Oransel wrote...
Hackett: Thats an order Commander
Shepard: You know what? You are ****** moronic old dude, he is the Reaper, how can we trust him?
Fixed.
I think that three to six-ish years of galactic buildup across the military-industrial spectrum aimed at the geth probably would've been a good enough handwave, yeah.Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
Mmm. I think this has been tossed around before, but I don't really like the idea all that much, and that has more to do with the sense of accomplishment than anything else. Beating the first wave is just one campaign, and winning just gives you a shot at survival - assuming you defeat the other waves. It's not got any sort of sense of finality, and not much of a taste of victory. Seems like it'd be awfully unsatisfying, with the knowledge that further years of grinding struggle with the remaining Reapers awaits - assuming constant vigilance against such a threat could be maintained (ha).Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.
I look at "art" as something more abstract and valuable. If it can survive the passage of time and evolution of its genre, then it shows it is good. Take Baldur's Gate for example. It stands as one of the best RPGs ever made, even after 12 years, even after better graphics and gameplay came out.jaktuk wrote...
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.
Sure, they could have altered some feature of the Reapers. Why not alter their shields, by the way, so that a frigate could destroy them?Dean_the_Young wrote...
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.daqs wrote...
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.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)
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.
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.
Modifié par JPVS, 28 juin 2012 - 12:42 .
I'm a person who would have liked conventional victory in ME3, but I fully recognize that narrative was not what we were given, and somewhat out of place with the themes and ongoing narrative since ME1. In regards of your list of what a conventional victory would mean, you're making the error of assuming conventional victory in the face of the narrative we were given in the context of which conventional victory was impossible. Allowing for conventional victory would have required a game-wide narrative shift, starting no later than Mars. And, it still would have required a late-hour plot arc given the content and context of previous games in the trilogy that would yet have toed the line between conventional and unconventional victory.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...
Eire Icon wrote...
How can we trust him ?
Pick destroy and if Reapers don't start keeling over dead then its safe to assume he's lying. Then try to beat them to conventionally
Its not a case of whether we trust him or not, there is no benefit to not choosing - if it turns out to be a lie you can still fight conventionally
Oransel wrote...
Eire Icon wrote...
How can we trust him ?
Pick destroy and if Reapers don't start keeling over dead then its safe to assume he's lying. Then try to beat them to conventionally
Its not a case of whether we trust him or not, there is no benefit to not choosing - if it turns out to be a lie you can still fight conventionally
Wow... So, your hated enemy presents you a magic button to beat him. And you just... Press it?.. Just like that? You would not have a thought that maybe this kid offers you a button to destroy anything BUT Reapers?..
Allan Schumacher wrote...
Personally, I'm of the opinion that Hackett is indoctrinated. Unless you can give us evidence that there's no way for anyone (no matter how insanely high their EMS is) could ever beat the Reapers - that doesn't include Hackett or the Reapers telling you it can't be done - then there's no reason to say that it's impossible.
I've seen the EMS argument come up a fair bit, but I think from a purely optics point of view you have to be careful.
Fans were already livid with the EMS issue that required more than just the single player experience to achieve all the endings. Requiring them to grind and promote the multiplayer game so that 7 billion EMS score defeats the reapers would not at all be well received.
In ME1 they DID make the Reapers so that a frigate could destroy one... once it's barriers were down. Then, in ME2, they started introducing a few weapons systems designed to bypass barriers. Making a feasible conventional victory scenario would only require a few relatively minor alterations to the history/lore. Not even alterations really, just... a different emphasis.JPVS wrote...
Sure, they could have altered some feature of
the Reapers. Why not alter their shields, by the way, so that a frigate
could destroy them?
Oh wait, why not alter their weapons so they only provide sun-burns?
From
the beggining, the Reapers were treated as far too superior and
powerful to be handled without some trumph card. Do you wish to ignore
that and keep trolling around? Be my guest, but I'm not the one ignoring
canon information that has come from ME1 and 2
Modifié par General User, 28 juin 2012 - 12:50 .
Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 01:04 .
JPVS wrote...
If you don't believe him, chose "refusal" ending. There, partially solved. Is it not the ending you'd like? Well, I imagine it isn't, just like it isn't the ending I'd like. I'd have liked to see the Crucible as a weapon, really, not merely a powerball. I would have liked to see it blow up some Reapers. That, for me, would have been the best ending.
It was a frigate that took down Sovereign. Shepard dropped it's barriers and the Normandy delivered the coup de grace.JPVS wrote...
In ME1 it weren't frigates that brought down Sovereign, it were cruisers and dreadnaughts. And a lot were destroyed. The problem are indeed the shields, and those of the Reapers are far too powerful. Sure, they could have installed Thanix cannons on all ships, but why would they? They did not believe in the Reaper threat so why waste countless amounts of money, ruin entire economies, just to outfit their ships with unnecessarily powerful weapons? (In their point of view, it was unnecessary)
Conventionally is basically: pick your army, bash it against the other army. This is what is conventional in military terms. And this is impossible. Too many numbers, too powerful technology already present from ME1, too massive in size, not enough unity in the galaxy and above all not enough logistics capable of standing against them. But this has been said and proved, only some just wish to ignore it. It is their choice.Aquilas wrote...
