676 réponses à ce sujet

[Zero132132]

moater boat wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...


That's impossible. We never see more modern tech like the Thanix cannon against a Reaper. Making any claims about the Reaper war being winnable or unwinnable without ME3 basically means you headcanon everything.

EXACTLY!

Based off what we know from ME1 and ME2 it would have been completely possible for the writers to write ME3 to have a plausible conventional victory. Thank you for proving my point. The reason that a conventional victory is not possible in ME3 right now is because the writers made it that way. All the people that wanted a conventional victory are saying Bioware could have and should have written the game so that a conventional victory can happen instead of the crapfest we got.

It still would have stretched credibility, since this enemy has defeated more than 10,000 cycles before us, and based on Sovereign in ME1, they have the numbers to "darken the sky of every world." Since in ME2, the Normandy can beat the Collector ship without the Thanix canon, it doesn't seem like it's that much stronger than what we already have. The only Reaper we see is in ME1, and several fleets firing at Sovereign at once had no effect at all until his shields went down, and that was only because of Shepard. The only Reaper seen in the series prior to ME3 seems to literally be indestructable as long as the shields remain up. He basically ignored the entire fleet, even ran right through a sizeable ship without it doing any damage to him. If anything, the Reapers seem more conventionally destructable in ME3 than ME1.  

It wasn't unthinkable or impossible, but it would still seem pretty silly that they suddenly got WAY weaker.

[Dragoonlordz]

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

moater boat wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

I will end debate about whole our ships vs their ships this way. In reject ending as example skip ahead to 12:50 and keep watching to 13:20. Watching out window you can clearly see the entire armarda you assembled with all your allies and all your dvantage of surprise attack is all pretty much wiped out and Reapers are merely strolling through at that stage picking them off at leasuire the remaining ones. Fleets vs fleets you lose and is shown.

Once again, you can't justify the bad writing of ME3 by citing the bad writing of ME3. If you want to talk about Reapers vs the united galaxy, you have to use info from ME1 or ME2, otherwise you are just using circular logic.

It shows you what happens when all your fleets gathered go up against a lot of theirs. If never see it then it allows for theories to have some freedom. The what if and such. But when showed what is then that overrides whatever theory you might have had.

Oh my God, do you seriously still not understand?
We are talking about how ME3 was written, you can't say that ME3 should have been written that way because of the way it is written!

Nonsense, the only bad writing in regard to this discussion was ME1 with Soveriegn shields dropping after Saren dies. That is the bad writing not ME3 scene I showed you. That writing in ME1 for that scene went against everything knew and know about Reapers. it was the bad writing not the scene I showed with all your fleets being picked off at leisure.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:15 .

[Rhz]

Shepard Cmdr wrote...

Rhz wrote...

BerzerkGene wrote...

Rhz wrote...

Because its like North korea fighting against the USA, military victory is impossible without any kind of super weapon

Thats an extremely bad comparison. Korea has no where near the tech the usa does, barring small stuff. Not to mention the ban on their research.
The Reapers are tough, but when you have weapons comparable, they're significantly less tough.

well ok, lets see what codex says

The Reapers are technologically superior to the organic species of the galaxy.
Reaper power sources seem to violate known physical laws.
The main gun on a Reaper capital ship dwarfs that of the Alliance's
Everest-class dreadnoughts.
Precise targeting computers and correctors also
give the Reaper weapons a longer effective range than organics'
dreadnoughts or cruisers.

That last sentence is pretty important, as its wrongly shown in the final space battle, the reapers could obliterate sword fleet before they get close enough to make precise shots to cut off tentacles. And the thanix canon is according to the codex a miniaturized version of Sovereign's gun, I dont know if that fits the term "compareable"

here is another codex entry that refutes your point
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/The_Reapers#Reaper_Vulnerabilities
and here is some supporting in game content

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Ships_and_Vehicles#Mass_Effect_3_2
take a look at the last paragraph in that section
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/War_Assets/Alien#Volus_Dreadnought_Kwunu
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/War_Assets/Salarian#Salarian_Third_Fleet

Well it says "This indicates that, theoretically, with the right intelligence, weapons, and strategy, the Reapers could be defeated", but "with the right weapons" ofc if we would have stronger thanix canons we could perhaps oneshot reaper capitals but we havent ...

The codex points points out some weak points yes, but that doesnt really matter as long as their guns oneshot our biggest dreadnoughts at long range

Modifié par Rhz, 03 juillet 2012 - 06:12 .

[savionen]

"You can't use cutscenes to tell how many Reapers there are."

"Use this cutscene of an Alliance ship drifting slowly and then being destroyed as evidence."

[ArchDuck]

Klijpope wrote...

Everyone, you do realise you are contradicting Admiral Hacket!

