419 réponses à ce sujet

[richard_rider]

Because Shepard isn't a soldier, a commander of a ship. He is the Messiah, he's Jesus, Muhammad, and Buddha rolled into one.

He can space magic anything into a half cybernetic organism (yes, even lettuce, watch out for cyber lettuce, it is ALIVE)!

He can become the reaper overlord...because that is an awesome idea, I guess if you can't beat them, join them...

Or he can blow #$%^ up...although, he can only do it when someone else gives him the "blow #$%^ up" button.

Went from Sci Fi military space opera, to D'n'D in Space.

[Oransel]

JPVS wrote...

I would have loved that as a possible solution to be find in ME3. But again, that is a trumpth card shepard would have to find, something that provides a chance of winning that otherwise doesn't exist.
Would have loved it even more if it was a bit like Freelancer, where you'd actually take control of the Reaper and fight the others around Earth ahah

As I said, I have no problem with trumpth card and I expect it, BUT if it is done correctly. Foreshadowed, not contradictory to the lore and most importantly - is supplementary to the main card: united and strong Galaxy not afraid of Reapers. Ideal solution I was looking for before ME3 came out - various examples of Reaper tech, upgrades for ships, new weapons and so on. 

Crucible is not a trumpth card, it's an asspull which I can not accept. Sorry.

[JPVS]

Warrior Craess wrote...

daqs wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

So lets say there are only 10K cycles (only 500 million years ago it started so back when there were still dinosaurs). And only 500 of those cycles created reaper capital ships. It's still many times more than we can face and win. At 4:1 ratio we would need 2K dreadnoughts to defeat the reapers. We have 85. I think we're a little on the short side.

Can't be. The terminus ante quem for the Reapers' genesis is ~1bya, because the Leviathan of Dis was immobilized on Jartar at around that time.

Which means, theoretically, they could have even more ships, although cycle length variability could mess with that a bit.

heh yes, I'm aware of that. I was purposefully understating the reaper number so that people would grasp just how badly outnumbered we are.  but your right  it was at least 1 billion (lets call it that and assume levi rebelled due to being an original that disagreed with the policy) years ago. 

this would mean 20K cycles, with lets say 1 cycle in 10 allowing for a captial ship, so thats 2K. now at a 4:1 ratio we would need 8K dreadnoughts in order to achieve victory. Or for those mathematically challanged we would need 100 times the number of dreadnoughts that the council treaty allowed as a max. Now that still leaves 19K destroyers?  Somehow I'm thinking we're still just a little behind the curve here. 

And yet there are many here who like to ignore numbers based on historical accounts, because they think the wars humanity has suffered thus far can even compare the the war represented in ME. And so numbers are ignored and they cling to every little word and event, understanding them in a specific way that is not the absolute certainty, all for something that gives them some reason.
Well, in face of that, you can ignore numbers, logistics, sense, plausability, canon info, etc. Ignoring that and creating such ending, no matter how right it would feel and how please the majority of the fans would be, it would be just as much space magic as the synthesis ending (although without the gree color)

[Eire Icon]

I can appreciate that many people would like conventional victory to be possible (I am not one of them), but that dosen't mean it should be possible.

Allowing a conventional victory would mean:

- All the militry analysts in the ME universe are wrong. At no stage does anyone raise conventional victory as a possibility

- The reapers, the most advanced beings in the galaxy basically "Slept in" out in dark space. For the advanced races of the galaxy to evolve to the point where they were a credible threat to the reapers

- All the reaper warnings Shepard has given are incorrect - a miscalculation on his part

- Blowing up the Alpha relay was a mistake which led to the deaths of 300,000 colonists

- The galaxy mistakingly threw all their resources on a weapon that was not needed

- Javik must have been on drugs or something as he never once said anything along the lines of "We just screwed up, you're bound to win because you are all united"

Modifié par Eire Icon, 28 juin 2012 - 11:19 .

