676 réponses à ce sujet

[AngelOfMercyroxxors]

I haven't read through all of this and I don't know if it has been said...
It's this simple, we blow up a mass relay in any systems with a significant Reaper presence.
That is a huge sacrifice, but that'd defeat the reapers just fine without the crucible. 

[Archonsg]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Conclusion:
Conventional victory is possible if not railroaded by contrivence and inconsistent writing.

If it wasn't possible, the Cruicible would've been turned to scrap before it ever REACHED the Citadel.

Precisely.

As early as ME1 both Rachni and Geth forces were alluded to have possibly huge repercussions for the end of the series.
Then in ME2 we learned that The Geth have mostly withheld from fighting organics and that only a minority had chosen to do so.

The writers could have sprung a surprise onto the player for brokering peace between Geth and Quarian forces by brining in the TRUE strength of the Geth fleet. Remember, Geth are actually SOFTWARE, they can run ships fine without mobile platforms and if we take this a step further, we could have several hundred to several thousand (choose a number here) Geth capital ships join the Alliance.

As for the Rachni, I am sure that I am not the only one to have gone "WTF?!" with what they did with the Rachni.
Where are the rachi fleet that was hinted at in ME2?
Given their abilities with tech, Rachni Ships could have also be given to the Alliance in huge numbers coupled with "living ships" which are individual rachni breed for the purpose of space warfare.

Bottom line is Bioware wrote and railroaded the "Invincible opponent" scenario that was the Reapers. They could have written ways for Shepard to find a way for the fleet to win (which technically makes it an unconventional victory) working with already foreshadowed forces without leaning too much on "space magic".

1) Geth integrating themselves into all alliance ships giving them faster / better / hack proof targeting

2) Quantiy is a Quality on it own sometimes and that is more than possible had they wrote in and factored large Geth and Rachni fleets.

3) Human ingenuity. Improve on current working weapon models. Why not because of the combined Galaxy's scientific knowhow, they made a breakthrough and found a way to make and Fire Vulcan Cain Chainguns. Much like our A10 Warthog's Vulcan Cannons. Pretty sure 70 Cain Rounds per second from A SINGLE CANNON can pretty much kill a reaper. If not, how about if we multiply that by number turrets, multiply that by number of ships available?

4) New systems. We have the Geth, Rachni, Human, Batarian, Asari, Turian military minds and we can't think of anything that makes things go "boom?"

Take the above Cain Vulcan Cannons for example. What if we fire link all those cannons, and every single ship fire killer bursts at one SINGLE target at a time. Overwhelming one target at a time with mass fire? 70 rounds per second, per gun, multiplied by number of gun ports per ship, multiplied by number of ships? 1 single cain round can take out a small reaper, how about several hundred thousand rounds per second leveled on a Reaper at a time?
and / or;
Rachni partial organic drive cores coupled with geth tech coupled with human "bigger is better" mentality gave birth to the "OMEGA DRIVES" 100x the power output of "normal" drives of equal size.

The only reason why they are invincible, is because Bioware wrote it as such.
Logic and a little help from the writers had they the will to do so, could have told a very different story.
Yes, it would mean a "little" space magic, but it's "forgivable" space magic. 

Modifié par Archonsg, 11 juillet 2012 - 06:22 .

[Stp29]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...
Numbers: Assumptions. No hard data given for either side. Reapers have tons of ground troops, but they are mowed down like wheat. So thus, neutral.

Yes, there is data given for the Reapers. As put, and not refuted by you, the Catalyst says he was made eons ago. In one eon there is a potential for 20,000 new reapers if they only make one reaper each cycle. The Catalyst also confirms you're outnumbered if you refuse to choose. There's no reason for him to lie at this point as you can't go back, and given the simple calculation above it is logical to assume that the galaxy is outnumbered. 

Experiance: Sure, the Reapers have been doing this for a long time, but that leads to stagnation, which is bad. Organics, however, keep learning from the constant fights we get in and new tactics and be quickly devised.
In the long run, about even.

You made several assumptions here. We have no evidence that it would lead to stagnation. But in your hypothetical situation, it would not be organics winning. Reapers are on the offense and have nothing to defend. Organics would not benefit from stagnation. Reapers have no need for supply lines. And what you described was attrition warfare, which Reapers would win as stated above.



