping the cycle if you didn't?
Unless you think a conventional victory should have been possible, but that contradicts your OP where you say you are ok with Reject leading to you losing and the next cycle winning...

[Joccaren]

Funkdrspot wrote...

F00lishG said...
Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst? He will stand and do nothing and you can destroy all the Reapers. There. War over. No one else needs to die.

Is it because he told you the choice existed, thus taking away the power of something you were going to do anyways? Is that it?

Is it because the idea of a Giant supeweapon merging with the Reaper Boss A.I. too much for you to handle? Is that it?

Or are you all just so cynical that you see yourself rejecting Bioware itself because you cannot accept what was handed to you?

I genuinely want to know. Because I cannot see preferring genocide and ascension to destroying the enemy that you sworn to do since ME1.

It isn't so hard to see that the Crucible is the winning blow, its more what it represents, and how it destroys the story that people don't like.

For one it means going against what many Shepards have strived for in previous games. You either agree with the Reapers and Synthesise, you agree with the indoctrinated and Control, or you commit Genocide and Destroy - killing your friends and allies, EDI and the Geth.

I'm not going to go into the "Cold Calculus of War vs the soul of our species" debate on the destroy ending, that's been done enough, and by Mr Batier or W/E in ME1.

The choices it presents offer nothing for many Shepards.

In addition, a Deus Ex Machina [If taken in context of the whole series] or Magic Bullet [In context of purely ME3] is an extremely weak way to end a story. Do you respect people who hack games so that they can just press buttons and win? That's what the Crucible is. Press a button to win.
There is no challenge in it. There's no reason the Reapers ever stood a chance as soon as it existed. Nothing matters but it, and it can't fail. Its the easiest, cheapest and suckiest way out of a story ever. Its like if Gandalf came in through a magic portal, told the Reapers they shall not pass, then the Balrog grabbed all the Reapers and Gandalf and disappeared into a black hole. Oh, but it was set up earlier in the game, you went to Mars and found out that the Protheans designed an interdimentional portal that no-one has any idea what it does, and you spend the game building this. Its weak. It has nothing compelling about it. Its not interesting, its got no weight to it, and when you hear about things like it in stories, movies and games its a moment of "Oh, I've been here before". Find the magical artifact that will win you the game.
Yeah, it gives you an easy goal, but its an unsatisfying goal, like if 1 of the big dots in Pacman made you invulnerable forever, and could eat ghosts whenever you like. Does it let you win? Yeah. Is it fun, interesting or a good idea? Not really. Its a cheat, and cheats are never truly fulfilling.

[daecath]

Funkdrspot wrote...

I'm going to quote another thread
http://social.biowar...ndex/12850067/1

F00lishG said...
Why is it so hard to see that the you basically won when you meet the Catalyst?

Why is it so hard to see that the catalyst is the leader of your enemy? Why is it so hard to see that he offers you absolutely no proof of any of his assertions? And why is it so hard to see that accepting any of his options, from the point of view of Shepard, is essentially committing suicide based entirely on the say so of the leader of your enemy? 

Yes from a player perspective, you know as soon as you meet the catalyst that the game is over and you "won" (even though technically there is no winning option, at least not in a conventional sense). But from the perspective of Shepard, the catalyst admits that he is the leader of the reapers. Strike one. He gives Shepard some BS reason for the reapers to do what they do, which is contradicted by every experience Shepard has ever had. Strike two. Then he gives some vague (less vague now, but still vague) options all of which require Shepard to die. Strike three. 

[Rhosyn]

Oh wow. Reading through nineteen pages. Can I first say....how many times are we going to invoke Godwin's Law here? Way too many Hitler references. And calling people who chose the Reject ending "amoral" or "France" is just immature and uncalled for. I admit, I chose it for my first EC ending. Does that make me a coward or a baby-killer in real life? Hardly. So let's try to stop the nonsensical personal attacks.