[JPVS]

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

I would have loved that as a possible solution to be find in ME3. But again, that is a trumpth card shepard would have to find, something that provides a chance of winning that otherwise doesn't exist.
Would have loved it even more if it was a bit like Freelancer, where you'd actually take control of the Reaper and fight the others around Earth ahah

As I said, I have no problem with trumpth card and I expect it, BUT if it is done correctly. Foreshadowed, not contradictory to the lore and most importantly - is supplementary to the main card: united and strong Galaxy not afraid of Reapers. Ideal solution I was looking for before ME3 came out - various examples of Reaper tech, upgrades for ships, new weapons and so on. 

Crucible is not a trumpth card, it's an asspull which I can not accept. Sorry.

Completely agree with you on that

I'm only stating that given how the game was pulled, there should not be a different "refusal ending" where the fleets of the galaxy beat the Reapers by themselves.

Modifié par JPVS, 28 juin 2012 - 11:20 .

[Helios969]

Eire Icon wrote...

I can appreciate that many people would like conventional victory to be possible (I am not one of them), but that dosen't mean it should be possible.

Allowing a conventional victory would mean:

- All the militry analysts in the ME universe are wrong. At no stage does anyone raise conventional victory as a possibility

- The reapers, the most advanced beings in the galaxy basically "Slept in" out in dark space. For the advanced races of the galaxy to evolve to the point where they were a credible threat to the reapers

- All the reaper warnings Shepard has given are incorrect - a miscalculation on his part

- Blowing up the Alpha relay was a mistake which led to the deaths of 300,000 colonists

- The galaxy mistakingly threw all their resources on a weapon that was not needed

- Javik must have been on drugs or something as he never once said anything along the lines of "We just screwed up, you're bound to win because you are all united"

The only mistake about it was not timing it so that the first Reaper or two that appeared were annihilated in the blast.

[Oransel]

JPVS wrote...

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

I would have loved that as a possible solution to be find in ME3. But again, that is a trumpth card shepard would have to find, something that provides a chance of winning that otherwise doesn't exist.
Would have loved it even more if it was a bit like Freelancer, where you'd actually take control of the Reaper and fight the others around Earth ahah

As I said, I have no problem with trumpth card and I expect it, BUT if it is done correctly. Foreshadowed, not contradictory to the lore and most importantly - is supplementary to the main card: united and strong Galaxy not afraid of Reapers. Ideal solution I was looking for before ME3 came out - various examples of Reaper tech, upgrades for ships, new weapons and so on. 

Crucible is not a trumpth card, it's an asspull which I can not accept. Sorry.

Completely agree with you on that

I'm only stating that given how the game was pulled, there should not be a differente "refusal ending" where the fleets of the galaxy beat the Reapers.

That's where second part of my argument comes into place. If game is already highly screwed and based on impossible endings (Destroy and Control included, Synthesis is worst) why not to add another impossible  ending which will be satisfactory for some of us? 

[Aimi]

JPVS wrote...

And yet there are many here who like to ignore numbers based on historical accounts, because they think the wars humanity has suffered thus far can even compare the the war represented in ME. And so numbers are ignored and they cling to every little word and event, understanding them in a specific way that is not the absolute certainty, all for something that gives them some reason.
Well, in face of that, you can ignore numbers, logistics, sense, plausability, canon info, etc. Ignoring that and creating such ending, no matter how right it would feel and how please the majority of the fans would be, it would be just as much space magic as the synthesis ending (although without the gree color)

I agree. Based on the information in the first two games - individual Reapers are more powerful than the strongest individual Citadel space vessel, and the cycles have been going so long that the Reapers probably have hundreds more of these vessels than do the Citadel forces - some sort of space-naval victory over the Reapers was so improbable as to be an irrelevant possibility.

