1199 réponses à ce sujet

[XEternalXDreamsX]

I haven't beat the game yet.. I have been playing multi-player. Since it takes like 20+ minutes a round online, I play a couple but I got so much going on in real life that ME3 SP takes a back seat (sooo many fetch quest for two playthroughs, lol). I have two playthroughs on ME3 at the moment with a third coming when I complete ME1 and ME2. I figure if this is the end of Shep's campaign, I'll let him/her rest in peace. Yeah, I would like the "happy" ending but it doesn't seem possible. It would be nice if they continued the series (take all your choices lumped in ME3) to ME4 or whatever the name of the game would be and have a new protagonist/or 'evil' guy to live in Shep's now "created" world . I have put so many hours into the Mass Effect series that it is UNREAL. For awhile, it was only game I played. I started playing right before the Arrival DLC. Since then, I might have touched like two RPGs (never completed, always came back to ME), CoD, but nothing compared to how I was attached to the creativity of the ME series. I wanted an ending that put forth as much time to make things right as I did trying to keep the damn universe safe, lol. From what I hear, the future DLC is going to be added during the campaign, not after the ending..which figures since it seems the only ending where Shep might be alive is Destroy with alot of EMS..I think that forces an ending to choose instead of the others to continue the game. So yeah, I don't know if I want to go back to play DLC before a certain save just to experience alittle more of Shep......but then again, I might be lying. I guess it depends on if I complete my playthroughs. It was a great franchise while it lasted, I'm hoping they don't ruin the series with an MMORPG. Then again, if it looks as great as the ME3 Multiplayer-with choosing a race to help support (maybe battling the other races, having custom merc-groups, ect).. I'd take anything to have ME not fall off the grid but who knows, I have mixed feelings with this addiction, lol. My happy ending is Shep living, I'll let my imagination fill in the blanks.

Modifié par XEternalXDreamsX, 30 juin 2012 - 01:38 .

[Father_Jerusalem]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I'm still not seeing any justifiable reason for depriving a happy ending as an option. 

 

On the contrary, there have been plenty of justifiable reasons.  You simply refuse to acknowledge them.  That's your problem, not ours.

I've seen and acknowledged many reasons, just none justifiable enough to actually leave out the happy ending as an option. 

Just because they are not justifiable enough to YOU does not mean that they are not justifiable enough to BIOWARE. Clearly, the latter case is true, and what matters.

Personally, I am curious if there is ANYTHING that could be "justifiable" enough for you.

[Dresden867]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

I do not, personally, require this option to be satisfied with the game as it stands.

I regard "the conventional means" victory as requiring a lot of deus ex machina to pull off (for various reasons I've discussed in other threads), and don't need a reunion scene for final closure on that thing to feel good about my ending choices.

[RyMann88]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Allan, I'm well aware of the posts between yours and mine, and I'll admit I haven't read all of them, so if I'm repeating anything that's been said then simply ignore this post (I won't be upset, promise).

I think part of the reason people would prefer a 'happy' ending in refusal is because we've invested a large portion of time investing in the overall plot by taking extra steps into ensuring that we get the absolutly best ending in our opinions. In a sense, we are Shepard. We don't like losing. Pretty simple concept no? I'm not going to disrespect your co-worker's ideas in any way. In a sense, Bioware is the true auther and we merely have the opportunity to take advantage of the various different ways we can engage with the characters and story plots as we see fit, but again, bottom line is Bioware has absolute say in what will ultimately happen.

I'll admit, personally, that I would have loved it if Refusal had two outcomes. Both of which would merely take advantage of a game feature that already exists and already has an impact on the other three endings (Control, Synthesis, Destroy), even if it's a fairly 'minor' way.

One of the things about Mass Effect that drew me to the series was Shepard was me and I was Shepard. We had control. That control came with beleivable consequences that would/could have dire consequences on future actions in either a major or minor way.

I'm not saying Bioware should include a perfectly happy ending (again, this is my opinion). But most posters here will agree on "the more the merrier."  Options and choice have been a main element to the franchise that drew in a lot of people.  It's fair to say that quite a few of us predicted a bitter sweet ending from the beginning. After all, how can someone go up against the Reapers and expect everything to come out 100% okay? It just doesn't happen. The Reapers were designed to be this unstoppable force, free of weakness. I even speculated that ME3 would have us players use the Reaper technology against them (if you can't beat them, join them) in order to win and look what happened, we ended up using the Citadel/Catalyst to bring an end to the conflict.