Guys, the united species cannot beat the Reapers conventionally. They cannot. There are just too many Reapers, and their inherent architecture, logistics, and organization surpass our technology, resources, strategies, tactics, techniques and procedures.
The Catalyst says its been running the Cycle for aeons. Could it be lying? Sure. But Shepard and company have discovered Reapers 10s of millions years old. It's more likely the Catalyst is right.
In cosmology and astronomy--academic disciplines certainly pertinent to ME--an aeon is a billion years. The Catalyst uses the plural "aeons." It may not be using our definition, true, but it is speaking to Shepard in terms Shepard can understand. So for the sake of my argument I'm going to use the definition found in astronomy and cosmology: an aeon=one billion years.
Let's say the Catalyst has been running the Cycle for only two aeons. That's plural. So that's two billion years. Two billion divided by 50K=40,000. That means there are at least 40K Sovereign-class Reapers: 40,000 (again, using my criteria). At least. Now factor in lower-class Reapers, plus their ground forces, and the allied races are hopelessly outmatched.
Reaper architecture, construction, and technology: many fans have noted how difficult it is to take down even one Reaper capital ship. Take down at least 40,000? Not doable.
Reaper logistics versus the allies' resources: the Reapers need no bases, no logistical lines of communication, no fuel, no food--they're completely self-sufficient. Even one of the security troops guarding the Normandy's war room notes this: she specifically asks how the allies can fight an enemy like that. The answer: they can't, conventionally.
Reaper organization, added to their architecture and logistics versus our strategies, tactics, techniques, techniques: several fans have noted Sun Tzu's strategies and tactics: hit, run, be where the enemy is not; avoid direct, conventional, pitched battles with a numerically and militarily superior foe. Hackett says he'll use these methods--but he means he'll keep the forces-in-being viable enough to eventually deploy the Crucible. The Reapers aren't much on strategy or tactics; they just show up and start obliterating their foes.
So using Sun Tzu's methods sounds great, except for these factors: the Reapers are immortal, implacable, relentless. The have all the time in...all of time to complete the Cycle. They don't have to maintain political will and resolve; they don't have to worry about upcoming elections; they don't have to worry about maintaining popular support. All they have to do is complete the Cycle unimpeded by any external factors whatsoever.
But my argument here uses the writers' definition of conventional. Our armed forces also fight via unconventional means the writers could've used by stretching ME lore without breaking it, as they do with Star-jar, Space Magic, and Synthesis.
The Codex mentions treaties covering biological warfare and cyber warfare. Have you ever read "The War of the Worlds" by H.G. Wells? The Martians fall to microbes--they contract illnesses and die. There are digital viruses as well. We know the Reapers are some form of synthetic-organic slurry hybrid. So given ME lore, could scientists develop a bio-cyber attack to fell the Reapers, or at least weaken them enough to be defeated using the writer's version of conventional warfare? I say yes.
But it's ordained only the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Crucible-Catalyst Hybrid Deity can present Shepard with the only options available to end the Cycle. So as long as the true gods of the ME universe--the writers--maintain their current plot the allies just can't beat the Reapers conventionally.
General User wrote...
It was a frigate that took down Sovereign. Shepard dropped it's barriers and the Normandy delivered the coup de grace.JPVS wrote...
In ME1 it weren't frigates that brought down Sovereign, it were cruisers and dreadnaughts. And a lot were destroyed. The problem are indeed the shields, and those of the Reapers are far too powerful. Sure, they could have installed Thanix cannons on all ships, but why would they? They did not believe in the Reaper threat so why waste countless amounts of money, ruin entire economies, just to outfit their ships with unnecessarily powerful weapons? (In their point of view, it was unnecessary)
Maybe the Galactic Powers didn't believe in the Reapers, but they believed in the geth. The military build-up would have been justified as a anti-geth program.
IanPolaris wrote...
JPVS wrote...
We are told this cycle is unique by the survivor of the previous cycle who had no information on the cycles before. The possibility of having other cycles where the races united is quite large.
No it's not. Until the Protheans modified them, NO ONE figured out the Citadel was a trap until too late. This is confirmed by Chorbin. That means that until our cycle the Reapers always took the Citadel first and always shut down all the C3I in the galaxy.
That means this is the first time the Reapers actually face a united galaxy.
-Polaris
Oransel wrote...
No.
Tragedy of Mass Effect series is that we can no longer trust writers... in a game that is advertised
as a story wrote by writers and players together lead to a unique
conclusion. For me, ME series is no longer about what writers say. Now
this Universe plays by my rules. As I said, that has never happened
before, but this horrible situation is a direct result of writers
abandoning their own lore.
Modifié par fade2black.1337, 28 juin 2012 - 01:27 .
That's true! A bit besides the point... but true.JPVS wrote...