I'll give you technology, however, under war-time conditions, developement of new tech and improvements of current tech explode. Reapers have no reason to, thus, stagnant. Tech gap won't last long.

You are making more assumptions here. The only technology we know their military scientists are working on would be the Crucible. After the Crucible is finished we see that the entire galaxy is under attack from Reapers. So where would these scientists make their new technology? Their ships aren't efficent, and trying to escort them back to planets would waste even more resources. But besides all that, why do you assume they would instantly make WMDs against the Reapers? They put all their efforts into the Crucible so they obviously didn't have faith in their scientists.


Leadership: Both mentally handicapped. Either because "We never took the Citadel" or "I lost a fleet for no reason" or "Let's charge a Reaper without any plan". So, you pick who is less retarded and come back to me on this one.

I don't understand what you're saying so I'll reapeat what was stated. The Reaper's leadership is vested into one central AI that is able to direct them all at once. There is no disrespect of authority by the Reapers. The galaxy's leadership is not central, therefore there must be a lot of cooperation for an effective military. At the end, and by this the point the Reapers are already pressuring the whole galay, you may have seen this, but it is shown to not be nearly effective as needed.


Other things:
-Reapers didn't have the same surprise factor like past cycles.

Irrelevant considering what this cycle did with its extra time. Key characters will say "You warned them, but they didn't listen." Implying that durring that extra time they didn't take the warnings very seriously.


-Indoctrination is a problem, but can be mitigated by rotating troops.

The indoctrination codex entry says "Long-term physical effects of the manipulation are unsustainable, Higher mental functioning decays, ultimately leaving the victim a gibbering animal. Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. Slow, patient indoctrination allows the thrall to last for months or years." So assuming you lose a consistent amount of forces before every rotation, this plan isn't very effective. They simply don't have unlimited troops. It would also be very resource consuming to move your troops around so much.


-The Krogan have no ships, of course they can't help the Turians take back Palaven.

Which shows that the ground forces of the Reapers don't go down like wheat. The Krogran were able to take down the toughest enemy that even the Turian military couldn't take down, now they can't even dent this enemy even with the Turian's help. This is also only one planet.

-EMS is what is says on the tin, Effective Military Strength. Besides, if conventional victory was not possible, the Crucibles wouldn't have a snowball's chance of getting near the Citadel.

You don't get to change the meaning of something just because it doesn't agree with you. EMS helps create the Crucible and allows it to get close to the Citadel. Hackett himself says this in the begining of the game.  

-Reaper numbers at the final battle are unknown.

The Crucible confirms you are outnumbered, stop using this.

-It's a Reaper with an AA gun on top. Sidenote: It's a horrible AA gun, seems to have little traversing capability.

You only destroy the AA gun. 
http://masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Hades_Cannon Your sidenote is also irrelevant. It delayed Hammer from landing.

-Turians pasted the Reapers during the opening hours of the Battle for Palaven, so we can kill a bunch of them at a time.

They didn't kill a bunch of them. They killed several Reaper capital ships. But the Reapers instantly countered forcing them to retreat. So how is this proving anything besides that that strategy was ineffective?

Extras:
-We grab a device  that can show EVERY REAPER IN THE GALAXY. Do you know how handy this would be in a universe where there is more than a few comptent people?

Conclusion:
Conventional victory is possible if not railroaded by contrivence and inconsistent writing.

So you're blaming the writing for creating the scenario in which conventional victory is not possible while trying to debate that it is possible within the writing?

If it wasn't possible, the Cruicible would've been turned to scrap before it ever REACHED the Citadel.

EMS helps create the Crucible and allows it to get close to the Citadel. Hackett himself says this in the begining of the game.   

My points in bold.

[jeffyg93]

M25105 wrote...

"The catalyst confirms!" Yeah, cause there's no way he would lie, right?

"Defeating the Reapers is impossible!" Sounds like defeatist talk to me. You wanna die like a free man, or live your life according to how the Reapers dictate it.

The catalyst has no reason to lie to you at that point. He's giving you options to destroy his solution or to kick him out of his position.

And it's fiction. Emotional arguments dont have any sway when every piece of evidence is against you.

[jeffyg93]

Archonsg wrote...

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

Conclusion:
Conventional victory is possible if not railroaded by contrivence and inconsistent writing.