On no! Not Hackett! I mean the guy has the tactical sense of a rookie recruit but...

[Bleachrude]

Zero132132 wrote...

moater boat wrote...

Zero132132 wrote...


That's impossible. We never see more modern tech like the Thanix cannon against a Reaper. Making any claims about the Reaper war being winnable or unwinnable without ME3 basically means you headcanon everything.

EXACTLY!

Based off what we know from ME1 and ME2 it would have been completely possible for the writers to write ME3 to have a plausible conventional victory. Thank you for proving my point. The reason that a conventional victory is not possible in ME3 right now is because the writers made it that way. All the people that wanted a conventional victory are saying Bioware could have and should have written the game so that a conventional victory can happen instead of the crapfest we got.

It still would have stretched credibility, since this enemy has defeated more than 10,000 cycles before us, and based on Sovereign in ME1, they have the numbers to "darken the sky of every world." Since in ME2, the Normandy can beat the Collector ship without the Thanix canon, it doesn't seem like it's that much stronger than what we already have. The only Reaper we see is in ME1, and several fleets firing at Sovereign at once had no effect at all until his shields went down, and that was only because of Shepard. The only Reaper seen in the series prior to ME3 seems to literally be indestructable as long as the shields remain up. He basically ignored the entire fleet, even ran right through a sizeable ship without it doing any damage to him. If anything, the Reapers seem more conventionally destructable in ME3 than ME1.  

It wasn't unthinkable or impossible, but it would still seem pretty silly that they suddenly got WAY weaker.

Exactly.

Based on ME1, the reapers actually got WEAKER in ME3. The turians took down MULTIPLE capital ships via force of arms whereas in ME1, it took a freak occurence to beat 1 single reaper DN.


Not sure where the idea comes from that ME3 made the reapers too powerful comes from...ME1, reaper was WAY stronger...

[humes spork]

moater boat wrote...

 All the people that wanted a conventional victory are saying Bioware could have and should have written the game so that a conventional victory can happen instead of the crapfest we got.

This is the point.

You're arguing what should have been as if it is. This is a conversation about what is. This is not a conversation about what the game is not, or vastly more importantly this is not a conversation about what the game should have been. Is and ought are two completely different propositions. There is a huge difference between the two.

If you believe things ought to have been different, you are more than free to do so. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. To a certain extent, I actually agree with that opinion. Just because you believe things ought to have been different doesn't mean that what it is changes.

In the product we are given, conventional victory is impossible. You dislike that, we get that. You believe conventional victory should have been possible. That doesn't change that conventional victory is impossible, and what should have been possible is an entirely different topic. Arguing that it does, or that they are the same thing, makes you look very silly.

[Funkdrspot]

People keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because they're in denial. They want an ability to tell off the catalyst, win the war, survive and live happily ever after. They are too invested in their character

[WYLDMAXX]

Why do people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible?

Its not possible because the writers either didn't understand naval ship tactics or they just didn't want it to be possible.

[LiarasShield]

Funkdrspot wrote...

People keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because they're in denial. They want an ability to tell off the catalyst, win the war, survive and live happily ever after. They are too invested in their character

You know I do have a counter arguement for you on this regard but neh I'll let it go anyways I'll let my own thread speak for me lol

[Turran]

You all seem to want to re-write the entire story/battle to suit conventional victory.

Maybe we could of possibly won a conventional victory if every ship had the Thannix Cannon attached to it. But they didn't.
Maybe we could of won it is we turtle inward and held of one planet. But we didn't.
But maybe..!

Sorry to break it to you, but no way conventional could of won.
The planets crumbled almost instantly, even the Turians were forced out of their home world.
Governments were struggling as the incident with Udina showing politicians were becoming desperate and non trusting of one another.

If we had won back Earth, there was not enough supplies on that single planet for a massive re-group.
There wasn't enough resources to patch all the damaged ships together and replace those lost. There was still the entire globe to keep pushing with limited ammo, guns and vehicles to drive the Reapers off along with their ground forces and secure the planet.

Rushing at Earth was a the 'final push', it was the last desperate hope to get the Crucible to work.

[PinkysPain]

The Mad Hanar wrote...
Well guys?

Simple, asspull some way to weaken them (for instance sabotaging the Starchild's AI core to remove their kinetic barriers, maybe through conversation if your Sheperd has renegade or paragon maxed). In a game which starts with a McGuffin and ends with a Diablos Ex Machina saying that such a thing would bring down the quality of the plot is ridiculous ...

[Gamedwarf24]

Nothing is impossible unless the writers say it is. While difficult and wracked with casualties, there was nothing before ME3 that said conventional victory against the reapers was flat out impossible. Besides, one of the largest themes of the ME franchise was Shepard overcoming impossible odds when people were telling him its impossible. Saren and Sovereign said that their victory was inevitable. Shepard beat them.