Here's my take on it. In the current cycle, it is impossible to defeat the Reapers through conventional warfare. That is a given fact. As was stated previously in the thread, the might of the entire galaxy is being brought to bear in one system--and they're being slaughtered in droves. Granted, this is the heaviest pocket of resistance, but it's not the only one. Asari, turians, batarians, krogan--they're all being harvested, and a given population of soldiers is dwindling by the day.

That said, I'll acknowledge that I also thought about blowing the Citadel to bits when I remembered the Starchild was seated there. Assuming that it would stop the Reapers, however, is as much of a leap as trusting the Crucible to destroy them. The Catalyst may control them, but the reapers are clearly capable of independent thought and action (Leviathan, Harbinger's initiative using the Collectors, Sovereign using Saren).

So, assuming that blowing up the Citadel didn't work. The current cycle is screwed. The Protheans left multiple beacons and safeguards throughout the galaxy to try to warn their successors. As far as canon goes...Liara made one "memory capsule". Just one. Even if she somehow escaped that battle and tried making as many copies as possible...You're hoping that in 50,000 years, someone manages to discover it/unearth it, make sense of it, and not fall prey to squabbling and inaction just like the Council did.

I'll make a small disclaimer at this point. I wouldn't mind the next cycle winning without the Crucible. It would be an awesome twist. But at the same time, I acknowledge that the odds still aren't that fantastic. Especially when the Reapers are keeping a tight rein on where technology develops. I'm not all that upset about them using the Catalyst in the next cycle. Because who knows? They could have refined it further. From what we know, this was the first cycle where the Crucible was ever completed. And the Starchild still calls it comparatively crude. Who's to say in the next cycle, they don't refine the "Destroy" option to specifically target some synthetics and not others? Or assuming the Citadel is still around, they don't use the Citadel relay to blast the Crucible into dark space.

Frankly, like many others here, I don't particularly care what Twitter says. I'll take it or leave it..that's part of the luxury of playing an RPG--head canon may not be official, but who of those arguing passionately can honestly say they didn't add more to their Shepard's story than the templates called for?

The problem here occurs when we can't divorce our head canon from the established lore. There is a healthy line there, after all. I know if I try to go hug a krogan, I'm probably going to have a bad day. Just like I know that the Reapers have all the advantages: A sophisticated kinetic barrier, almost innumerable Oculus fighters, laser weaponry more powerful than the Thanix by a long shot, and the ability to surreptitiously plant sleeper agents in almost any colony, any world through indoctrination. And if that's not enough, each of the fallen can be harvested and brought back to fight against their former comrades. Replenishable shock troops--and if they had exercised it, they had every ability to shut down the mass relays after moving the Citadel to Earth. The Crucible was basically designed as a giant EMP pulse weapon that could be transmitted across systems with ease. Nothing about such a massive undertaking was conventional at all. What the ME3 ending boiled down to in respect to the Reject choice was to either take a gamble and choose RGB, or do nothing, and hope for the best.

I liked the Reject ending. It's not my favorite, and I think they could've designed it a bit more eloquently, but I hardly think it's a middle finger. It's perfectly reasonable given the facts.

I apologize for the length and any potential inconsistencies or ranting, I've been awake for almost 19 hours. Go insomnia!

Modifié par Rhosyn, 29 juin 2012 - 11:25 .

[jkflipflopDAO]

A better question to ask is

"Why are we slapped in the face for getting interested in the Mass Effect series?

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

Joccaren wrote...
He does not go in search of a magical superweapon, however. A way to stop them can come from anywhere, and not just a magic bullet.

A way to stop the reapers.  The implication was shepard would go out in search of information on the reapers and some way we could stop them.  This is a natural bridge TO the crucible but its not the same thing as saying "shepard leaves to find a super weapon"  it was "shepard leaves in search of answers to a way to defeat the reapers."  its not explicit no is it limiting, but its an easy leadin for the narrator to steer the story towards the prothean weapon in a pretty natural way.

Joccaren wrote...
Yep. No argument here. ME2, however, should have been about getting the Galaxy prepared for a way to stop the Reapers. As you said, ME2 was where they NEEDED rallying, but not where the idea of a rallied galaxy defeating the Reapers was introduced.