The thing is that they didn't really have to make the first two games that way. Is it really integral to the story of the cycles that they have been going on for over a billion years? Not really. Did the galaxy really have to spend the time between the Battle of the Citadel and the destruction of the Alpha Relay in some sort of collective stupor? No. The series could have been constructed such that conventional space-naval victory was possible, if only through building alliances with the strongest fleets in the galaxy over the course of ME2 and ME3. But it was too late to do that by the time ME3 went into preproduction, and it may even have been too late to do that when ME2 went into preproduction.

[JPVS]

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

I would have loved that as a possible solution to be find in ME3. But again, that is a trumpth card shepard would have to find, something that provides a chance of winning that otherwise doesn't exist.
Would have loved it even more if it was a bit like Freelancer, where you'd actually take control of the Reaper and fight the others around Earth ahah

As I said, I have no problem with trumpth card and I expect it, BUT if it is done correctly. Foreshadowed, not contradictory to the lore and most importantly - is supplementary to the main card: united and strong Galaxy not afraid of Reapers. Ideal solution I was looking for before ME3 came out - various examples of Reaper tech, upgrades for ships, new weapons and so on. 

Crucible is not a trumpth card, it's an asspull which I can not accept. Sorry.

Completely agree with you on that

I'm only stating that given how the game was pulled, there should not be a differente "refusal ending" where the fleets of the galaxy beat the Reapers.

That's where second part of my argument comes into place. If game is already highly screwed and based on impossible endings (Destroy and Control included, Synthesis is worst) why not to add another impossible  ending which will be satisfactory for some of us? 

Of course you could do that. It would have probably saved their asses from a lot of fire and would have pleased most people. Personally, I'm glad they didn't (though I understand that old saying, I still believe 5 bad things are worse than just 4 bad things ). But then, it would have gone against their "artistic integrity".
Now I hate those two words being used on a franchise like this, but we have to admit that this is still partially their game. As a Gm and storyteller in D&D campaigns for almost a decade, I can honestly say there is nothing worse than you having your vision of the story but then being forced to present it diferently. It takes away your motivation :S

[Oransel]

JPVS wrote...

 I still believe 5 bad things are worse than just 4 bad things ).

You prefer 4 bad endings and a lot of really angry and depressed people to 5 bad endings? Sorry, being "artistic" does not justify that. I mean, at all.

JPVC wrote...

But then, it would have gone against their "artistic integrity".
Now I hate those two words being used on a franchise like this, but we have to admit that this is still partially their game. As a Gm and storyteller in D&D campaigns for almost a decade, I can honestly say there is nothing worse than you having your vision of the story but then being forced to present it diferently. It takes away your motivation :S

You see, I'd agree with you IF it was pure art. D&D GM does what he does for the sake of art. Both him and his players are not getting anything out of it except for entertainment. Video games are completely another situation. It may be sad for you, but it is no longer pure art, it is commercial art - artists give clients what they want, they pay artists money so they won't die out of starvation. Artist's wishes are no longer a priority, client's is. Lead writers failed to admit that, so I can assume they will get hungry soon.

Modifié par Oransel, 28 juin 2012 - 11:41 .

[Daverid]

Horaciuss wrote...

ehmmm no:huh: Even ingame codex saying opposite.

Although clearly technologically superior to the Citadel forces, the
Reapers have experienced casualties in the battles across the galaxy.
This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence,
weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated.

In the case of a Reaper capital ship, these kinetic barriers can hold
off the firepower of two dreadnoughts simultaneously, but three clearly
causes strain, and four typically results in destruction. Weapons
designed to maximize heat damage, such as the Thanix series, show better
results against the Reapers than pure kinetic impacts.

The barriers of a Reaper destroyer are less formidable than those of a
capital ship. It is possible for a single cruiser or many fighters to
disable or demolish a destroyer if they can get within range before they
are themselves destroyed.

There is more, but you can read it there alone;)

This is from the frontpage but THIS HAS to be continually QFT.

