419 réponses à ce sujet

[JPVS]

Grifman1 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Izhalezan wrote...

Aren't the Reaper at least 37 million years old, and with harvesting every 50,000 years their number of ships is at minimum 740.

From the codex:

At the end of ME1, the turians have 37 dreadnaughts, the asari have 21, the salarians have 16, and humanity has 6 with 1 under construction.

So even if a few more are built between ME1 and ME3, you're talking about HUNDREDS of Reaper dreadnaughts vs less then 100 allied dreadnaughts.  Reaper ships are roughly 4:1 times as powerful as allied dreadnaughts.

Conventional victory is IMPOSSIBLE.  END OF LINE.

Good try, I told them this earlier and it was like talking to a fence post.  Someone even suggested we could win by attrition!  WTH?!?

I've tried making them see the math for over 4 hours. Then tried to make see the logistics. Then to make them see how pointless it is to compare known land history with space battles. Nothing worked.
The only one that made sense was one claiming "if we already have bad endings, why not make a bad ending with conventional war being possible? At least that bad ending would please people"

[Anti-killer]

if a Turian fleet can jump right in the middle of a Reaper force and destroy Several Captial class Reapers...why not?

[Tritium315]

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.

It'd be better received than the **** we got. Althought I suppose that has more to do with how awful what we have is.

[Aquilas]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

 Well no. It shouldn't have been. You wanted it to be. There's a difference there.

Adding in a conventional victory goes against everything we've been told, by numerous sources, for 2.5 games. It goes directly against the lore of the story, and would make no sense whatsoever. 

A conventional victory is simply impossible and it's really, to be honest, about time people started understanding facts and not just keep carping on about wish fulfillment.

In otherwords we should be like Saren and give up.  Saren thought defeating the Reapers was impossible too....

-Polaris

Giving up? You mean, by pushing a button and winning? That's your definition of giving up now?

The simplest fact is this: You don't want to believe the Starbrat and push a button, feel free not to. Go ahead, fight conventionally. See what happ... oh, you lose. Well I'm sure that the last thought that goes through everyone in your crew's mind is "Boy, I'm sure glad Shepard didn't end this war forever and stood up for his morals and us all get slaughtered horribly."

People will sit there and say "Destroy is a war crime!" or "Control is a war crime!" or "Synthesis is a war crime!" but the truth of the matter is, Refusal is the biggest war crime of all... or it would be, if there were anyone alive left to prosecute you for it. You're damning TRILLIONS of beings to horrible horrible deaths because YOU think the Starbrat is trying to trick you for some reason that's never really quite explained.

It's not so much the sheer wrongness and inability to understand math and logic that irritate me so much, it's the unbridled arrogance that goes with it.

Good grief.  So Shepard can assure the greatest good for the greatest number by choosing to kill EDI, the Geth, and all their ilk after enabling them to truly feel alive; or by becoming what Shepard has been fighting for three games--an overweaning, suprapowerful, unstoppable force whose actions are solely dependent on the Uber Leader's personality traits, ne: whims, who can and will compel all lesser beings to do Its will--you can't cross ShepReap; or by eliminating, eradicating all diversity, all racial identity, by forcibly smashing organics and synthetics into the New Solution the Catalyst thinks is best?

I don't give a crap if Star-jar is being as honest as an Eagle Scout: I'm not going to commit genocide--EDI herself says she'd rather die than submit; become a Supreme Dictator holding sway over all life in the galaxy, or decide trillions should become some bastardized hybrid-race when I have absolutely no idea what that will mean in practice, much less for moral or philosophical reasons.  Example: Will children continue to grow up?  Or will they be forever frozen at their current stage of development, like a child vampire?

I wish I could remember the philosopher or author who posited this scenario, but here's the gist:  Suppose you could create a Utopia; a place of peace, love, and understanding everlasting, by doing one little thing: killing a baby.  Murdering it.  If that was the bedrock your Utopia was founded upon, wouldn't it be foul, evil, and rotten at its core?

So here's the deal:  keep your pompous pronouncements and self-righteous judgments about my motives, morals, and philosophy to yourself.  You worry about perfecting you--I'll worry about perfecting me.

Modifié par Aquilas, 28 juin 2012 - 09:18 .

[Sulious Vandomar]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TK EL wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's one thing to feel that a conventional victory is possible. Unlocking it due to heavy multiplayer use is something that I don't think I'd be able to get behind.