Another problem I can see is the way Shepard was intially set up. We was initially presented to us as an Action hero rather than a Tragic hero. In most (9/10) stories involving Action Heros, they always find a way to win and survive and/or come back to life and continue fighting (IE; ME2). Tragic heros are almost always expected to succeed in their task, but through personal sacrifice. Granted, I'm not saying that this HAS to be true 100% of the time. Ultimately Mass Effect is Bioware's story, but that doesn't mean that the option shouldn't be there when we all know Bioware is talented and creative enough to find a way to make it work in a plausible manner.

Does any of that make sense? Feel free to respond with questions if you're confused and I'll try my best to clear anything up.

[saracen16]

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

NOD-INFORMER37 wrote...

I'm still not seeing any justifiable reason for depriving a happy ending as an option. 

 

On the contrary, there have been plenty of justifiable reasons.  You simply refuse to acknowledge them.  That's your problem, not ours.

I've seen and acknowledged many reasons, just none justifiable enough to actually leave out the happy ending as an option. 

Correction: you've acknowledged them but because you don't like the endings, you want to reject that reality and substitute your own. Go ahead and refuse the Crucible.

[Vormaerin]

KevShep wrote...

Iam just stating that it is possible. Therefor they could have done something with that rather then just say that it impossible when clearly it is not, hard yes but possible.

No one is denying that it is possible to kill a reaper capital ship.    Which is not the same thing as destroying the reaper armada.  We have no information about how big it is.   We just know that everyone "in game" says its too big to deal with.

Victus, Hackett, and everyone else could be defeatists or indoctrinated or whatever.   But we don't have any evidence that defeating the reapers is possible, just that we can kill some of them in the process of losing.

[Chaoswind]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

Publicly calling out an apology from me to RPGenius.

I misrepresented his post not maliciously, but more because I was starting to bounce around between other posts and the part of his post I quoted had become a common theme. Where he talks about how Shepard can't always make the choice was overlooked and I didn't mean to misrepresent his position specifically.

Doesn't excuse my mistake however.

Sorry.

Mistakes happen and you are human, no need to apologize in that way:)

anyways I am with you on this, from the get go this was an impossible battle conventional victory was beyond the realms of possibility and everyone that thought otherwise was not playing the same game as I did.

with the Treaty of Pharixen (sp) and several news and codex entries, we can roughly guess the best case scenario of the allied forces total number of dreadnoughts.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/12816859/19#12861290

and is simply not enough to defeat the grand total of reapers that are raping everyone sideways, not even close.

another point that the conventional victory people like to make is how the codex mentions several victories over the reapers, but they seem to forget that the Mass Effect Codex has always been more about propaganda than rock hard facts; why there are so many entries of supposedly destroyed capital ships? to boost morale, to show that the enemy can be defeated albeit with moderate cost, if you say there is no way of achieving victory the soldiers would lose their will to fight that is why everyone goes bat**** nuts when Shepard tells them "we fight or we die that's the plan"

Like I said in my post, if the Quarians hadn't blindsided the Geth, we would had a chance albeit slim, as the Geth had a fleet that was superior to the might of the Turians.

What you think that isn't true? once the Geth could fight back, they where destroying the Quarians with less than 20% of their fleet remaining, if that isn't enough to draw the picture, think that the Geth super Dreadnought (the last one of that class as they had 3) could take the focused fire of several Quarian cruisers and frigates and only receive cosmetic damage, what is the only other ship that can pull that off in the ME universe? yes a Reaper sovereign class ship.

The conventional victory scenario was impossible from the point the Quarians blindsided the Geth, and destroyed the only fleet that could take the punishment of the reapers and not drop like flies.


People would appreciate the endings more if they realized that conventional victory was impossible:devil:

[RussianSpy27]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

ph34r-X wrote...

I mean look at the refusal ending. Why can't we have that in the refusal ending, but if you're readiness is too low you get the current refusal ending.