The Codex is a little vague but it appears to infer that 4 Dreadnaught Ships can take down a Reaper with their Standard Weaponry .. AND THEN Heat Based weapons like Thanix Series Cannons would make it easier, perhaps only requiring 2 or 3 Dreadnaughts to take down a Reaper Capital Ship.

Now based of the ABSURD amount of Dreadnaught class Ships Warp into Sol, I think it's more then possible to believe that they could have won conventionally.

The Biggest Glaring problem is that the Game completely contradicts the Codex. For example the Turians have one of the strongest Military in the Galaxy, and when you see Palaven getting Destroyed it's getting smashed by just TWO Reapers. SURELY if 4 Dreadnaughts ships can kill a Reaper the Turians would have had that kind of Firepower somewhere On/Near/Close-by Palaven that could have taken down those Reapers. So it's really just a Problem of Game VS Codex ... Personally I think at this point with BioWare I would trust the Codex entries more then the Game as it likes to implement  randomly ... So THAT is why Conventional Win SHOULD have been possible with a COMPLETELY MAXED EMS (No Multiplayer). Also EMS would actually have some kind of LEGITIMATE purpose. 

Modifié par Daverid, 28 juin 2012 - 11:40 .

[Eire Icon]

Just one more point I know allot of people have suggested that they would have liked Shepard to get on the radio and advise Hackett they were going to try and win the fight conventionally. I'm pretty sure I know how that conversation would go

Shepard: Sir, the AI that controls the reapers gave me three options, Control, Synthesis or Destroy but I refused them, and said I won't abnadon my ideals and I would prefer extinction to submitting myself to his "Options"

Hackett: What do these choices entail ?

[Shepard explains}

Hackett: Are you out of your freaking mind? - go back to the Catalyst and choose destroy Commander Shepard

Shepard: But Sir, I think that....................

Hackett: Thats an order Commander

[Ridwan]

Bunch of slack jawed defeatists in here *spits out a phlegm*

[Oransel]

Eire Icon wrote...

Just one more point I know allot of people have suggested that they would have liked Shepard to get on the radio and advise Hackett they were going to try and win the fight conventionally. I'm pretty sure I know how that conversation would go

Shepard: Sir, the AI that controls the reapers gave me three options, Control, Synthesis or Destroy but I refused them, and said I won't abnadon my ideals and I would prefer extinction to submitting myself to his "Options"

Hackett: What do these choices entail ?

[Shepard explains}

Hackett: Are you out of your freaking mind? - go back to the Catalyst and choose destroy Commander Shepard

Shepard: But Sir, I think that....................

Hackett: Thats an order Commander

Shepard: You know what? You are ****** moronic old dude, he is the Reaper, how can we trust him?

Hackett: Conventional victory is...

Shepard: F*ck you, Hackett.

Conventional victory achieved.

Fixed.

[JPVS]

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

 I still believe 5 bad things are worse than just 4 bad things ).

You prefer 4 bad endings and a lot of really angry and depressed people to 5 bad endings? Sorry, being "artistic" does not justify that. I mean, at all.

JPVC wrote...

But then, it would have gone against their "artistic integrity".
Now I hate those two words being used on a franchise like this, but we have to admit that this is still partially their game. As a Gm and storyteller in D&D campaigns for almost a decade, I can honestly say there is nothing worse than you having your vision of the story but then being forced to present it diferently. It takes away your motivation :S

You see, I'd agree with you IF it was pure art. D&D GM does what he does for the sake of art. Both him and his players are not getting anything out of it except for entertainment. Video games are completely another situation. It may be sad for you, but it is no longer pure art, it is commercial art - artists give clients what they want, they pay artists money so they won't die out of starvation. Artist's wishes are no longer a priority, client's is. Lead writers failed to admit that, so I can assume they will get hungry soon.

I prefer just 4 bad endings, yes, but this is my personal preference without regards as to how the rest of the world feels. I'd also accept if they decided to do such ending to please the majority.