I think it's safe to say that the fans have spoken on how they feel about the multiplayer experience affecting their single player game.

And yet, they purposefully made it so you could not reach 4000 EMS without MP or the other external add-ons. Isn't that hypocrisy? Not that I'm in the opinion of a conventional victory anyway

Given that they reigned back the EMS requirements, I'm more inclined to state that the multiplayer requirement was an error.  It's certainly a recognition that the fans were not happy with the situation.

Take that for what it's worth.  I know many feel it was intentional and I don't expect them to change their opinion based on what I have to say.

Regardless, it's been changed.

I certainly agree with you that needing multiplayer is wrong. However, since the requirement for the top level scenes is 3100, wouldn't something like 3500 for a conventional victory seem reasonable? I had a pretty damn good paragon game, but I made some small mistakes and got about 3620. With the assests from upcoming DLC's, this doesn't seem that unreasonable. 

[Aquilas]

JPVS wrote...

Grifman1 wrote...

sp0ck 06 wrote...

Izhalezan wrote...

Aren't the Reaper at least 37 million years old, and with harvesting every 50,000 years their number of ships is at minimum 740.

From the codex:

At the end of ME1, the turians have 37 dreadnaughts, the asari have 21, the salarians have 16, and humanity has 6 with 1 under construction.

So even if a few more are built between ME1 and ME3, you're talking about HUNDREDS of Reaper dreadnaughts vs less then 100 allied dreadnaughts.  Reaper ships are roughly 4:1 times as powerful as allied dreadnaughts.

Conventional victory is IMPOSSIBLE.  END OF LINE.

Good try, I told them this earlier and it was like talking to a fence post.  Someone even suggested we could win by attrition!  WTH?!?

I've tried making them see the math for over 4 hours. Then tried to make see the logistics. Then to make them see how pointless it is to compare known land history with space battles. Nothing worked.
The only one that made sense was one claiming "if we already have bad endings, why not make a bad ending with conventional war being possible? At least that bad ending would please people"

My efforts have come to naught as well.  So be it (see what I did there?).

[Subject M]

The Reapers are not the kind of enemy who can be defeated with martial might, (at least not without the Geth mega-structure on your side). However I felt like it should have been possible to survive against them through alternative means for narrative and RPG-reasons. Either through hiding (sacrifice your fleet to buy time for those evacuating to a hidden location) or through invalidating their reason for harvesting (solve the synthetic-organic conflict in the eyes of the Reapers).

[LaughingDragon]

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

[JPVS]

LaughingDragon wrote...

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

Individual Reapers aren't invicible. Together they are. It takes nearly 4 dreadnaughts to destroy a Reaper. But there is about 50 dreadnaughts left and a thousand Reapers.
As for the rachni, I thought they would indeed be a massive war asset from what the Asari messager said in ME2, but rather they were taken by the enemy. Not much help from them

[Warrior Craess]

ArchDuck wrote...

If we are going to be all "Nu uh you can't do that because its not realistic!". Then please explain the "realism" in shooting a tube to turn something on one way, electrocuting yourself to turn it on another way and jumping into a disintegrating beam of energy to turn it on a third way. And while your at it explain how these long lost plans have been the only piece of information successfully passed down from one cycle to the next. Then explain the "realism" in the effects on the galaxy when those magic buttons on the magic machine are used.

To illustrate my previous post's point:

Hackett: No, no, of course you can't destroy Reapers with tactics and technology like we have already seen. You must use the magic boomstick that we are building and do not understand. Killing several reapers, at great cost to yourself is not a good indication of the ability to achieve victory. Killing reaper destroyers indvidually also isn't a great indication of possible victory.

Scientist #1: Are you sure we should be investing all of our resources into building this? Imagine the amount of destroyer class thanix weapons we could produce. And I think I can see a way to use the plans to provide enough power to even smaller ships so they can fire those class of weapons. Just curious but where are you going to be making these upgrades? How long is it going to take to retro-fit frigates and cruisers with larger eezo cores? What happens when the reapers swoop by and destroy that infrastructure?

Military Guy #2: Yeah and the turian tactics sound like something we could definitely exploit. They managed to take out some of the large Reapers with no losses! Which turian tactics? the battle of Palaven - cause hate to tell you but, they took massive casualties and had to retreat.