General User wrote...
It was a frigate that took down Sovereign. Shepard dropped it's barriers and the Normandy delivered the coup de grace.JPVS wrote...
In ME1 it weren't frigates that brought down Sovereign, it were cruisers and dreadnaughts. And a lot were destroyed. The problem are indeed the shields, and those of the Reapers are far too powerful. Sure, they could have installed Thanix cannons on all ships, but why would they? They did not believe in the Reaper threat so why waste countless amounts of money, ruin entire economies, just to outfit their ships with unnecessarily powerful weapons? (In their point of view, it was unnecessary)
Maybe the Galactic Powers didn't believe in the Reapers, but they believed in the geth. The military build-up would have been justified as a anti-geth program.
Most of that build-up was made for the Geth, who don't even compare to the Reapers, and was destroyed when the Reapers started attacking and each race was standing on their own. By the time they were united, not even half of their war assets remained.
Creighton72 wrote...
Element Zero is the start of the
game, read the opening. The game is not a constructed reality, it's a
work of fiction. You agree that reality has nothing to do with it then
call it reality. What you seem to miss is that the Reapers are plot
armored. Why are the Reapers unbeatable? Because the author simply makes
them that way. That's plot armoring. He gives you no facts about why
they are unbeatable, it's just stated and nothing works against them,
unless they need something to work against them. The Crucible, what is
that? Is it explained? No, it's simply a plot device with a built in
push button victory. The magic science of the game is not exactly set in
stone, it wavers a lot. Now you also seem to miss the fact that the
Author can beat the reapers if he wants to. Which is exactly what I
stated you agreed with this and then disagreed with me. So you don't
believe that when I said the author can beat the reapers, you think he
can but he can't? You might want to read the post of mine that he was
responding to.
So like I said given the fact that this is a story
and work of fiction, anything is possible if the author wants it to be.
Including beating the reapers. To disagree with that is insane,
that poster disagreed with it, you agreed with it but then tried to find
a way to disagree with it. Which makes no sense.
It amazes me
that people miss the simple fact that anything is possible in a story it
the author wants it to be. Thus anything is possible in a given story.
Are the reapers beatable? Yes they lost, so clearly they are beatable.
In a science fiction universe anything is possible including a science
fiction victory, to call anything unbelievable is pointless. Nothing is
actually believable to begin with. So can you have an unbelievable
victory in an unbelievable universe? Yes?
Modifié par richard_rider, 28 juin 2012 - 01:22 .
pretty sure thats what america thought about korea in the 50's and again with vietnam in the 70's, and lets not forget the ussr and afganistan in the 80's.arkonite167 wrote...
Attempting to beat the reapers with conventional warfare is like a flea climbing up an elephant's leg with intentions of rape.
IanPolaris wrote...
Warrior Craess wrote...
pretty sure that Robert E Lee proved than no matter how competent the general, he can not win a war if the industrial base isn't equal. Considering that the reapers need no industrial base, and we do (which they destroy excedingly well) I'm of the mind that regardless of how brilliant our military may be, it's a lost cause to fight a conventional war. Or even an asymmetrical war.
That would be interesting news to the People's Republic of Vietnam or for that matter the Muhajadeen of Afghanistan.
Robert E Lee had the unfortunate bad luck to eventually run into a general (Grant) that wouldn't let him have the freedom to maneuver enough to make up the difference. Grant paid for that in a lot of union blood.
-Polaris
rev1976 wrote...
pretty sure thats what america thought about korea in the 50's and again with vietnam in the 70's, and lets not forget the ussr and afganistan in the 80's.arkonite167 wrote...
Attempting to beat the reapers with conventional warfare is like a flea climbing up an elephant's leg with intentions of rape.
noticing a theme yet?
if not ill give you an even more striking example - the battle of teutoborg forest. a few scraggly assed tribes of german "barbarians", little more than bronze aged "savages" wipe out 3 legions, 3 cavalry detachments and 6 cohorts of auxiliaries, 20,000 fighting men of the most advanced military on the earth at that time.
its called asymmetric warfare
UFGSpot wrote...
rev1976 wrote...
pretty sure thats what america thought about korea in the 50's and again with vietnam in the 70's, and lets not forget the ussr and afganistan in the 80's.arkonite167 wrote...
Attempting to beat the reapers with conventional warfare is like a flea climbing up an elephant's leg with intentions of rape.
noticing a theme yet?
if not ill give you an even more striking example - the battle of teutoborg forest. a few scraggly assed tribes of german "barbarians", little more than bronze aged "savages" wipe out 3 legions, 3 cavalry detachments and 6 cohorts of auxiliaries, 20,000 fighting men of the most advanced military on the earth at that time.
its called asymmetric warfare
Battle != War. No one has said organic forces would lose EVERY fight. What they are saying is over time, the Reapers will be victorious.
) and weapons and armour which are vastly inferior CAN wipe out a vastly superior force, in fact so thouroughly destroy them that not one survives.
Retour en haut