If it wasn't possible, the Cruicible would've been turned to scrap before it ever REACHED the Citadel.

Precisely.

As early as ME1 both Rachni and Geth forces were alluded to have possibly huge repercussions for the end of the series.
Then in ME2 we learned that The Geth have mostly withheld from fighting organics and that only a minority had chosen to do so.

The writers could have sprung a surprise onto the player for brokering peace between Geth and Quarian forces by brining in the TRUE strength of the Geth fleet. Remember, Geth are actually SOFTWARE, they can run ships fine without mobile platforms and if we take this a step further, we could have several hundred to several thousand (choose a number here) Geth capital ships join the Alliance.

As for the Rachni, I am sure that I am not the only one to have gone "WTF?!" with what they did with the Rachni.
Where are the rachi fleet that was hinted at in ME2?
Given their abilities with tech, Rachni Ships could have also be given to the Alliance in huge numbers coupled with "living ships" which are individual rachni breed for the purpose of space warfare.

Bottom line is Bioware wrote and railroaded the "Invincible opponent" scenario that was the Reapers. They could have written ways for Shepard to find a way for the fleet to win (which technically makes it an unconventional victory) working with already foreshadowed forces without leaning too much on "space magic".

1) Geth integrating themselves into all alliance ships giving them faster / better / hack proof targeting

2) Quantiy is a Quality on it own sometimes and that is more than possible had they wrote in and factored large Geth and Rachni fleets.

3) Human ingenuity. Improve on current working weapon models. Why not because of the combined Galaxy's scientific knowhow, they made a breakthrough and found a way to make and Fire Vulcan Cain Chainguns. Much like our A10 Warthog's Vulcan Cannons. Pretty sure 70 Cain Rounds per second from A SINGLE CANNON can pretty much kill a reaper. If not, how about if we multiply that by number turrets, multiply that by number of ships available?

4) New systems. We have the Geth, Rachni, Human, Batarian, Asari, Turian military minds and we can't think of anything that makes things go "boom?"

Take the above Cain Vulcan Cannons for example. What if we fire link all those cannons, and every single ship fire killer bursts at one SINGLE target at a time. Overwhelming one target at a time with mass fire? 70 rounds per second, per gun, multiplied by number of gun ports per ship, multiplied by number of ships? 1 single cain round can take out a small reaper, how about several hundred thousand rounds per second leveled on a Reaper at a time?
and / or;
Rachni partial organic drive cores coupled with geth tech coupled with human "bigger is better" mentality gave birth to the "OMEGA DRIVES" 100x the power output of "normal" drives of equal size.

The only reason why they are invincible, is because Bioware wrote it as such.
Logic and a little help from the writers had they the will to do so, could have told a very different story.
Yes, it would mean a "little" space magic, but it's "forgivable" space magic. 

1) Uhh, what? Why would the Geth do that when they have their own fleets to integrate with? You're also assuming that all Geth programs have the capability to do what you're saying, which sounds like nonsense to me.

2) Implying the rachni have fleets. The Geth sent all of whats left of their fleets. The Reapers are still stronger and have greater numbers.

3) What you said made absolutely no ****ing sense. All resources were driven to making the Crucible. Our fleets were upgraded to the best that they could. Resources are limited when your homeworld is dying. The Alliance is functioning off an economy that doesn't exist. The Crucible is all that their pouring their last resources and effort into.

4) The Batarians are almost all wiped out. Rachni are not a fighting force anymore. You don't think enough advancements were made with Thannix technology?

lol @ "Cain Vulcan Canons." Complete fanfiction.

Yes, BioWare wrote the game the way they did. Could they have written the game to make the Reapers defetable in conventional warfare? Sure. Of course. No need to point that out, because they could have taken ME3 anywhere they wanted to. The fact remains that given what's presented in the game, the Reapers can not be defetaed in conventional warfare.

You're also somewhat admitting that defeating the Reapers conventionally is not possible when you say "blah blah blah BioWare COULD have wrote it like this."  Yet you still argue.

[Ticonderoga117]

Stp29 wrote...
*snip*

1. Who says each cycle can actually yield a reaper? Oh wait, your using GlowBoy's logic. Harbinger was only interested in a Human Reaper in ME2. Not Quarian, Turian, Drell, or Asari. Besides being "a lot of them", nothing else is given.