Former Cerberus Operative #3: And TIM was working on a way to scramble Reaper communications and even subvert it in the case of the husks. This information wasn't actually available until after TIM and the reaper had taken the citadel. Knowledge of it's existance it's not the same as having the information

Military Guy #2: Oh really? Man that would be useful. They wouldn't be coordinated in space battles and we would nullify there primary ground forces! Umm it interupts the husk command link, not reaper communications. So it wouldn't phase their coordination in space in the least, and as soon as they track down the interferring signle, and destroy it, you are faced with a whole bunch of husks again.. it's a reprieve at best, not a woot now I only gotta fight reaper destroyers button.

Scientist #1: We could really win this! 

Hackett: No it is impossible.

Former Cerberus Operative #3: No I think they are right, we can do it!

Hackett: SO BE IT! *shoots them all*

Fixed it for you. 


Your failure is you think that somehow we constantly manage to gain superior intel, command and control, and that inflicting minor losses (yes minor) equates to the ability to win. 

Your also not accounting of the loss of infrastructure and workforce when the reapers decide that nothing in this cycle is worth salvaging, and they start killing planets and moving on.  Your forgetting that while space is vast, the number of places to actually get raw materials and sustanence items from is very limited. 

The reapers don't every have to engage us at all.  They simply have to starve us out. Something that they can quite easily do. 

Modifié par Warrior Craess, 28 juin 2012 - 10:26 .

[Allan Schumacher]

Sulious Vandomar wrote...

I certainly agree with you that needing multiplayer is wrong. However, since the requirement for the top level scenes is 3100, wouldn't something like 3500 for a conventional victory seem reasonable? I had a pretty damn good paragon game, but I made some small mistakes and got about 3620. With the assests from upcoming DLC's, this doesn't seem that unreasonable. 

I more brought it up because I've seen several posts (there's a lot of threads on the subject) where people have actually gone on to say that they have extreme EMS scores and it's stupid that they can't win conventionally with 9k/10k/etc. EMS scores.

[Warrior Craess]

Anti-killer wrote...

if a Turian fleet can jump right in the middle of a Reaper force and destroy Several Captial class Reapers...why not?

i don't know, maybe because those same turians actually failed to stop the reapers? They didn't prevent the reapers from attacking Palaven, and they didn't kill reapers with out suffering massive casualties themselves. 

Attrition favors the side with the greatest number.  That side happens to be the reapers.  Sad but true. 

[eye basher]

IanPolaris wrote...

Biotic Sage wrote...

I too can remember nothing in any of the lore that suggests anything other than isolated victories are possible.  The entire Reaper force is too massive and too powerful.  Their harvesting/extermination tactics perfectly designed to collapse infrastructure and wittle away at the opposition.  Going to war with the Reapers would be as successful as trying to jump to the sun, some people may get a little closer, but it's all negligible because no one really has a chance trying to get to the sun in that manner.  The Crucible is a different METHOD than conventional warfare.  It is the back door, the plan B.

Reapers can not replenish Ship Losses (at least not easily), are technologically static, and are extremely gunshy of taking any ship casualties (for obvious reasons since each ship is an entire stored civillization).  We know it took them 300 years to finish off the Protheans and the Protheans started off in far worse shape than this cycle does.  A hit-and-run asymetrical war against the Reapers is exactly the kind of war that can be ultimately won...but the cost would be catastrophic.

-Polaris

And that's what the turians do at first use tactics exploit weaknesses then the reapers decided to turn the game and attacked Palven because they knew what the turian response would be what any living thing does when it'shome is under attack try to defend it you don't have to fight the reapers head on they force you too because they know they can't lose in a head on fight.

[Warrior Craess]

rev1976 wrote...

UFGSpot wrote...

This. He keeps throwing out the term like I don't understand it, when clearly he doesn't himself as it applies to the situation presented in the game.