No because the rally was the ending of ME1.  the reapers were undeniable and the council's job was to prepare our military for the conflict.  there was no need for rallying within ME1 itself because the exposing of the reapers at the end of the game WAS that rallying cry.  Thats what the final conversation with the council was for.  ME2 ignored this and changed the impact soverign had on the council and the fleets.  

Joccaren wrote...
1. See the top part of this post. ME2 WAS about building an army. Was it about Shepard going around and personally training each individual soldier? No. But ME2 was implied to be about preparing for the Reaper threat. ME2 Retconned this and made it a useless story piece, rather than a "We are preparing to stop the Reapers" piece.
2. I'm still seeing the implication that the only "Look for a way to win the war" sort of thing that can ever occur is to go out looking for an ancient superweapon. So, when we were looking for ways to win WW2, we were searching in deep underground caverns for the equivilent of the nuke just lying around? Or were we learning more about our enemy, their strengths, their weaknesses, where to hit, how to hit and coming up with strategies to defeat them?
A slightly different twist on the Collector base issue could have been that it contained vital information about the Reapers, or several Prothean worlds with this information. This isn't some big superweapon, this is just what we know about the Reapers, where their weaknesses lie, and eventually finding some way to stop them.

Are you familar with the Atomic Bomb?  It was a super weapon we developed to defeat Japan and end World War 2 because we wouldnt be able to defeat them conventionally.  (Theres alot of cool history about this, also keep in mind that from the beginning Casey Hudson said ME3 was a world war 2 story.  Thats why the crucible looks like an atomic bomb.)

Joccaren wrote...
According to ME3 numbers. Keep in mind this could have been written entirely differently. In ME2 The Normandy takes out the Collector ship in 2 shots. Note how massive the Collector ship is compared to the Normandy. It also utilises Reaper technology, as does the collector base, yet 1 Frigate manages to take it down without being hit [Except by the explosion thanks to Joker's "Lets watch the view" flying].

ME2 was kind of holleywooded up, however the collector ship is still different from a reaper.  the fifth fleet (and apparently two others according to ME3) was not able to take down soverign until Shepard hijacked its brain by killing saren-sovereign.

Joccaren wrote...
If we could only hope to take down 50 Sovereign class ships, and there are over 1000 at Earth, then we should have lasted approximately 5 minutes in the fight. Obviously we lasted a hell of a lot longer than that. We can put up a fight against the Reapers, and had ME2 not done a poor job of setting up, we could defeat them with a conventional combined fleets.
Note how we have no clue on the number of ships in the Galaxy's fleets, we have no clue on the number of Reapers and we therefore have no clue of either our own strengths, or those of our enemy. This is something a proper ME2 could have fixed, in either direction.

Keep in mind the reapers were fighting defensively to protect the citadel so they could complete their harvest. 

Joccaren wrote...
Superior Technology usually beats out anything else. For one, proper strength Thanix rather than the ME3 nerfed Thanix.

ME3 is the first time a Thanix cannon was fired against a reaper.  technically it didnt retcon anything.  ME2's description was theoretical about what turian scientists THOUGHT the defensive strength of a reaper was, if you want to really call it out there.

Joccaren wrote...
Second, the Asari were successfully defeating the Reapers with hit and run tactics, until the Reapers Zerg Rushed Thessia, and they decided to try and defend Thessia conventionally, falling back to conventional tactics that were doomed to failure.

Defeating the reapers can mean any number of things.  I'm pretty sure they never destroy a soverign class reaper.  Defeating the reapers can mean securing supply lines or defeating ground troops or rescuing a colony.  They werent able to handle the onslaught of reaper ships that hit them.  It was the first time the reapers fought at full force since destroying the batarians' homeworld in their initial invasion.  The codex about the various battles going on and small victories against the reapers say much more than 3 seconds of a cruiser firing at a reaper until a small explosion happens and then quick cut to shepard going "now, attack!"