2. Well they keep doing the same tactic again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc. Stagnation. An inability to change gears because "Hey, it worked last time right?" Organics have already benefitted from this, we still hold the Citadel and can use the Relays. A big up on every other cycle ever.

3. The Cruicible was a stupid idea to bank everything on. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT DOES. So why are we banking on this again? Spending time and effort on both newer and better ships and tech ALWAYS happens in wars. Just look in a history book.

4. What I meant was: Both sides are tactically stupid. Reapers don't take the Citadel/Reapers, nor try, and the Alliance is lead by braindead officers. Hackett lost a fleet for no reason right out of the gate and Anderson charging a Reaper is a worse idea than Pickett's charge. To address your point: Diversity is key here. Remember Javik? He said since everything was so homogenized, once the leaders went kaput, it all fell apart. Our cycle can both coordinate and use a variety of tactics against the Reapers with a flexibility they probably haven't seen lately. A big plus for us.

5. Still better than no warnings at all. Plus, the fleets were up and ready instead of sitting at dock. Big plus.

6. Key-word: Long-term. If a trooper isn't exposed to the effect for too long, you can rotate them out and let them "recover". The signal isn't self-sustaining like a virus or something as long as they aren't husks. Though this is still tricky, not unavoidable.

7. I mean the Capital Reapers, the only problem for ground forces. Hard to kill. Husks are easy as pie to kill, and Destroyers are tougher, but a single CAIN can do it. Or some orbital fire. Amp up the orbital fire and grounded Capital Reapers probabaly could be brought down. Remember, they are MUCH weaker on the ground.

8. Only the Cruicible section actually helps with the Cruicible. And, if we can't beat them conventionally, how did the Cruicible get close to the Citadel?

9. Outnumbered, maybe, exact numbers, no. Besides, why are we trusting GlowBoy again with tactical information?

10. Which is mounted, on, a REAPER. The thing didn't get up and start walking around, so it's DEAD.
And my sidenote stands because if you land, say, over the ocean and cruise in, Hammer would be peachy keen and not need to worry about the AA gun, since it only shoots upward at a near 90 degree angle.

11. That's a bunch for the first battle of the war. Note that the Reapers only forced them to pull back due to them attacking Palaven not due to losses. Point in favor of conventional win.

12. Exactly. The plot from ME1 and ME2 says it's possible, with some support from ME3. However, the rest of ME3 tries to use a baseball bat with saying "We can't win this conventionally" and it starts right out of the gate. Banking ona  mystical device no one knows what it does on day 1 is BAD WRITING. Why? Because I don't buy it. Show us this fact a bit more. If you want to do the gritty war thing this would be perfect to do both well.

13. Yes... because the Reapers were most vulnerable when they are all gathered together. Look, either we can beat them conventionally and the Cruicible only makes the win that much easier because it's a plot device. Or, the Reapers are indestructible and they rip through Sword and Shield fleets and trash the Crucible before it even gets close to the Citadel. Pick one! Don't give me this wishy-washy BS of "Oh, they held them off but we still can't beat them" because then I'll ask "How did you hold them off? Asking nicely?"

[Stp29]

Ticonderoga117 wrote...

1. Who says each cycle can actually yield a reaper? Oh wait, your using GlowBoy's logic. Harbinger was only interested in a Human Reaper in ME2. Not Quarian, Turian, Drell, or Asari. Besides being "a lot of them", nothing else is given.

So your refute is an ad-hominem at  the Catalyst? Yes, we are given information, but you're choosing to ignore it because it is against you therefore biased.

2. Well they keep doing the same tactic again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, etc. Stagnation. An inability to change gears because "Hey, it worked last time right?" Organics have already benefitted from this, we still hold the Citadel and can use the Relays. A big up on every other cycle ever.

And it's working. The Asari homeworld, the Turian homeworld, and Earth. And it's working because of their superir forces. We don't hold the Citadel at the end, they take it easily.

3. The Cruicible was a stupid idea to bank everything on. NO ONE KNOWS WHAT IT DOES. So why are we banking on this again? Spending time and effort on both newer and better ships and tech ALWAYS happens in wars. Just look in a history book.

What is your point? That something that happened was stupid because it defeats your argument?