your assumption is that I dont understand it
that, and that i get my information from wikipedia because the wiki page on asymmetric warfare mentions hoplites

my level of understanding has nothing to do with wikipedia but with 3 years of officer training for the royal irish regiment, training which involved classes and lectures specificly on forms of asymmetric and guerilla warfare as they were directly relevent to the "troubles" in northern ireland. sure its true i never completed my training but i assure you that was only due to the eviscriation of british forces due to some rather stupid ideas on defence cuts from politicians wanting to fill their own pockets.
from where im sitting right now i can see 4 books on the shelf across the room which i have read numerous times on the subject
puncturing the counterinsurgency myth: britain and irregular warfare in the past, present, and future (a damn good read that shows both the mistakes and breakthroughs in this area)
beating goliath: why insurgancies win (not as good but still informative)
counterinsugency warfare: theory and practice (shows exactly how various problems of insurgency and guerilla warfare from the authors own experience 50 years agoin vietnam and africa directly corrolate to todays warfare in the middle east)
treatise on partisan warfare (very good for stuff on using light infantry against heavy formations, lot of insight into the american war for independance)

so yeah, i do have something of a clue as to what im talking about, no i dont rely on wikipedia,  and yes i do recommend googling this stuff yourself (or better yet reading the above books) because you will learn something and the subject is genuinly interesting.

So basically your admitting that political decisions can effect how a military is run, yet your refusing to see who the political situation of ME1 and ME2 failded to prepare enough for a convention or unconventional (asymmetrical) war to succede?  Man talk about cutting your nose of to spite your face... 

In any of those book does it talk about an enemy willing and able to completely destroy entire nations ( in order to kill those asymmetrical fighters? does it talk about an enemy will and capable of destroying no only your food supplies and agrecultural base, not to mention your ability to get water?  Does it talk about an enemy willing and capable of destroying not on your infrastructure, but the infrastructure of anyone willing to provide you with supplies? Does it talk about an enemy who can effectively isolate you from the rest of the world?  

Just out of curiousity, how well do you think it would have gone for the IRA if England had decide that they wanted to kill every many, woman and child, that they wanted to destroy every building and burn every field, if they accepted surrender only to convert everyone to mindless slaves hell bent on killing everyone else from ireland? Or worse they decide to convert subtley and release dozens of sleeper agents into ireland? 

Asymmetrical warfare only works if your enemy will ever lose the desire to destroy you. In this case the reaper won't and they are not reluctant to utilize a scorched earth policy with brutal efficiency. 

[Warrior Craess]

LaughingDragon wrote...

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

Remember the scene of Palaven where areas the size of the eastern seaboard where ablaze? Pretty sure that was after the  "battle of Palaven", where those turians with their nonconventional methods, actually failed to stop the reapers or even really slow them down in a significant manner? Remember the scene as we left earth with all the debri from destroyed alliance ships floating around? Hey remember that scene where just after those turians blew off a finger/tenticle, that the turian ship was destroyed by that same reaper? 

Modifié par Warrior Craess, 28 juin 2012 - 10:48 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

tonnactus wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...
 You're damning TRILLIONS of beings to horrible horrible deaths because YOU think the Starbrat is trying to trick you for some reason that's never really quite explained.

No sane shepard would trust an entity that mudered countless civilisation before...
Its like asking hitler how to end the second world war.

No sane Shepard would gamble the lives of every civilized being in the galaxy because of petulance.

Shepard knows the odds. Even if conventional winning IS possible (and it's not) it's going to cost TRILLIONS of lives and an uncountable amount of damage - it will, in fact, bring about the very galactic dark age that everyone was whining about with the relays exploding. A sane Shepard knows that. A sane Shepard will take the chance that one of these options will prevent all that NEEDLESS death and destruction because - and here's the thing - he's dying anyway. There is literally NOTHING to lose at this point by trusting the Starbrat and hoping for the best, because even if the Starbrat says "Ha ha! Psych!" and screws Shepard over, they're still in the same position they are before Shepard hit a button.

This is IT. This is THE CHOICE. And you're justifying the slaughter of trillions of sentient beings because you just don't like the Starbrat. Like I said - it's the unbridled arrogance that I truly dislike.

[Father_Jerusalem]

Aquilas wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

 Well no. It shouldn't have been. You wanted it to be. There's a difference there.

Adding in a conventional victory goes against everything we've been told, by numerous sources, for 2.5 games. It goes directly against the lore of the story, and would make no sense whatsoever. 

A conventional victory is simply impossible and it's really, to be honest, about time people started understanding facts and not just keep carping on about wish fulfillment.

In otherwords we should be like Saren and give up.  Saren thought defeating the Reapers was impossible too....

-Polaris

Giving up? You mean, by pushing a button and winning? That's your definition of giving up now?