The tagline of ME2 was that you were not expected to survive, its a suicide mission, Illusive Man and Cerberus don't think you can get out of it alive, Harbinger believes your destruction is assured...what happens? Your shepard kicks the human reaper in the teeth, destroys the collectors, and can do it without losing a man (if you played well enough).

So for ME3 to come along, introduce a macguffin/deus ex plot device and tells you its impossible unless you use this macguffin/deus ex POS...it doesn't really resonate with me. Up until this point Shepard has been making the impossible happen, so why should Liara/Hacket/Whoever the **** else telling me its impossible to win by conventional means slow me down?

Honestly, the only reason its not possible is because MaCasey said it wasn't and that the overcoming impossible odds theme should be replaced by one of inevitability/bittersweet hope or some stupid **** like that. So...that, IMO, is why people insist that conventional victory is possible, because the rest of the ME franchise eluded to it.

[LiarasShield]

Turran wrote...

You all seem to want to re-write the entire story/battle to suit conventional victory.

Maybe we could of possibly won a conventional victory if every ship had the Thannix Cannon attached to it. But they didn't.
Maybe we could of won it is we turtle inward and held of one planet. But we didn't.
But maybe..!

Sorry to break it to you, but no way conventional could of won.
The planets crumbled almost instantly, even the Turians were forced out of their home world.
Governments were struggling as the incident with Udina showing politicians were becoming desperate and non trusting of one another.

If we had won back Earth, there was not enough supplies on that single planet for a massive re-group.
There wasn't enough resources to patch all the damaged ships together and replace those lost. There was still the entire globe to keep pushing with limited ammo, guns and vehicles to drive the Reapers off along with their ground forces and secure the planet.

Rushing at Earth was a the 'final push', it was the last desperate hope to get the Crucible to work.

Once again I could argue against this we all feel differently wether about a conventional victory or which ending is the best from our own perspectives

[Alchemist02]

Put simply there can be no conventional victory of arms with the reapers, you cannot trade forces evenly or even effectivly with them, you cant starve them and for every soldier you lose they gain one.

The reapers also have undetectable indoctronated spys EVERYWHERE so they know everything you will do, where your ships will recharge, where you are mining the fuel for you'r ships from, where you will attack.

The only ''conventional victory'' you could achive would be going battlestar galatica on them and just up and loiter in unexplored space in complete radio silence and hope that the reapers do not learn of it.

I can tell you as an experienced RTS player that ''Going door to door killing reapers'' will not work because you are trading 10 of you'r ships for 1 of his and without anyway to rebuild those lost ships you will eventually lose all you'r steam and just die.

[Turran]

LiarasShield wrote...

Once again I could argue against this we all feel differently wether about a conventional victory or which ending is the best from our own perspectives

The thing is, I hate to say this as I sound really dick-like, people who believe that conventional victory could of worked, are just wrong.

Because the writers have quite clearly wrote it as not working. You can argue that it might be possible, but it just isn't.
No one believed us about the Reapers, they believed Sovreign was the last one, a mistake by the characters in the game. So it was already too late to try and fully secure a planet by Mass Effect 3.

There were thousands, atleast, making up the Reapers. Their army increased by millions everytime they took over a planet.
Every 'soldier' they gained through reaperising someone, 2 people/soldiers lost from us. The guy who got reaperised and the friend who can't stand to shoot him.

The story was wrote, as seen in the game, that the worlds instantly fell and crumbled. With this, there was nearly no single place everyone could regroup and try and secure a planet, which should be able to support billions and billions along with materials for ships and buildings and bunkers and guns and ammo and turrets.
Along with the support, it needs to also stay under the Reaper radar, or they will have 100+ Reapers falling on their heads.

The Reapers themselves take a lot of ships to be brought down. Sovereign took the whole of Citadel defence along with the Alliance fleet. It was also distracted because it was trying to work the Citadel at the same time.
A Reaper (Because the Thannix Cannons were not used in the fighting) could burst into the ranks of our army and spin around rapidly if they wanted to, simply just cutting our ships in half as our fleet can't out move a Reaper.

That alone would be enough to break the 'front lines' of a defense, along with this they had the smaller Reapers attaching themselves to ships and pulling them apart.

Honestly with the events of Mass Effect 3, there just isn't a way to win conventionally. 

[xsdob]

Funny coinsidence timing is such an awesome thing. At the time I'm writting this, the thread directly below this one is "Conventional victory is possible...data given in game"

I lol'd.

[RustyMcBlade]

Conventional victory isnt possible. Get over it, guys.

Still, a deus ex machina is a boring way to end a war, so I kinda understand the frustration.