Joccaren wrote...
Krogan managed to get nukes inside several Sovereign class Reapers on Palaven, and kill them from the inside.
The Turians managed to hold the Reapers off at their supply lines, sacrificing a large portion of their fleet that could be used to retake Palaven to instead defend the fuel depots against the Reaper onslaught.

Sacrificing a large portion of thier fleet actually lead to the reapers' favor, the supply lines thing was more of a gambit.  the codex explains how weakened palaven were as the reapers subverted thier military tactics through superior strategy and resillience.  The turians werent winning, they were barely holding on, even with the krogan they were only able to make small victories.  They did manage to kill a handful of soverign class reapers through suicidal tactics (losing dreadnoughts in the process, and tactics that only worked once)   If you keep throwing men at something eventually you're going to run out of men and lose.  The reapers were bleeding the turians slowly, and it was working, even up until the ending on earth.

Joccaren wrote...
There are examples of superior tactics overcoming the Reapers. it can be done. However, it would require Bioware not have either their Zerg Rush the Reapers at Earth, or not have their "You cannot win conventionally" mindset, for either to work.

They werent necessarily superior tactics as they were suicidal.  every victory in the codex also results in heavy sacrifice and an inability to find a reliable strategy.  One of the methods gets subverted when the reapers start using formations that make those tactics useless.  (warping in behind reapers only works if they arent expecting it, once you start doing it they adapt.)  its how they defeated the protheans, adapting faster and more efficiently to the protheans strategies than they could form plans.  Reapers are really intelligent, remember, and able to think at a level much faster than us.  They also have the means to fight without supply lines and grow thier forces as they fight.

Joccaren wrote...
And yeah, the Sword Battle was bleh. I think Bioware said somewhere they went with the more Star Wars style of the battle because it looked cooler. They do it in all the cutscenes sadly, but W/E.

Return of the Jedi was ****ty space combat but the original Star Wars movie (death star trench) has one of the most well done space battles of all time that feels like a real fight.  (Watched it recently and was blown away by the stark contrast in thought put behind the battles between the two)

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

A better question to ask is

"Why are we slapped in the face for getting interested in the Mass Effect series?

You arent being slapped in the face.  it was a cool easter egg bioware threw in because it was a logical progression of the story that they wanted to do.  Complaining that you didnt get your way is petty and spitting in bioware's face.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

A better question to ask is

"Why are we slapped in the face for getting interested in the Mass Effect series?

You arent being slapped in the face.  it was a cool easter egg bioware threw in because it was a logical progression of the story that they wanted to do.  Complaining that you didnt get your way is petty and spitting in bioware's face.

No no, genius. I'm talking about the entire end of the game with the Starchild being introduced in the last 10 minutes. That's a slap in the face. 

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Zulama wrote...

D24O wrote...

Destroy is only somewhat insulting if the next cycle HAS to use the Crucible, because of the meta-textual implications of that. If not, if they can win on their own, it's actually a really good ending.

Yeah If Shepard could make peace between the Geth and Quarians, why woundn't the future do the same.

The Geth were anomalous to the cycles, the first known race of synthetics that wound up being peaceful.

Also, why do people still insist that using the Crucible is somehow submitting to the Catalyst?  It was already apparent in the original endings and explained in greater detail in the EC that the Reapers had nothing to do wtith the Crucible and had thought they had long since destroyed the plans for it.  It's not the Catalyst's weapon, and by extension the three possible functions of the device are not presented by the Catalyst either, merely explained by him.  Furthermore, the reason the Catalyst explains the choices to you is because the Crucible proved that organics had achieved a level of superiority that the Catalyst was forced to acknowlege.

Were they? We don't have enough information to say that. All we know is that we did manage to come to peace with, even forge an alliance with these synthetics (ironically BECAUSE of the Reapers). The point is, we know it's possible.

I think the problem comes from the EC, where the dialogue is changed and Starchild implies the Crucible is only a battery :/

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Shep threw a light into the future, future cycles took that light and pwn'd the Reapers without buying Starbrat's BS and RGB endings.