The simplest fact is this: You don't want to believe the Starbrat and push a button, feel free not to. Go ahead, fight conventionally. See what happ... oh, you lose. Well I'm sure that the last thought that goes through everyone in your crew's mind is "Boy, I'm sure glad Shepard didn't end this war forever and stood up for his morals and us all get slaughtered horribly."

People will sit there and say "Destroy is a war crime!" or "Control is a war crime!" or "Synthesis is a war crime!" but the truth of the matter is, Refusal is the biggest war crime of all... or it would be, if there were anyone alive left to prosecute you for it. You're damning TRILLIONS of beings to horrible horrible deaths because YOU think the Starbrat is trying to trick you for some reason that's never really quite explained.

It's not so much the sheer wrongness and inability to understand math and logic that irritate me so much, it's the unbridled arrogance that goes with it.

Good grief.  So Shepard can assure the greatest good for the greatest number by choosing to kill EDI, the Geth, and all their ilk after enabling them to truly feel alive; or by becoming what Shepard has been fighting for three games--an overweaning, suprapowerful, unstoppable force whose actions are solely dependent on the Uber Leader's personality traits, ne: whims, who can and will compel all lesser beings to do Its will--you can't cross ShepReap; or by eliminating, eradicating all diversity, all racial identity, by forcibly smashing organics and synthetics into the New Solution the Catalyst thinks is best?

I don't give a crap if Star-jar is being as honest as an Eagle Scout: I'm not going to commit genocide--EDI herself says she'd rather die than submit; become a Supreme Dictator holding sway over all life in the galaxy, or decide trillions should become some bastardized hybrid-race when I have absolutely no idea what that will mean in practice, much less for moral or philosophical reasons.  Example: Will children continue to grow up?  Or will they be forever frozen at their current stage of development, like a child vampire?

I wish I could remember the philosopher or author who posited this scenario, but here's the gist:  Suppose you could create a Utopia; a place of peace, love, and understanding everlasting, by doing one little thing: killing a baby.  Murdering it.  If that was the bedrock your Utopia was founded upon, wouldn't it be foul, evil, and rotten at its core?

So here's the deal:  keep your pompous pronouncements and self-righteous judgments about my motives, morals, and philosophy to yourself.  You worry about perfecting you--I'll worry about perfecting me.

It's not "creating a Utopia". It's "fighting for the survival of all advanced life in the galaxy". It's fighting against complete and utter eradication. And you'd go ahead and let everything you know and care about die because "But I don't waaaaannaaaaaa!"

Yeeeeeeah.

[coolbeans]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

TK EL wrote...

Allan Schumacher wrote...

It's one thing to feel that a conventional victory is possible. Unlocking it due to heavy multiplayer use is something that I don't think I'd be able to get behind.

I think it's safe to say that the fans have spoken on how they feel about the multiplayer experience affecting their single player game.

And yet, they purposefully made it so you could not reach 4000 EMS without MP or the other external add-ons. Isn't that hypocrisy? Not that I'm in the opinion of a conventional victory anyway

Given that they reigned back the EMS requirements, I'm more inclined to state that the multiplayer requirement was an error.  It's certainly a recognition that the fans were not happy with the situation.

Take that for what it's worth.  I know many feel it was intentional and I don't expect them to change their opinion based on what I have to say.

Regardless, it's been changed.

And yet we still await an acknowledgment it was an error, or an apology for being lied to.  

[LaughingDragon]

Warrior Craess wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

Remember the scene of Palaven where areas the size of the eastern seaboard where ablaze? Pretty sure that was after the  "battle of Palaven", where those turians with their nonconventional methods, actually failed to stop the reapers or even really slow them down in a significant manner? Remember the scene as we left earth with all the debri from destroyed alliance ships floating around? Hey remember that scene where just after those turians blew off a finger/tenticle, that the turian ship was destroyed by that same reaper? 

Yes I remember the reaper destroying the same turian ship.

The way the game played out, yeah obviously there was no conventional way to win at that point because the fleet was too weak. But the team set up the whole game that way. What I was saying was, at the end of ME2, you had the geth/quarians not going to war, you had the racnhi building up like crazy for 2 staight years, you have the entire turian fleet intact, asari etc etc etc, so you unify the galaxy before it's too late and before you suffer all those heavy losses and then confront the reapers in one epic all-out winner takes all fight to save the galaxy...no mercy guns blazing to the death and yeah you might be able to overwhelm them and win conventionally.

