419 réponses à ce sujet

[ZerebusPrime]

I apologize if this has already been stated, but regarding multiplayer N7 Ops bonus military strength...

...those are GROUND forces. At best, they are space marines. We can't chuck them at the Reaper capital ships* and expect them to wipe the Reapers out. It's a rare moment when spec ops teams can pull off a Miracle at Palavan and that generally won't happen often in a war that has to be won in space.

What we need is not just a boost to overall EMS from N7 Ops volunteer badasses. We need another space fleet. Or two or twenty. Preferably with lots of dreadnoughts or equivalent.

Point of fact, we needed the space forces of all those zillions of minor species we keep hearing about in the games but never see. Essentially, IIRC there are supposed to be a ton of alien ambassadors on the Citadel representing races other than the humans, turians, asari, salarians, elcor, volus, and hanar. We needed them and they weren't there. Individually they are no doubt weak, but collectively they should have added up to something more significant.


Now, regarding the 10 billion mosquitoes thing versus an army of 10,000 men. One word: MALARIA. Mosquitoes are scary. It's a race between infectious diseases and the deployment of mass pesticides and the draining of mosquito breeding pools and even then whole armies of people have been brought to a halt by the bugs before. Unfortunately, if there's a Reaper-killing bloodborne disease, we didn't find it.





*Well, ok, maybe we COULD. And maybe that'd be hilarious, but it wouldn't gain us much. Yes, I am aware that the Geth literally chuck their ground forces at wherever they are needed. And yes, a Krogan catapult would be fun as hell. But if we start doing this then someone somewhere will finally build a thresher maw cannon....

[IanPolaris]

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

Point.  Missing it.  The point is that like Star Wars, Mass Effect is fiction and it's up to the collected fictional writers and canon tech (for hard sci-fi anyway) to determin what is and isn't possible, and the point here is apparently sometime between ME2 and ME3, the writers determined that beating the Reapers without a magic box was impossible (as opposed to mind-numbingly hard and costly).  No other reason.

-Polaris

[Kandon Arc]

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

I think you've missed the point here. The Empire and Reapers may be different, but they serve the same narrative purpose - the seemingly insurmountable obstacle that the hero must defeat to complete his journey. ME1 and 2 are not about exploring the Reapers motivations and coming to terms with them (which would be a logical precursor to the ME3 ending) but about Shepard doing all he can to defeat them, despite the odds arrayed against him, which would imply an ending where he can beat them.

[Warrior Craess]

LaughingDragon 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? 

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.

Curious, but why is it in ME2 that Shepard was forced to work with Cerberus?  Something about the Council and the alliance not taking the reaper threat seriously?  And the time line from the End of ME2 til the beginning of ME3 is what 8 months at most?   The klendagon valley rift happened 37 million years.  thats 740 cycles if the levithian of Dis is actually a reaper, then thats a billion plus years or 20K cycles.   So we are facing anywhere from 740 reaper capital ships to 20K  (1 per cycle) and an unknown but huge number of destroyers (1 per special available per cycle -1 for the capital ship).  We have less than 100 dreadnoughts, even with the galaxy united. 

So even if we built 10 dreadnoughts per species per year, we'd still be short of the number to take on even the least number of reapers.  There are 13 possible races which means 130 ships x3 is 390... which is about 1/8 of the numbers we'd need in order to match up with the reapers. 

Sorry but it all suggests that the reapers are indeed unbeatable in a convention or asymmetrical war. 

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

Point.  Missing it.  The point is that like Star Wars, Mass Effect is fiction and it's up to the collected fictional writers and canon tech (for hard sci-fi anyway) to determin what is and isn't possible, and the point here is apparently sometime between ME2 and ME3, the writers determined that beating the Reapers without a magic box was impossible (as opposed to mind-numbingly hard and costly).  No other reason.

-Polaris

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

[ZerebusPrime]

Wait, were we supposed to recruit the Ewoks?

[IanPolaris]

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

The synthesis ending would like to have a word with you.

Seriously, at it's hard StarWars, Mass Effect, War and Peace, whatever are all works of fiction and all have themes.  A central theme of ME1 and ME2 was Shepard's struggle against a seemingly impossible foe and yet winning each time on his narrative journey.  As in Starwars, this implies that ultimate victory by his own actions (and the actions of his fellow protagonists) is possible.