I can understand the commercial vision, I defend exactly what you said. I too agree they must provide that which their clients seek. But in my opinion we can't just disregard their view of the story. Disregarding such would lead to bad games being produced just to try and please everyone.

[Helios969]

JPVS wrote...

Oransel wrote...

JPVS wrote...

 I still believe 5 bad things are worse than just 4 bad things ).

You prefer 4 bad endings and a lot of really angry and depressed people to 5 bad endings? Sorry, being "artistic" does not justify that. I mean, at all.

JPVC wrote...

But then, it would have gone against their "artistic integrity".
Now I hate those two words being used on a franchise like this, but we have to admit that this is still partially their game. As a Gm and storyteller in D&D campaigns for almost a decade, I can honestly say there is nothing worse than you having your vision of the story but then being forced to present it diferently. It takes away your motivation :S

You see, I'd agree with you IF it was pure art. D&D GM does what he does for the sake of art. Both him and his players are not getting anything out of it except for entertainment. Video games are completely another situation. It may be sad for you, but it is no longer pure art, it is commercial art - artists give clients what they want, they pay artists money so they won't die out of starvation. Artist's wishes are no longer a priority, client's is. Lead writers failed to admit that, so I can assume they will get hungry soon.

I prefer just 4 bad endings, yes, but this is my personal preference without regards as to how the rest of the world feels. I'd also accept if they decided to do such ending to please the majority.

I can understand the commercial vision, I defend exactly what you said. I too agree they must provide that which their clients seek. But in my opinion we can't just disregard their view of the story. Disregarding such would lead to bad games being produced just to try and please everyone.

But would they be bad games if they pleased "everyone?"

[JBPBRC]

JPVS wrote...

Disregarding such would lead to bad games being produced just to try and please everyone.

Isn't that what Mass Effect 3 was about? Or Dragon Age 2 for that matter? Pleasing everyone, hardcore fans and newbies alike?

How well it worked is a matter of interpretation and opinion of course...

[JPVS]

I may be insulting someone here, if so just know this is my opinion: plenty of "singers" like Justin Bieber please their fans. Does that make him a good musician? No.

[Ridwan]

Let me quote a wise woman on how to beat the reapers "Take your balls out of your purse and kick some ass".

[MattFini]

While I would certainly have liked an option for convention victory (I think it's possible), I feel like the ending choices could've worked had the game been structured differently.

For me, it's all about the StarChild essentially handing you victory. And it's still unclear as to why Destroy would be an offering, considering that it doesn't actually end the cycle to the StarChild's liking. Yes, the Crucible changed him ... but the other two options at least bring the cycle to a close in the StarChild's logic.

With that in mind, I believe the ending should've been Shepard and his squad reaching the beam and trying to activate the crucible with the StarChild trying to stop you. It's all in the presentation, and if Shepard had been able to activate the Crucible, somehow see the choices offered and make one of them to the chagrin of the StarChild, the whole final scene would've been much more enjoyable.

For me, it's always been about having the victory handed to us, as opposed to taking earth back ourselves.

A huge mistake on the part of the writers that, even with the EC, still dampens an otherwise stellar trilogy.

[Helios969]

JBPBRC wrote...

JPVS wrote...

Disregarding such would lead to bad games being produced just to try and please everyone.

Isn't that what Mass Effect 3 was about? Or Dragon Age 2 for that matter? Pleasing everyone, hardcore fans and newbies alike?

How well it worked is a matter of interpretation and opinion of course...

Is that what made them "bad," or was it just that they were rushed and/or their endings made no sense.  I personally never thought ME3 was bad - I think it's a great game with an ending that doesn't fit with the 99% that came before.  DA2 I actually got bored with halfway through, so I don't know the specifics to the end.

[jaktuk]

JPVS wrote...

I may be insulting someone here, if so just know this is my opinion: plenty of "singers" like Justin Bieber please their fans. Does that make him a good musician? No.