Plus we had galactic command intact - the citadel was untaken, and the benefit of the collector base and reaper tech from there. And the reapers could never have won a ground war if you have the Krogan and Rachni both on your side.

imo, ME3 should have been about uniting the races of the galaxy against the reapers, and IF you made the right decisions your force would win and if not then there are other types of endings.

[IanPolaris]

Warrior Craess wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

Remember the scene of Palaven where areas the size of the eastern seaboard where ablaze? Pretty sure that was after the  "battle of Palaven", where those turians with their nonconventional methods, actually failed to stop the reapers or even really slow them down in a significant manner? Remember the scene as we left earth with all the debri from destroyed alliance ships floating around? Hey remember that scene where just after those turians blew off a finger/tenticle, that the turian ship was destroyed by that same reaper? 

No it wasn't.  The Battle (or Miracle) of Palavan happens approximate concurrently when you defeat the Reaper Destroyer on Tuchanka.

-Polaris

[Kandon Arc]

I think you guys are overthinking things here. Conventional victory is impossible because the writers wanted the starchild ending. If they had wanted to make a conventional ending possible in ME3 they could have easily and plausibly written it that way. Thanix cannons could have been super effective, Reapers could have been less in number etc. Before ME3 there was no confirmation that the Reapers were unbeatable, indeed Shepard was working under the belief that they were not. The comparison here would be something like the original trilogy of Star Wars - sure the Empire look invincible, and the heroes seem insignificant in comparison, but if that wasn't the case then victory wouldn't be as narratively exciting.

The feel of ME1 and 2 was much the same - the Reapers are a huge and daunting threat but there is hope. It just felt to me that instead of doing the expected thing and making ME3 the triumphant victory against the impossible that fit the story thus far, they went with a twist ending that felt narratively jarring.

tl;dr Conventional victory should have been possible, but the direction that writers chose for the finale required it not to be.

[Warrior Craess]

richard_rider wrote...

ArchDuck wrote...

To illustrate my previous post's point:

Hackett: No, no, of course you can't destroy Reapers with tactics and technology like we have already seen. You must use the magic boomstick that we are building and do not understand.

Scientist #1: Are you sure we should be investing all of our resources into building this? Imagine the amount of destroyer class thanix weapons we could produce. And I think I can see a way to use the plans to provide enough power to even smaller ships so they can fire those class of weapons.

Military Guy #2: Yeah and the turian tactics sound like something we could definitely exploit. They managed to take out some of the large Reapers with no losses!

Former Cerberus Operative #3: And TIM was working on a way to scramble Reaper communications and even subvert it in the case of the husks.

Military Guy #2: Oh really? Man that would be useful. They wouldn't be coordinated in space battles and we would nullify there primary ground forces!

Scientist #1: We could really win this!

Hackett: No it is impossible.

Former Cerberus Operative #3: No I think they are right, we can do it!

Hackett: SO BE IT! *shoots them all*

Bravo sir, bravo !!!


All it takes is a slight change, listen to this, crucible is a signal emitter that:

takes down reaper shields
scrambles reaper com
disorients them
makes them weaker
etc. etc. etc.

What about "conventional" victory then, why couldn't the cruicible be something like this? Could we win then, or are we still hanging onto the notion that without space brat, we are all lost.

to be honest thats kind of what I expected from the onset. However, and this is a big issue. there is only one crucible, and it would take only 1 successful reaper suiciding into it to give the advantage back to the other side. 

yes we'd kill alot more reapers, but in the end, numerical superiority, lack of any home base, lack of supply lines etc would weigh irreversibly on the side of the reapers. 

Cool so the crucible emits a signal that allows the combines galactic fleet to emerge victorious from the battle to take back earth.  Sadly a reaper destroy or two excape (becuase someone always escapes even in routs) and once out of range informs all other reapers of this new and dangerous threat.  Reapers decide that this cycle is too dangerous, and retreats from each planet.. only to fly out to the local asteroid belt and lobe a few dozen at the home planets.  now what?

So rather than engage us in a stand up fight reapers are doing fly by attacks destroying our ability to build more stuff, or to repair our broken stuff, our ability to produce food, water, and medical supplies, our ability to replace casualties. 

Then to make matters worse, they all gather together again, and attack the citadel. Each with the understanding that if the crucible makes an apparence that it's the only targets that matters. They then jump through the relay, micro jump to the citadel and begin their attack.  (leaving a signficant portion of their forces behind the widow relay just in case the crucuble has to travel there.  