This major theme was altered beyond all recognition somewhere between ME2 and ME3 and for no good reason I can see.

-Polaris

[UFGSpot]

Optimystic_X wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

Point.  Missing it.  The point is that like Star Wars, Mass Effect is fiction and it's up to the collected fictional writers and canon tech (for hard sci-fi anyway) to determin what is and isn't possible, and the point here is apparently sometime between ME2 and ME3, the writers determined that beating the Reapers without a magic box was impossible (as opposed to mind-numbingly hard and costly).  No other reason.

-Polaris

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

no kidding. star wars is nothing close to sci fi. It's traditional fantasy with laser guns

[Warrior Craess]

Kandon Arc wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

I think you've missed the point here. The Empire and Reapers may be different, but they serve the same narrative purpose - the seemingly insurmountable obstacle that the hero must defeat to complete his journey. ME1 and 2 are not about exploring the Reapers motivations and coming to terms with them (which would be a logical precursor to the ME3 ending) but about Shepard doing all he can to defeat them, despite the odds arrayed against him, which would imply an ending where he can beat them.

And so he does.  It's just not able to be done via military might or tactics. And this has been the lore from all three games.

ME1 was about stopping Saren, and who is controlled by Soveriegn (thankfully the plot twist is introduced early enough to sit well with us), Which we do, if just barely.  
ME2 is about stopping the collectors, which just happens to be directly controlled by Harbinger (plot twist introduced late, but it's expected so it sits well) .
ME 3 is about stopping the reapers, which just happen to be controlled by the starbrat... sadly this plot twist is unexpected and not introduce in a timely or effective manner. 

So yeah the plot twist is very much in keeping with the style of writing in previous games. It's just incredibly poorly done. 

[PsyrenY]

IanPolaris wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

The synthesis ending would like to have a word with you.

Why? I never claimed Mass Effect was hard sci-fi either.

Sci-fi doesn't have to be "hard" to be good.

[JPVS]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

Point.  Missing it.  The point is that like Star Wars, Mass Effect is fiction and it's up to the collected fictional writers and canon tech (for hard sci-fi anyway) to determin what is and isn't possible, and the point here is apparently sometime between ME2 and ME3, the writers determined that beating the Reapers without a magic box was impossible (as opposed to mind-numbingly hard and costly).  No other reason.

-Polaris

You guys are the ones missing the point. Sure, the game could have been written differently to allow the Reapers to be beaten conventionally. Hell, they could have written that each reaper possesses one major structural flaw: an exhaust tube leading directly to their core, no more than 2m wide, where a single missile would be able to enter and destroy the Reaper (you brought SW reference, I just wanted to continue )

This topic is not about "how the game could have been written diferently". It is "how the game, remaining as it is, with the canon it has, with the endings and ME3 crucible/catalyst plot it possesses, should have also included a refusal ending where it is possible to beat the Reapers conventionally". With the game as it is, with the canon the game has, with the endings and ME3 plot it possesses, such an ending would have been impossible and just as much space magic as synthesis.
If you want to discuss how the franchise canon could have been written differenly, than sure it could have. Shepard could have picked up the massive mass-accelerator gun Cerberus found on ME2 and rebuilt it to shoot over-sized thresher maws grown up in the collector base. But that wasn't the case and this topic is not presented as to discuss how the game, and the franchise canon, should have been different.

[N-Seven]

Well, let's face it...Mass Effect series as much as I love it, isn't hard sci-fi either. It's pulpy space opera. Closer to Star Wars and Star Trek than Dune or Foundation.

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

The synthesis ending would like to have a word with you.

Seriously, at it's hard StarWars, Mass Effect, War and Peace, whatever are all works of fiction and all have themes.  A central theme of ME1 and ME2 was Shepard's struggle against a seemingly impossible foe and yet winning each time on his narrative journey.  As in Starwars, this implies that ultimate victory by his own actions (and the actions of his fellow protagonists) is possible.

This major theme was altered beyond all recognition somewhere between ME2 and ME3 and for no good reason I can see.

-Polaris

Explain to me how shepard fails to overcome impossible odds in ME3?  He overcomes the impossible odds of getting the turians and krogans to fight side by side. He overcomes impossible odds by getting the geth and quarrians to co-exist (if you chose that path), He over comes impossible odd even to reach the citadel at earth.  