[LiarasShield]

Turran wrote...

LiarasShield wrote...

Once again I could argue against this we all feel differently wether about a conventional victory or which ending is the best from our own perspectives

The thing is, I hate to say this as I sound really dick-like, people who believe that conventional victory could of worked, are just wrong.

Because the writers have quite clearly wrote it as not working. You can argue that it might be possible, but it just isn't.
No one believed us about the Reapers, they believed Sovreign was the last one, a mistake by the characters in the game. So it was already too late to try and fully secure a planet by Mass Effect 3.

There were thousands, atleast, making up the Reapers. Their army increased by millions everytime they took over a planet.
Every 'soldier' they gained through reaperising someone, 2 people/soldiers lost from us. The guy who got reaperised and the friend who can't stand to shoot him.

The story was wrote, as seen in the game, that the worlds instantly fell and crumbled. With this, there was nearly no single place everyone could regroup and try and secure a planet, which should be able to support billions and billions along with materials for ships and buildings and bunkers and guns and ammo and turrets.
Along with the support, it needs to also stay under the Reaper radar, or they will have 100+ Reapers falling on their heads.

The Reapers themselves take a lot of ships to be brought down. Sovereign took the whole of Citadel defence along with the Alliance fleet. It was also distracted because it was trying to work the Citadel at the same time.
A Reaper (Because the Thannix Cannons were not used in the fighting) could burst into the ranks of our army and spin around rapidly if they wanted to, simply just cutting our ships in half as our fleet can't out move a Reaper.

That alone would be enough to break the 'front lines' of a defense, along with this they had the smaller Reapers attaching themselves to ships and pulling them apart.

Honestly with the events of Mass Effect 3, there just isn't a way to win conventionally. 

You have the right and the decision to believe how you want so allow others to do the same

[Xilizhra]

How is building the Crucible and defeating the Reapers through that not beating impossible odds anyway?

[PinkysPain]

Conventional victory in the situation as it stands is highly unlikely, change the situation and you change the odds ... and it's trivial for a writer to change the situation without removing the reaper threat completely.

That said, Arrival should have taken place 10 years after ME2 ... the galaxy should have been preparing (with 10 years of preparing you can put huge mass effect canons on all major planets for instance ... land based guns have an inherent firepower advantage over mobile platforms) and Mac Walters should never have been made lead.

[humes spork]

Gamedwarf24 wrote...

Besides, one of the largest themes of the ME franchise was Shepard overcoming impossible odds when people were telling him its impossible. Saren and Sovereign said that their victory was inevitable. Shepard beat them.

Name one "impossible" task in the entire trilogy Shepard was able to accomplish alone. One of the major underlying themes of the trilogy is also that no person, group, or even species is an island. You're expecting Shepard to have sole, direct agency over the final outcome of a galaxy-wide war.

The grand irony here is that which everyone complains about -- the Crucible -- is a plot device solely constructed to ensure Shepard, and the player, that agency. No matter how you construct it, "conventional victory" endings would have constituted a loss of that direct agency.

[PinkysPain]

Except finally Shepard is irrelevant in the end ... anyone can pick a colour.

[TK514]

The reason people believe conventional victory is possible is because otherwise the main plot of the game makes no sense and is a waste of time.

Remember, we're trying to unite the galaxy to "Take back Earth", not to "Escort the Crucible".

If we are supposed to believe that a conventional victory is impossible, then the whole "Get the Salarians to help the Krogan so the Krogan will help the Turians so the Turians will help with Earth" series of events is a colossal waste of time, and makes no logical sense. Really, if the galaxy is pinning its hopes on the 'We don't know how it works, what it does, or how to find the key to start it' Crucible (which frankly stretches credulity well beyond the breaking point), then leaving the militaries of the galaxy right where they are, pinning down Reaper forces while we build the thing, is the best possible use of the galaxy's armed forces. All you'd need to do then is get out the key personnel and resources to build your hail mary. If conventional victory is impossible, you can ignore the Turians and Krogan altogether, and go straight to the Salarians and Quarians/Geth, then pick up a few Asari when you get the chance.

That's why people want to believe conventional victory is possible. Because the alternative is that you just spent 40 hours or whatever watching your character waste 3/4ths of it initiating and pursuing the stupidest sequence of actions they could have chosen to reach the intended outcome. An outcome which is, itself, not internally consistent with the rest of the narrative, starting way back in ME1.

Modifié par TK514, 03 juillet 2012 - 08:59 .

[D24O]

I think people keep insisting a conventional victory is possible because over the course of 3 and the ending, they are reduced to a mad AI's slaves. They seem much more mundane after the big reveal IMO, sort of cheapens them as an enemy as I interpret it.