I'm just asking this to facilitate discussion, so I'm not trying to pour salt on the wound or anything (my that sounds ominous...).


I see your opinion come up, and I often state my opinion and perspective.  I want to try something a bit different.  Many feel "why can't we have that in the refusal ending?"

Which is a fair enough point.  The writers/designers could have easily allowed that to be an option (what happens in the game is literally whatever they put in).


Just to be direct though:  Why should this be an option for the refusal ending.  Or even more generally, why should there be an ending that contains the following:

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

I'm just asking to hear your thoughts on the subject.  Open question to others that feel the same way.

Allen, I feel that it's not so much a neccessity of seeing Shepard with an LI walk into the sunset (though from a need of feeling heroic that would not be a bad feeling to have). Life is not fair (as the latest installment of the Walking Dead game teaches us, and a devastating war can be unwinnable. Heck, had Hitler's scientists beat Americans to the Nuke, the whole world would have been controlled by evil with billions dead. Likewise, the ending to the DCAU Justice Leagues would end with Darkseid destroying everyone if not for a "star being" appearing to Luthor and saving the day with "space magic". 

What I think made people upset though, is that despite the efforts put into the EC, many people still didn't feel like the effort they have put through 3, 2 or even just one (ME3) game played through to show that doing all that work and making all those choices had real impact. 

Take DA:O - your choices throughout the whole game had direct impact on what armies you'd have at the end (mages or templars, elves or warewolves, golems or no golems). Not only that, but you actively engaged those forces in the final rounds. People want to see the fruit of their labor, even if the fruit is not always the sweetest one. 

ME3 mirrored that with conflicts between species and choices that you make on various planets and those plot lines were beautifully executed. However, the results were not seen - at all. It became a numbers game where a bigger flleet supposedly held out longer so the Catalyst is less damaged. It's not illlogical and understandable, but from an emotional perspective is not nearly as compelling as seeing it all play out as in DA:O. 

If including missions with allies was not plausible technically then the company should have spent time (and yes, money) into creating longer cutscenes showing more battles depending on EMS. Cinimatics of a similar length and quality as say the debut trailer to SW: The Old Republic would have satisfied the masses much more than a ghostly kid who lets you walk left or right or kills you off if you refuse. 

[greggm2000]

XEternalXDreamsX wrote...

I haven't beat the game yet.. I have been playing multi-player. Since it takes like 20+ minutes a round online, I play a couple but I got so much going on in real life that ME3 SP takes a back seat (sooo many fetch quest for two playthroughs, lol). I have two playthroughs on ME3 at the moment with a third coming when I complete ME1 and ME2. I figure if this is the end of Shep's campaign, I'll let him/her rest in peace. Yeah, I would like the "happy" ending but it doesn't seem possible. It would be nice if they continued the series (take all your choices lumped in ME3) to ME4 or whatever the name of the game would be and have a new protagonist/or 'evil' guy to live in Shep's now "created" world . I have put so many hours into the Mass Effect series that it is UNREAL. For awhile, it was only game I played. I started playing right before the Arrival DLC. Since then, I might have touched like two RPGs (never completed, always came back to ME), CoD, but nothing compared to how I was attached to the creativity of the ME series. I wanted an ending that put forth as much time to make things right as I did trying to keep the damn universe safe, lol. From what I hear, the future DLC is going to be added during the campaign, not after the ending..which figures since it seems the only ending where Shep might be alive is Destroy with alot of EMS..I think that forces an ending to choose instead of the others to continue the game. So yeah, I don't know if I want to go back to play DLC before a certain save just to experience alittle more of Shep......but then again, I might be lying. I guess it depends on if I complete my playthroughs. It was a great franchise while it lasted, I'm hoping they don't ruin the series with an MMORPG. Then again, if it looks as great as the ME3 Multiplayer-with choosing a race to help support (maybe battling the other races, having custom merc-groups, ect).. I'd take anything to have ME not fall off the grid but who knows, I have mixed feelings with this addiction, lol. My happy ending is Shep living, I'll let my imagination fill in the blanks.

Who knows, we may see Shep again in ME4. Sure, as far as I know Bioware maintains that Shep's story is over and done with, and that any further games in the ME universe won't take place after the events of ME3, but then again, Bioware says a lot of things that turn out to not be quite true, eh!