While I can appreciate and enjoy writing in a manner to win via military might. Doing so would void out as much or more of the hard canon of the previous 2 ME games. ME 3 didn't write in the politicians and leaders sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to even ackowledge the existance of the reapers, much less their desire to get back to the way things were. 

[JPVS]

N-Seven wrote...

Well, let's face it...Mass Effect series as much as I love it, isn't hard sci-fi either. It's pulpy space opera. Closer to Star Wars and Star Trek than Dune or Foundation.

Thank god for that! Honestly, I wouldn't find it pleasing to play through a hard sci-fi like Dune or Foundation.

[IanPolaris]

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

The synthesis ending would like to have a word with you.

Seriously, at it's hard StarWars, Mass Effect, War and Peace, whatever are all works of fiction and all have themes.  A central theme of ME1 and ME2 was Shepard's struggle against a seemingly impossible foe and yet winning each time on his narrative journey.  As in Starwars, this implies that ultimate victory by his own actions (and the actions of his fellow protagonists) is possible.

This major theme was altered beyond all recognition somewhere between ME2 and ME3 and for no good reason I can see.

-Polaris

Explain to me how shepard fails to overcome impossible odds in ME3?  He overcomes the impossible odds of getting the turians and krogans to fight side by side. He overcomes impossible odds by getting the geth and quarrians to co-exist (if you chose that path), He over comes impossible odd even to reach the citadel at earth.  

While I can appreciate and enjoy writing in a manner to win via military might. Doing so would void out as much or more of the hard canon of the previous 2 ME games. ME 3 didn't write in the politicians and leaders sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to even ackowledge the existance of the reapers, much less their desire to get back to the way things were. 

None of it matters.  It doesn't matter if the Krogan are allied or go completely rogue (it can happen if you botch things bad enough).  It doesn't matter how many Turian resources you have.  It doesn't matter if Rannoch is little more than a smoldering ruin with a wretched remnant of the Quarian fleet.  It doesn't matter if you blow off every single side ission.

If you play the Starkid's game, you get to win.  If you don't you always lose.

That's not drama and it's not overcoming anything.

-Polaris

[Kandon Arc]

Warrior Craess wrote...

Kandon Arc wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

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. 

I think you've missed the point here. The Empire and Reapers may be different, but they serve the same narrative purpose - the seemingly insurmountable obstacle that the hero must defeat to complete his journey. ME1 and 2 are not about exploring the Reapers motivations and coming to terms with them (which would be a logical precursor to the ME3 ending) but about Shepard doing all he can to defeat them, despite the odds arrayed against him, which would imply an ending where he can beat them.

And so he does.  It's just not able to be done via military might or tactics. And this has been the lore from all three games.

ME1 was about stopping Saren, and who is controlled by Soveriegn (thankfully the plot twist is introduced early enough to sit well with us), Which we do, if just barely.  
ME2 is about stopping the collectors, which just happens to be directly controlled by Harbinger (plot twist introduced late, but it's expected so it sits well) .
ME 3 is about stopping the reapers, which just happen to be controlled by the starbrat... sadly this plot twist is unexpected and not introduce in a timely or effective manner. 

So yeah the plot twist is very much in keeping with the style of writing in previous games. It's just incredibly poorly done. 

I guess we have to agree to disagree on what constitutes 'stopping' the Reapers. Narratively surmounting the obstacle is less about the obstacle, but more about what the obstacle represents. In Star Wars the Empire represents tyranny, oppression and servitude, and Luke defeats them and rejects the ideals they represent. In ME the Reapers represent the inevitablity of a synthetic/organic struggle, and the [new] ending forces you to choose between destroying the Reapers by accepting what they stand for, or rejecting their purpose and failing to defeat them.

It's an interesting ending, but it is out of sync with the narrative structure and genre that have come before it.

[Mars Nova]

It is stupid that we can't win with high EMS. Determining if we can win should be the only purpose it can serve.

How does having an extra fleet magically make synthesis available as an option for the Crucible? How does it magically make Shepard survive?

[Warrior Craess]

omg you didn't get to win in your way. which is what this argument boils down to in the end.

I concede that Synthesis is space magic, and I have a problem with it. however.....