4. What I meant was: Both sides are tactically stupid. Reapers don't take the Citadel/Reapers, nor try, and the Alliance is lead by braindead officers. Hackett lost a fleet for no reason right out of the gate and Anderson charging a Reaper is a worse idea than Pickett's charge. To address your point: Diversity is key here. Remember Javik? He said since everything was so homogenized, once the leaders went kaput, it all fell apart. Our cycle can both coordinate and use a variety of tactics against the Reapers with a flexibility they probably haven't seen lately. A big plus for us.

And we see that happen at the final battle. It's not enough. They choose to cooperate too late and have not synched their military strategies.

5. Still better than no warnings at all. Plus, the fleets were up and ready instead of sitting at dock. Big plus.

I didn't say anything about it being better or not, I said it was irrelevant because it was. They tore through the fleet defending Earth in the beginning.

6. Key-word: Long-term. If a trooper isn't exposed to the effect for too long, you can rotate them out and let them "recover". The signal isn't self-sustaining like a virus or something as long as they aren't husks. Though this is still tricky, not unavoidable.

Key-word if you pick and choose what I quoted. "
Rapid indoctrination is possible, but causes this decay in days or weeks. " They are able to rapidly indoctrinate, which would be devasting for rotating. You also ignored how this would be possible to rotate an army on already dwindling resources with no place but space to fall back to.

7. I mean the Capital Reapers, the only problem for ground forces. Hard to kill. Husks are easy as pie to kill, and Destroyers are tougher, but a single CAIN can do it. Or some orbital fire. Amp up the orbital fire and grounded Capital Reapers probabaly could be brought down. Remember, they are MUCH weaker on the ground.

You are making an assumption that the ground force is easy to kill. Yes, they do have Reaper ships as well but they're usally spaced out. On all the planets this has been a winning tatic. Orbital fire wouldn't work because they don't control the space around the planet.

8. Only the Cruicible section actually helps with the Cruicible. And, if we can't beat them conventionally, how did the Cruicible get close to the Citadel?

How did the Crucible get close to the Citadel?

9. Outnumbered, maybe, exact numbers, no. Besides, why are we trusting GlowBoy again with tactical information?

Because this is how Bioware choose to deliver the information to the player.

10. Which is mounted, on, a REAPER. The thing didn't get up and start walking around, so it's DEAD.
And my sidenote stands because if you land, say, over the ocean and cruise in, Hammer would be peachy keen and not need to worry about the AA gun, since it only shoots upward at a near 90 degree angle.

You do not kill a Reaper. Also, you do not have the specifications on these cannons. It worked against Hammer and there's no "ifs" about that.

11. That's a bunch for the first battle of the war. Note that the Reapers only forced them to pull back due to them attacking Palaven not due to losses. Point in favor of conventional win.

How is this a point? The Reapers are already in the system, the only way this would work is if the Turians decided to all abadon their home world, and then repeatly try this tatic until they run out of ships. It's not a matter of a bunch but enough. The Turians were unable to kill enough so they need the Krogran. The Turians, with the aid of the Krogran, were still unable to take back Palaven

12. Exactly. The plot from ME1 and ME2 says it's possible, with some support from ME3. However, the rest of ME3 tries to use a baseball bat with saying "We can't win this conventionally" and it starts right out of the gate. Banking ona  mystical device no one knows what it does on day 1 is BAD WRITING. Why? Because I don't buy it. Show us this fact a bit more. If you want to do the gritty war thing this would be perfect to do both well.

This is not an argument, this is satire. You not buying it has nothing to do with the argument. But at least you admited that the story tells you that you can't win this conventionally.

13. Yes... because the Reapers were most vulnerable when they are all gathered together. Look, either we can beat them conventionally and the Cruicible only makes the win that much easier because it's a plot device. Or, the Reapers are indestructible and they rip through Sword and Shield fleets and trash the Crucible before it even gets close to the Citadel. Pick one! Don't give me this wishy-washy BS of "Oh, they held them off but we still can't beat them" because then I'll ask "How did you hold them off? Asking nicely?"

So your argument is that they must be one of two extremes? I never said that they were indestructable and you are putting words in my mouth. I said that it is impossible to win a conventional war, not battle, against them.

snip

[Ridwan]

jeffyg93 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

"The catalyst confirms!" Yeah, cause there's no way he would lie, right?