Chances are they haven't even started writing ME4 yet, and won't for months. Plans can change... and they've preserved an out (if not an outright veiled statement of intent) that there'll be more to come in the Shep story. Do I expect it? No.... but they're not blind. We know they read the forums. They've got to know sequels sell far better than prequels... and they now know that if they release really sub-par product, the community won't swallow it, no matter how much PR is thrown at it. Furthermore, there isn't even any "artistic integrity" in play here, not for a story that's not yet written.

So, wait and see. Keep asking for what you want... and who knows, maybe come late 2014, we'll see Shep again in a sequel, and some of the remaining questions will be answered

Modifié par greggm2000, 30 juin 2012 - 02:06 .

[KevShep]

Vormaerin wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Iam just stating that it is possible. Therefor they could have done something with that rather then just say that it impossible when clearly it is not, hard yes but possible.

No one is denying that it is possible to kill a reaper capital ship.    Which is not the same thing as destroying the reaper armada.  We have no information about how big it is.   We just know that everyone "in game" says its too big to deal with.

Victus, Hackett, and everyone else could be defeatists or indoctrinated or whatever.   But we don't have any evidence that defeating the reapers is possible, just that we can kill some of them in the process of losing.

So your saying that given the time (or what ever is needed) that we cant STILL kill them all?

Modifié par KevShep, 30 juin 2012 - 02:08 .

[JerkyJohnny14]

I want a happy ending. At this point I'll pay.

[dreman9999]

ph34r-X wrote...

 Simple paragon ending. 

Shepard Lives, reapers defeated by conventional means, Geth/ EDI lives, Shepard walks off into the sunset with love interest.

Is this basicly what we all want? 

People who what this don't get it thatthe choice where made so they would be difficult to make. No one was to like the choices at all and they all sapposed to me moraly wrong is some way. Difficult choice is the main theme of the series. There not sapposted to be a total win choice.

[KevShep]

Something that I just noticed...

the relays are there to stop us from using them AFTER the reapers shut down the relays by the citadel right! They do this so we will be stuck in our own systems since FTL is not fast enough to what the relays could. However, we see the whole galaxy back on there homeworlds...how is that possible? How also is it impossible for the normandy to not return to earth and reunite with shep?

Point is, The reapers use the relays as a trap so they can take over the galaxy (meaning that they CANT beat us united otherwise no need for relay trap).

One last thing I noticed...It took the reapers 200 or more years to kill all of the protheans and yet by magic they beat us in a matter of months with the relays STILL OPEN!

Modifié par KevShep, 30 juin 2012 - 02:17 .

[dreman9999]

KevShep wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Iam just stating that it is possible. Therefor they could have done something with that rather then just say that it impossible when clearly it is not, hard yes but possible.

No one is denying that it is possible to kill a reaper capital ship.    Which is not the same thing as destroying the reaper armada.  We have no information about how big it is.   We just know that everyone "in game" says its too big to deal with.

Victus, Hackett, and everyone else could be defeatists or indoctrinated or whatever.   But we don't have any evidence that defeating the reapers is possible, just that we can kill some of them in the process of losing.

So your saying that given the time (or what ever is needed) that we cant STILL kill them all?

No, if an enemy can make unlimited forces in which the smallest space unit can take out your largest ship then it's pretty clear convetional means will not work.

[KevShep]

dreman9999 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Iam just stating that it is possible. Therefor they could have done something with that rather then just say that it impossible when clearly it is not, hard yes but possible.

No one is denying that it is possible to kill a reaper capital ship.    Which is not the same thing as destroying the reaper armada.  We have no information about how big it is.   We just know that everyone "in game" says its too big to deal with.

Victus, Hackett, and everyone else could be defeatists or indoctrinated or whatever.   But we don't have any evidence that defeating the reapers is possible, just that we can kill some of them in the process of losing.

So your saying that given the time (or what ever is needed) that we cant STILL kill them all?

No, if an enemy can make unlimited forces in which the smallest space unit can take out your largest ship then it's pretty clear convetional means will not work.

your assuming that we dont understand them enough. If we did then we can match them and even beat them conventionaly without space magic.