Remove the presence of the star brat, let Shepard explore than catalyst/citadel and discover that he can control or destroy the reapers. What do you have then? him overcoming great odds to triumph over the reapers. And both are logical and familiar outcomes and thematically consistent. Hell it's the exact same theme as ME2's ending....

Accept that given the state of the galaxy at the end of ME 2 that conventional, or asymmetrical success is not possible. There is simply too much lore to retcon this. Too many Reapers, and not enough vulnerablities for any kind of military action to be ultimately successful.

[Warrior Craess]

Mars Nova wrote...

It is stupid that we can't win with high EMS. Determining if we can win should be the only purpose it can serve.

How does having an extra fleet magically make synthesis available as an option for the Crucible? How does it magically make Shepard survive?

So enlighten us as to how you'd win? 
What reaper vulnerability would you exploit? 
How would you stop them from torching earth? palaven? tuchanka? Thessia?  (and that list goes on for a long time...)
How would you prevent them from orbittally bombarding places like Bekenstein?


What if all ther reapers attacked the citadel how would you defeat them? 

Lastly don't refer to an arbitrary score as a defining point for a military victory.  Unless that Score somehow manages to conjure thousands of dreadnoughts it's not going to be enough. 

[ZerebusPrime]

I suppose I was counting on a Rachnii fleet that never materialized, a new alien ally race that never appeared, and a seven year old wizkid sidekick whose pet dog could sniff out Reaper weak spots.

[Warrior Craess]

Kandon Arc wrote...

Narratively surmounting the obstacle is less about the obstacle, but more about what the obstacle represents. In Star Wars the Empire represents tyranny, oppression and servitude, and Luke defeats them and rejects the ideals they represent. In ME the Reapers represent the inevitablity of a synthetic/organic struggle, and the [new] ending forces you to choose between destroying the Reapers by accepting what they stand for, or rejecting their purpose and failing to defeat them.

It's an interesting ending, but it is out of sync with the narrative structure and genre that have come before it.

See I disagree that the narrative theme was organic/synthetic conflict.  Didn't buy it when BW stated it, and don't buy it now.  I remember the conflicts in ME 1 against the geth, who were fighting for Saren. I remember most of the side missions being organic vs organic. I remember the loyalty missions all being organic vs organic. I remember the evil corporations and their actions.  nothing about ME1 felt as if it was an inevitable struggle between organics and synthetics. 

I see the theme behind the ME franchise as being the struglle to preserve life and the galaxy as we know it from a highly evolved and enigmatic enemy.  I'm more upset that they tried to explain the reapers than I am that a conventional war was unwinable. 

[Warrior Craess]

ZerebusPrime wrote...

I suppose I was counting on a Rachnii fleet that never materialized, a new alien ally race that never appeared, and a seven year old wizkid sidekick whose pet dog could sniff out Reaper weak spots.

lol not sure how sarcastic your being with this, but I would have loved to see the Rachni get some revenge on the reapers. Since you know, the reapers did get them wiped out a couple thousand years ago. 

Now if only someone had known then that the reapers where behind it and had been diligently preparing for their arrival...

but nah that would be too DEM as well...

[Kandon Arc]

Warrior Craess wrote...

omg you didn't get to win in your way. which is what this argument boils down to in the end.

I concede that Synthesis is space magic, and I have a problem with it. however.....

Remove the presence of the star brat, let Shepard explore than catalyst/citadel and discover that he can control or destroy the reapers. What do you have then? him overcoming great odds to triumph over the reapers. And both are logical and familiar outcomes and thematically consistent. Hell it's the exact same theme as ME2's ending....

Accept that given the state of the galaxy at the end of ME 2 that conventional, or asymmetrical success is not possible. There is simply too much lore to retcon this. Too many Reapers, and not enough vulnerablities for any kind of military action to be ultimately successful.

The starchild isn't the problem. Destroy and control both require acceptance that the Reapers were right in believing that synthetic life will inevitably destroy all organic life. Thus the hero doesn't defeat the obstacle, but he accepts that he was the one at fault. Again an interesting end, but not one that matches the genre, tone or narrative themes of the first two parts, or arguably most of the third. The theme of ME2's ending is that a) Shepard overcomes the seemingly impossible obstacle of the suicide mission, a rejection of the Reapers aim of creating a human Reaper and possibly c) a rejection of using ends acquired through immoral means. ME3's themes are different - he is unable to overcome the Reapers and must bargain with them; and in order to do so he must accept their aims, if not their methods.