That's just it though, the Crucible is an organic weapon, therefore its solutions are of organic origin as well.  Any of the three choices is a refusal of the Catalyst's logic.

But that doesn't quite make sense. Are we expected to believe one of those races decided that what an anti-Reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why did they?

Most likely because they percieved that the rift in understanding between synthetics and organics was a real, but solvable problem.  Either way the Catalyst admits that the Crucible can do what he cannot, so obviously synthesis came from somewhere else.

But as far as they know, that does nothing to help against the Reapers. So there isn't really a reason for them to add it to an anti-Reaper weapon.

[KingZayd]

Ryzaki wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
Shep threw a light into the future, future cycles took that light and pwn'd the Reapers without buying Starbrat's BS and RGB endings.

That's just it though, the Crucible is an organic weapon, therefore its solutions are of organic origin as well.  Any of the three choices is a refusal of the Catalyst's logic.

But that doesn't quite make sense. Are we expected to believe one of those races decided that what an anti-Reaper weapon really needed was a Synthesis function? Why did they?

I always thought it was indoctrination.

A part of the developing team gets indoctrinated, thinks Synthesis is a GREAT plan, they build on the Crucible, cycle doesn't find out they're indoctrinated and dispose of them until the function's already built in and in a few cycles indoctrinated cell after indoctrinated cell helps develop that part until it's such a part of the Crucible's function that no one can tell it's not supposed to be there anymore.

That's the way I justify it anyway. The thought of someone not indoctrinated thinking that's a good idea boggles me.

So in that case, Synthesis and the other options would probably be traps? To me, this is the only sensible reason for choosing Refuse.

Modifié par KingZayd, 29 juin 2012 - 11:49 .

[Doctor_Jackstraw]

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

A better question to ask is

"Why are we slapped in the face for getting interested in the Mass Effect series?

You arent being slapped in the face.  it was a cool easter egg bioware threw in because it was a logical progression of the story that they wanted to do.  Complaining that you didnt get your way is petty and spitting in bioware's face.

No no, genius. I'm talking about the entire end of the game with the Starchild being introduced in the last 10 minutes. That's a slap in the face. 

Its just an AI.  Vigil was introduced out of nowhere in the last hour of ME1.  no one ****ed about him!  The reason people **** about starchild is because he uses a character model of a character they hated and dont like his voice.  Its not a slap in the face its just a weird scifi thing.  (if it was a different character model and voice no one would have complained.  its just because people are petty)

[Quintega]

Angry 7 year old GM "Boulders fall everyone dies"

[KingZayd]

Geneaux486 wrote...

Ryzaki wrote...
A part of the developing team gets indoctrinated, thinks Synthesis is a GREAT plan, they build on the Crucible, cycle doesn't find out they're indoctrinated and dispose of them until the function's already built in and in a few cycles indoctrinated cell after indoctrinated cell helps develop that part until it's such a part of the Crucible's function that no one can tell it's not supposed to be there anymore.

This ignores the fact that the Catalyst and the Reapers didn't know how to synthesize.  He even says at one point that they tried it themselves and failed.

The statement*

In the EC. He says it didn't work because Organics weren't ready, but that because Shepard was there, that somehow meant all Organics were magically ready for synthesis.

[Chaoswind]

Well if you take into account what sovereign said there are enough reapers to darken the skies and at the end of me3 they are doing just that.

We DO know what the allied forces have thanks to the treaty of pharixen (sp) and several diplomatic discussions you hear on the news in all games.

And actually there are more dreadnoughts if you let the council die in ME1.

"As of 2185, the dreadnought count was 39 turian, 20 asari, 16 salarian, and 8 human. By 2186, humans construct a ninth dreadnought, and the volus have built a single dreadnought of their own."

Source: http://masseffect.wi...ht#Dreadnoughts

Renegade -1 for the asari, and the turians speed up construction of 3 new ones (because they don't like humans)
Paragon you save one for the asari, and lose a bunch of cruisers and frigates.