How do you define a good musician? In my opinion you cannot define a good musician in any other way than how many actually like their music without being an elitist. I hate Justin Bieber and think his music is ****, but the fact that there are so many who does in fact enjoy it means that he is a good musician objectively.

[Dean_the_Young]

daqs wrote...

JPVS wrote...

And yet there are many here who like to ignore numbers based on historical accounts, because they think the wars humanity has suffered thus far can even compare the the war represented in ME. And so numbers are ignored and they cling to every little word and event, understanding them in a specific way that is not the absolute certainty, all for something that gives them some reason.
Well, in face of that, you can ignore numbers, logistics, sense, plausability, canon info, etc. Ignoring that and creating such ending, no matter how right it would feel and how please the majority of the fans would be, it would be just as much space magic as the synthesis ending (although without the gree color)

I agree. Based on the information in the first two games - individual Reapers are more powerful than the strongest individual Citadel space vessel, and the cycles have been going so long that the Reapers probably have hundreds more of these vessels than do the Citadel forces - some sort of space-naval victory over the Reapers was so improbable as to be an irrelevant possibility.

The thing is that they didn't really have to make the first two games that way. Is it really integral to the story of the cycles that they have been going on for over a billion years? Not really. Did the galaxy really have to spend the time between the Battle of the Citadel and the destruction of the Alpha Relay in some sort of collective stupor? No. The series could have been constructed such that conventional space-naval victory was possible, if only through building alliances with the strongest fleets in the galaxy over the course of ME2 and ME3. But it was too late to do that by the time ME3 went into preproduction, and it may even have been too late to do that when ME2 went into preproduction.

Given the ridiculous rate of the Alliance's growth post-Mars from single-world species to galactic Great Power, just a few more years between ME1 and ME3 could have worked with ME2-introduced technologies to bring that 'vaguely good enough hand-wave' effect in.

If they expanded on fabricator technology to include small naval craft (fighters especially) such that resources and fabricators were the limits of production, or made ground-based kinetic barriers and anti-space canons viable defenses against even Reapers from specific directions (the Tuchanka ground canon blowing up a Reaper rather than a Cerberus cruiser, for example), they'd have gone a long way towards justifying galactic resistance to the Reapers.


But for the issue about Reaper numbers, that could have been covered (and reinforce the preference for the Citadel Relay appraoch) had the Reapers not had effectively unlimited FTL range due to being able to ignore drive core buildup.

Imagine it as a variation of the crossing the desert problem: it takes ten days to cross the desert, but you can only carry enough supplies for five. The solution is that you go out two days, drop a day's worth of supplies, and return. Gradually you build up a stockpile, and from there you build another stockpile further in, until eventually you can make the entire journey.

Reaper drive-core discharge could have been used to thin the Reaper numbers in Dark Space, for the long trip back. A group of five Reapers goes twenty percent of their range, and then four of them discharge on the fifth. Those four then go a quarter of their range, and three discharge on the fourth. Etc. etc., until the number of Reapers that reach the galaxy are a mere fraction of the initial total.

The Reapers can be as overwhelming but just-beatable as you want here in the galaxy, with the greater number of Reapers actually being trapped in Dark Space. A conventional victory becomes possible due to the smaller number of Reapers, while the galaxy (if it survives) has time to build up and prepare for those 'trapped' Reapers that might, eventually, make their way here.

[nitefyre410]

Possible? Yes given the evidence that people are digging up and presenting.

Did Bioware want it? Nope just look at how they handled and presented the Refusal ending and that is there opinion on Refusing the Crucible and making our own way.

Watching that ending I could do nothing but laugh because it is an exact reflection of what the writers feel about not using the Crucible. Which was...

"EVIL LULZ ... you fail."

[tonnactus]

HagarIshay wrote...

Strong military doesn't make the reapers any weaker. They are near undefeatable. .

This is proved wrong by the very first game. The reapers wouldnt need the citadel trap if that was true.

Sovereign wouldnt needed geth ships as support.

Its nonsense.