I don't have a problem as such with a non convential victory, if the crucible turned out to be a Reaper EMP that would have been fine. What I have a problem with, and what makes it such a narratively jarring ending, is that in order to win Shepard must abandon his ideals.

[ArchDuck]

Warrior Craess wrote...

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.

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*

1) 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.

2) 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?

3) Which turian tactics? the battle of Palaven - cause hate to tell you but, they took massive casualties and had to retreat.

4) 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

5) 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.

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. 

1) The point is that they are not invincible, unstoppable or all knowing. Give them respect but defeating yourself before the main battle is a good way to guarantee you will lose. Hackett is a mediocre military commander who lost deployed military fleets in stupid and ineffective tactical choices.

2) If you can build something as large, costly and complex as the crucible you can manufacture thanix cannons. If they would be destroyed no matter what (as you imply) then the crucible also should never have reached completion.

3) Yes Turian tactics from the Battle of Palaven "Knowing that the Reapers' weapons had a longer effective range than any of his own, Coronati made a short, daring FTL jump--landing his dreadnoughts in the middle of the Reaper fleet. The dreadnoughts then turned to line up their main guns on the Reapers, which also needed to turn to fire on the turians. This ploy used the Reapers' size against them--because they could turn faster, and their concentrated firepower downed several Reaper capital ships."

Also the Miracle of Pavalen "This allowed krogan commandos to link up with Palaven's resistance and hand off their payloads--warp bombs and fission weapons.
In simultaneous strikes across the globe, Reaper ships began to explode. Turian resistance members had managed to smuggle the bombs inside when the Reaper processing ships, troop transports, and even destroyers and capital ships had opened their structures to indoctrinated turian leaders."

4) It was available before the final battle and could be acquired.

5) If it can block one form of Reaper communication (master/slave) then it should be able to be altered to block another. Even if not, it is still useful. Also build more than one. Can be intergrated into various strategies which with the right timing could allow the destruction of multiple landed Reapers.


Not saying it is perfect just plausible.

Also, in the future be kind enough not to deface my posts to make it look like something other then what I have said. Thank you.

Modifié par ArchDuck, 29 juin 2012 - 12:49 .

[Warrior Craess]

IanPolaris wrote...

Warrior Craess wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Optimystic_X wrote...

Why on earth would you put "Star Wars" and "hard sci-fi" in the same statement? 

The synthesis ending would like to have a word with you.

Seriously, at it's hard StarWars, Mass Effect, War and Peace, whatever are all works of fiction and all have themes.  A central theme of ME1 and ME2 was Shepard's struggle against a seemingly impossible foe and yet winning each time on his narrative journey.  As in Starwars, this implies that ultimate victory by his own actions (and the actions of his fellow protagonists) is possible.

This major theme was altered beyond all recognition somewhere between ME2 and ME3 and for no good reason I can see.

-Polaris

Explain to me how shepard fails to overcome impossible odds in ME3?  He overcomes the impossible odds of getting the turians and krogans to fight side by side. He overcomes impossible odds by getting the geth and quarrians to co-exist (if you chose that path), He over comes impossible odd even to reach the citadel at earth.  

While I can appreciate and enjoy writing in a manner to win via military might. Doing so would void out as much or more of the hard canon of the previous 2 ME games. ME 3 didn't write in the politicians and leaders sticking their heads in the sand and refusing to even ackowledge the existance of the reapers, much less their desire to get back to the way things were. 

None of it matters.  It doesn't matter if the Krogan are allied or go completely rogue (it can happen if you botch things bad enough).  It doesn't matter how many Turian resources you have.  It doesn't matter if Rannoch is little more than a smoldering ruin with a wretched remnant of the Quarian fleet.  It doesn't matter if you blow off every single side ission.

If you play the Starkid's game, you get to win.  If you don't you always lose.

That's not drama and it's not overcoming anything.

-Polaris

sigh. 

Cosidering that you can't advance the game with out accomplishing some of that; That choosing all the worst possible endins leaves the Galaxy completey fubared;and that Mordin sacrificing himself, or getting killed by Shepard; that Tali committs suicide or kills legion are all touching scenes, I'm going to have to call BS on that. 

While there are somethings left out, that I would have loved to see, the endings are different depending on how you played the series.