[dreman9999]

KevShep wrote...

Something that I just noticed...

the relays are there to stop us from using them AFTER the reapers shut down the relays by the citadel right! They do this so we will be stuck in our own systems since FTL is not fast enough to what the relays could. However, we see the whole galaxy back on there homeworlds...how is that possible? How also is it impossible for the normandy to not return to earth and reunite with shep?

Point is, The reapers use the relays as a trap so they can take over the galaxy (meaning that they CANT beat us united otherwise no need for relay trap).

One last thing I noticed...It took the reapers 200 or more years to kill all of the protheans and yet by magic they beat us in a matter of months with the relays STILL OPEN!

1. No one said the normdy can't get back.
2. BW just did show Shepard meeting with his crew if he live, it oesn't mean he will not.
3. The relay trap we to reduce losses on both sides since the reapers perpuse is to persever. They can clearly still beat us in a straight fight.
4. The protheans were way more spread out then we were, liara made this clear. We are more tightly together. The prothean expanded much farther so it did took longer to find them and beat them.

[KevShep]

dreman9999      

Also, during the whole time in ME1 and ME2 we were finding a way to stop the reapers and the way that we do that is some how not what we were after to begin with? The collector base should have played a roll in this as well should the relays have weakned the reapers ability to fight. Both together would have been a logical reason to fight them conventionaly!

[dreman9999]

KevShep wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Vormaerin wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Iam just stating that it is possible. Therefor they could have done something with that rather then just say that it impossible when clearly it is not, hard yes but possible.

No one is denying that it is possible to kill a reaper capital ship.    Which is not the same thing as destroying the reaper armada.  We have no information about how big it is.   We just know that everyone "in game" says its too big to deal with.

Victus, Hackett, and everyone else could be defeatists or indoctrinated or whatever.   But we don't have any evidence that defeating the reapers is possible, just that we can kill some of them in the process of losing.

So your saying that given the time (or what ever is needed) that we cant STILL kill them all?

No, if an enemy can make unlimited forces in which the smallest space unit can take out your largest ship then it's pretty clear convetional means will not work.

your assuming that we dont understand them enough. If we did then we can match them and even beat them conventionaly without space magic.

It doesn't matter if you understand them. There an enemy the can make unlimited forces and will never rest. We have limits to ammo, fuel, manpower, and will. The longer the war goes the more they wear us out and the less resoures we have. This is a clear endurance match which the reapers have endless ammounts and we don't. We will lose eventully no matter  what stratagy we use.

[Chaoswind]

KevShep wrote...

Something that I just noticed...

the relays are there to stop us from using them AFTER the reapers shut down the relays by the citadel right! They do this so we will be stuck in our own systems since FTL is not fast enough to what the relays could. However, we see the whole galaxy back on there homeworlds...how is that possible? How also is it impossible for the normandy to not return to earth and reunite with shep?

Point is, The reapers use the relays as a trap so they can take over the galaxy (meaning that they CANT beat us united otherwise no need for relay trap).

One last thing I noticed...It took the reapers 200 or more years to kill all of the protheans and yet by magic they beat us in a matter of months with the relays STILL OPEN!

The Virus vigil gave you took care of the program that closes the relays.

The Protheans took 200 years, but most of that was clean up duty, the Javik flash back shows them shooting reapers with their particle rifles and the reapers just mostly ignoring them and blasting the facilities while the Husk aka Collectors beat the crap out of them.

[Karolus_V]

KevShep wrote...

Something that I just noticed...

the relays are there to stop us from using them AFTER the reapers shut down the relays by the citadel right! They do this so we will be stuck in our own systems since FTL is not fast enough to what the relays could. However, we see the whole galaxy back on there homeworlds...how is that possible? How also is it impossible for the normandy to not return to earth and reunite with shep?

Point is, The reapers use the relays as a trap so they can take over the galaxy (meaning that they CANT beat us united otherwise no need for relay trap).

One last thing I noticed...It took the reapers 200 or more years to kill all of the protheans and yet by magic they beat us in a matter of months with the relays STILL OPEN!

Imagine paranoid Turians ruling the galaxy. Now the reapers arrive and close the relays. What you got? Isolated forts. Not isolated civil worlds with some defense.  That was what happened with the protheans, the reapers were going slow, because it was the safe route. Overall the protheans were more advanced than our cycle, too.