So renegade has 84 confirmed and +3 that are almost completely build by Me2.
Paragon has 85 confirmed with a bunch just starting being build by the end of ME2. (and none will be ready for ME3).

The volus also have 1, so the math is like this.

Renegade 85 confirmed and 3 unconfirmed.
Paragon 86 confirmed.

Then there are the Quarian liveships, that carry dreadnought weapons, but not their armor. (those are a minimum of 2 and a Max of 6.

Then are the Geth dreadnoughts, with is said they had as many as the Turians at the start of the Quarian blind side, and they lost almost all of them if the Heretics are dead, and only 2/3 if programed (so a minimum of 3 and a Max of 13)

So yes, because the Quarians are retarded we lost the only chance of defeating the reapers as pound for pound under normal conditions the Geth have the strongest navy in the ME universe (and is why no one goes into Geth space, as the long range scanners tell you that is adamant to suicide).

Let's keep going with the maths

Renegade has 85 + 3 unconfirmed = to 88 at best.
If: Geth heretics destroyed and Quarians killed = +3
Geth heretics destroyed and Geth killed = + 6
Geth heretics destroyed and peace achieved = +9
Geth heretics programed and Quarians killed = +13
Geth heretics programed and Geth killed = +2
Geth heretics programed and peace achieved (the hardest) = +15

That is 90 dreadnoughts as a minimum and 103 at maximum for renegade Shepard.
Paragon gets 88 at minimum and 101 at maximum.

Disclaimer: paragon and renegade Shepard are based on the whole save council choice and not with the actual allegiance of said character.

so even on the best scenario you get a Max of 103 dreadnoughts and you have to be a Dick to get them, but I digress.

Let's keep running numbers:

If Garrus is a paragon the turians lose a total of 13 dreadnoughts before the battle of earth, and if renegade they lose 16.

Humans lose 4 of theirs
No where is mentioned Asari/Salarians lose of theirs, so I won't take their loses into account, even if that is beyond possible.
And the Geth/Quarian loses were already covered (stopid Quarians).

So Max dreadnoughts 103 - 17 ( the minimum loses during ME3) = 86

86 dreadnoughts vs a minimum of 200 ish capital ships

So even in the best scenario victory is almost impossible.

Take note that at the end of the fight most allied ships are destroyed, with some reaper casualties.

If the crucible isn't used victory is impossible, is as simple as that.

If the Quarians hadn't destroyed the Geth brainsphere and most of their fleet, the fight would be a lot better as pound for pound a Geth dreadnought can match a reaper capital ship.

So as much as I like tali, blame the Quarians for the impossibility of victory.

[Geneaux486]

Were they? We don't have enough information to say that.

We know what we're told by the likes of the Catalyst, Vendetta, and Javik.  Basically, the Catalyst tells you that up until the current cycle, synthetics always rebelled against organics.  Taking him at his word is a choice, but choosing to believe he's lying brings the entire ending into question, and the fact that we see that he was telling the truth regarding the effects and outcomes of each choice proves that he was honest about that, so it wouldn't make sense for him to lie about that one specific thing while being truthful about everything else.  In other words, were the Catalyst a liar, that would have somehow been followed through with before the story ended, but it's not.  Is this meta-gaming?  Absolutely, but I'm discussing the series not as Shepard, but as a player, discussing the story as someone who enjoyed the story, not as someone who is still a part of it post-game. 

All we know is that we did manage to come to peace with, even forge an alliance with these synthetics (ironically BECAUSE of the Reapers). The point is, we know it's possible.

The Geth proved it was possible, and this is why simply picking control is a viable way to save the galaxy, because we've already created the synthetics and subsequently made peace with them.

I think the problem comes from the EC, where the dialogue is changed and Starchild implies the Crucible is only a battery :/

Yeah that was weird, and kinda the opposite of what Vendetta tells us.  Still, it's the word of Vendetta, the representative of the last race to succesfully construct the thing, vs. the word of the Catalyst, who thought the plans for the thing were eradicated up until the point that the finish product was plugged into his front yard.  I think both are giving their honest opinion on the Crucible's function, the question is which one is more knowlegeable about it.