We now have a choice. engage the reapers with the crucible (which is pretty vulnerable if I recall correctly) while they are massed all together, or allow them to take the citadel and close off the relays...  either way it's going to go very bad very quickly.

In the end effect we'd have killed more reapers, and still be dead.  

[IanPolaris]

Kandon Arc wrote...

I think you guys are overthinking things here. Conventional victory is impossible because the writers wanted the starchild ending. If they had wanted to make a conventional ending possible in ME3 they could have easily and plausibly written it that way. Thanix cannons could have been super effective, Reapers could have been less in number etc. Before ME3 there was no confirmation that the Reapers were unbeatable, indeed Shepard was working under the belief that they were not. The comparison here would be something like the original trilogy of Star Wars - sure the Empire look invincible, and the heroes seem insignificant in comparison, but if that wasn't the case then victory wouldn't be as narratively exciting.

The feel of ME1 and 2 was much the same - the Reapers are a huge and daunting threat but there is hope. It just felt to me that instead of doing the expected thing and making ME3 the triumphant victory against the impossible that fit the story thus far, they went with a twist ending that felt narratively jarring.

tl;dr Conventional victory should have been possible, but the direction that writers chose for the finale required it not to be.

I agree, and ultimately that's the problem even now not just with (all) the endings but with ME3 as a whole.  Pro-Tip:  Do not change the narrative style or the nature of the story in the middle of a series.  DEFINATELY do not do it in the last 10 minutes of the game!

-Polaris

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

LaughingDragon wrote...

I may be mistaken, but wasn't it said that the rachni were so strong that they once threatened the entire galaxy? Sounds like a powerful ally to have on your side, maybe they could swarm reaper ships like the buzz droids from SW: ROTS or zerg from SC.

During the final assault on earth, in the opening cinematic with the space battle - remember seeing how a few turian ships blew that reapers legs off? Seems like the reapers are not even close to invincible.

Remember the scene of Palaven where areas the size of the eastern seaboard where ablaze? Pretty sure that was after the  "battle of Palaven", where those turians with their nonconventional methods, actually failed to stop the reapers or even really slow them down in a significant manner? Remember the scene as we left earth with all the debri from destroyed alliance ships floating around? Hey remember that scene where just after those turians blew off a finger/tenticle, that the turian ship was destroyed by that same reaper? 

No it wasn't.  The Battle (or Miracle) of Palavan happens approximate concurrently when you defeat the Reaper Destroyer on Tuchanka.

-Polaris

No the battle of Palaven happens before you even arrive there.  Palaven is buring, worse than earth was at that point.  The miracle of Palaven happen after you cure the genophage. And while it was uplifting it was also not enough to grant difinitive victory.  A minor set back as far as the reapers are concerned.  

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Kandon Arc wrote...

I think you guys are overthinking things here. Conventional victory is impossible because the writers wanted the starchild ending. If they had wanted to make a conventional ending possible in ME3 they could have easily and plausibly written it that way. Thanix cannons could have been super effective, Reapers could have been less in number etc. Before ME3 there was no confirmation that the Reapers were unbeatable, indeed Shepard was working under the belief that they were not. The comparison here would be something like the original trilogy of Star Wars - sure the Empire look invincible, and the heroes seem insignificant in comparison, but if that wasn't the case then victory wouldn't be as narratively exciting.

The feel of ME1 and 2 was much the same - the Reapers are a huge and daunting threat but there is hope. It just felt to me that instead of doing the expected thing and making ME3 the triumphant victory against the impossible that fit the story thus far, they went with a twist ending that felt narratively jarring.

tl;dr Conventional victory should have been possible, but the direction that writers chose for the finale required it not to be.

I agree, and ultimately that's the problem even now not just with (all) the endings but with ME3 as a whole.  Pro-Tip:  Do not change the narrative style or the nature of the story in the middle of a series.  DEFINATELY do not do it in the last 10 minutes of the game!

-Polaris

hahah you all know that SW is an incomplete story right? there were supposed to be 9 (heard rumors of 26 but thats hardly likely). You didn't see Luke and the rebellion defeat the empire, you saw them defeat the emperor and a fleet. Not all of the fleets and certainly not all of the leaders of the empire.  not to mention that the empire is not the same type of enermy that the reapers are.