[WhereEternityEnds]

A trilogy should never end on a cliffhanger. Ever. That's basically the unwritten rule of story telling 101. 3 of the endings are entirely too bleak and the last one is a cliffhanger. That to me is completely outrageous.

[giftfish]

I would actually like to see this ending.  I have no problems losing squadmates that I care for along the way (Mordin, Legion, Ashley/Kaidan, etc), but what it feels like in this situation is that BW is specifically witholding this option from players.

I get that everyone is going to have a different opinion on this.  Some players need to have that "imperfect" ending for the game to feel realistic enough for them.  Others want to see the total annihilation of the galaxy by the Reapers.  And, others yet, want this "more perfect" ending to make playing all 3 games feel worthwhile to them. 

Because of this, nobody should be able to dictate to anyone else *how* they play their own game.  Everyone is right.  The ending that a player likes is the one that best fits them. 

My perspective is that the game was built upon player choice.  Players of Mass Effect are co-creators in a certain way.  To not have this option available to the community is a notable absence.  If there is an "everything goes to h*ll" option, the equal and opposite option is "everything comes out rainbows and bunnies".  We see happy endings like this in movies all the time.  A good proportion of the population likes happy endings.  There's no reason to think the player-base of Mass Effect is any different.

What I find interesting is that Bioware seems to be intentionally forcing our hand by witholding this option, thereby pigeonholing us into one of the other options that are presented.  This results in an exceedingly unpleasant ending for that proportion of players in the community that want the happy ending. 

What Bioware is really saying by doing this is that their interpretation of what should happen is more important that what their customers want.  This is why movies are generally tested before release and modified according to audience feedback.  The director is trying to adhere to his/her artistic vision, but if the audience has serious problems with it, the studio will make sure it is modified or they won't make any money on the film. 

There is a balance to be achieved between "artistic vision" and "pleasing the customer".

Why Bioware would withhold this option, when they could essentially make everyone happy by including it, is a bit confusing to me.  I'm all about "artistic vision", but they really are shooting themselves in the foot, just to make their point.

I for one would rather see this option presented.  That way it is up to the individual player to decide what ending they get, rather than having Bioware decide for them.

Modifié par giftfish, 30 juin 2012 - 02:32 .

[dreman9999]

KevShep wrote...

dreman9999      

Also, during the whole time in ME1 and ME2 we were finding a way to stop the reapers and the way that we do that is some how not what we were after to begin with? The collector base should have played a roll in this as well should the relays have weakned the reapers ability to fight. Both together would have been a logical reason to fight them conventionaly!

ME1, We only faced one reaper and we only delayed them.
ME2, we only faced there forces and we still only delayed them. It a different thing when we are facing the full fleet and the entirity of there unlimited forces. And the collecter base did play a role in defeating the reapers in ME3, gave the main power source of the crucible.

[KevShep]

Karolus_V wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Something that I just noticed...

the relays are there to stop us from using them AFTER the reapers shut down the relays by the citadel right! They do this so we will be stuck in our own systems since FTL is not fast enough to what the relays could. However, we see the whole galaxy back on there homeworlds...how is that possible? How also is it impossible for the normandy to not return to earth and reunite with shep?

Point is, The reapers use the relays as a trap so they can take over the galaxy (meaning that they CANT beat us united otherwise no need for relay trap).

One last thing I noticed...It took the reapers 200 or more years to kill all of the protheans and yet by magic they beat us in a matter of months with the relays STILL OPEN!

Imagine paranoid Turians ruling the galaxy. Now the reapers arrive and close the relays. What you got? Isolated forts. Not isolated civil worlds with some defense.  That was what happened with the protheans, the reapers were going slow, because it was the safe route. Overall the protheans were more advanced than our cycle, too.

The protheans were advanced but the reapers KNEW eveything about them from the citadel. They dont know everything about us so it still SHOULD take longer then that.

it still does not change the fact that it takes hundreds of years as mentioned by Vigil.

[dreman9999]

JerkyJohnny14 wrote...

I want a happy ending. At this point I'll pay.

To bad. the point was never to have a happy ending.