But as far as they know, that does nothing to help against the Reapers. So there isn't really a reason for them to add it to an anti-Reaper weapon.

As far as we know they didn't think it would help against the Reapers.  Yet they still added the function, because we know the Catalyst didn't, so they must have figured out at least part of the overall situation, perhaps even all of it.  One thing we can learn from meeting Javik, is that while each cycle has (marginally) increased success against the Reapers, that doesn't mean each cycle is more advanced than the last.  The Protheans were capable of a level of perception that only the Asari come close to matching in our cycle, and even then just barely.  Entirely possible that there was a race before them that was so perceptive, so intelligent, that it did figure out why the Reapers did what they did, and were even able to come up with a better solution.  Like I said, the Crucible is the weapon of the organics, not the Reapers, so we know somebody stuck it in there.

In the EC. He says it didn't work because Organics weren't ready, but that because Shepard was there, that somehow meant all Organics were magically ready for synthesis.

Pretty sure he also said the Reapers were incapable of doing so themselves.  The "being ready" part refers to the Catalyst's belief that Synthesis is the final evolutionary stage, meaning that until organics can get to the point where they can accomplish it, they aren't ready for it.  Shepard, and the allies that got him to where he was, built the Crucible, and got it into place, proved that they were ready, in the Catalyst's eyes at least, which is why he surrenders and cooperates.  If Shepard refuses in the end though, the Catalyst probably thinks "So because I conceded, he's refusing to use his own weapon, even to kill us.  Not as evolved as I thought.  Maybe the next cycle will have its **** together..."

Modifié par Geneaux486, 29 juin 2012 - 02:24 .

[Andy379]

Shepard Wins wrote...

Because apparently BioWare loves the Reapers, and wants us to accept the fact that they are letting us win, for no reason it seems. They really seem to like Reapers more than all the characters. "Reapers are fab! Yes I said they're fab dammit!"

The reapers are NOT the enemy.

[DirtySHISN0]

To answer OPs question; perhaps because refuse is so thematically opposite to what the whole series has been about its unfathomable. " lets fight the reapers for 3 years and then quit right at the last minute."

[Gweedotk]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

To answer OPs question; perhaps because refuse is so thematically opposite to what the whole series has been about its unfathomable. " lets fight the reapers for 3 years and then quit right at the last minute."

Shepard can refuse to simply deny the catalyst.

I remember a lot of people complaining about Shepard just accepting the Catalyst's terms. The only other option is to refuse, and Bioware has allowed those who wish that to do so.

[DirtySHISN0]

Gweedotk wrote...

Shepard can refuse to simply deny the catalyst.

I remember a lot of people complaining about Shepard just accepting the Catalyst's terms. The only other option is to refuse, and Bioware has allowed those who wish that to do so.

I like that the option is there, but i wouldnt say it's valid.
Been fighting for the survival of our cycle and the characters that have earned our affection for 3 games,
sure refusing the catalyst is the ultimate "you wont control me reapers", but on the other hand it makes everything after Liara's box irrelevant.

Still, i appreciate the fact it is there.

[jkflipflopDAO]

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

Doctor_Jackstraw wrote...

jkflipflopDAO wrote...

A better question to ask is

"Why are we slapped in the face for getting interested in the Mass Effect series?

You arent being slapped in the face.  it was a cool easter egg bioware threw in because it was a logical progression of the story that they wanted to do.  Complaining that you didnt get your way is petty and spitting in bioware's face.

No no, genius. I'm talking about the entire end of the game with the Starchild being introduced in the last 10 minutes. That's a slap in the face. 

Its just an AI.  Vigil was introduced out of nowhere in the last hour of ME1.  no one ****ed about him!  The reason people **** about starchild is because he uses a character model of a character they hated and dont like his voice.  Its not a slap in the face its just a weird scifi thing.  (if it was a different character model and voice no one would have complained.  its just because people are petty)

LOL just give up. You're obviously not equipped for the situation.