"Defeating the Reapers is impossible!" Sounds like defeatist talk to me. You wanna die like a free man, or live your life according to how the Reapers dictate it.

The catalyst has no reason to lie to you at that point. He's giving you options to destroy his solution or to kick him out of his position.

And it's fiction. Emotional arguments dont have any sway when every piece of evidence is against you.

He has every reason to lie to you, after we united the galaxy.

[3DandBeyond]

jeffyg93 wrote...

Made this out of boredom.

http://i.imgur.com/P6tNY.jpg 

The big problem with that and yes it is a nice summation of what seems to be the case.  The big problem is that had the galaxy not spent time and resources building something that is totally unknown-unknown in origin, unknown as to how it works, unknown as to what it will do, they may well have been able to utilize the resources elsewhere.  They knew a lot about what indoctrination was and how it worked, but those scientists that had been studying it were sent away to work on the crucible.  Anyone that knew anything went to work on a big fat unknown, but no one, absolutely no one used any form of subterfuge or non-traditional things to actually try other things.  Salarian STG-picking their noses in a corner as far as yes, the writers were concerned.

And in order to try and contain this idea that anyone thought they might take a chance at conventional means, with the EC the writers deleted Hackett telling Shepard that if they didn't get the Catalyst they'd do their best and throw everything at the reapers and hope.  This was deleted because it was one thing that people pointed to to say that maybe they would have and should have tried other things than the crucible.  It actually is the lead in to stupidity to think that all these people that could not agree on most everything else are just going to come together to build this big whatchamakalit in the sky.  I would think someone somewhere would ask, "what does it do?"  Even the dialog between Liara and Shepard about it, is really telling. 

In the end, players are told it makes much more sense for people to rely on super space beam and the word of the catalyst that super space beam will do what it says, than that people might actually come up with new ways to fight back.  I get it, there's a high probability they'd lose, but exactly no one knows whether the crucible will help or hurt.  And the only one that knows what it does is crazy glow boy.  That's a ringing endorsement.  In fact, the crucible is only an energy beam-the real changes (ugh) occur through the use of consoles somehow miraculously built into the citadel, the catalyst's home and a part of him.  So who the hell built those choices that will "bend" the crucible's energy beam?

So, what it ultimately boils down to is accepting Mr. Magical Space Energy Beam and the magical citadel that was built by reapers and is a part of the kid, that when joined together offer demoralizing outcomes that are mostly non-wins meant by the writers to be awesome cool looking super amazing fatatlistic views of the inability of people to do anything right and one selfish nasty kinda sorta sad win that stupid torso shepard chose, and one non-choice.

I don't think people get it.  What the writers are saying with the choices and the need to accept what the kid says as true, in order to trust and make a choice is also what they are saying about the inability to wage any kind of conventional resistance.  People cannot wage conventional war because they are too stupid, too powerless, never achieved anything on their own, and never could work together to do anything.  They are so stupid that when someone points to a MacGuffin (a saviour device) they jump on it-again it's something they couldn't come up with on their own.  People are incapable of creating anything independent of outside help.

Making one of the choices reinforces that opinion of people.  The star kid is telling Shepard that people are fated to many things and incapable of avoiding anything-they have no real self-determination and are too stupid to ever do anything right.  They have needed the reapers to create tech and to help them avoid the stupid things they will always do.  They need one of the choices in order to fix things again.  2 of the 3 will allow either internal or external forces to "do the work" that people are incapable of doing.  Reapers in charge or reaper nano-tech making people better, something they could never do on their own-they need to be re-wired internally because they are stupid.  Choose destroy (still relies on the kid being credible) and Shepard is directing the finger of blame at all synthetic life, not just reapers, stupidly killing beings that helped to prove the kid was wrong.


Again, it does boil down to the writers created the story.  So, yes you have to work within what they created, but what they wrote is really nonsense.  And yes, I'm flinging mud at them.  They wrote it.  If someone thinks it made way more sense to build the Crucible than to get scientists working on other things, like Mordin did in finding ways to counter the Collector swarms, then I'd like to be shown how that makes more sense.  The Alliance never even worked on rebuilding their fleets post Sovereign, but they're willing to pour untold resources and people into a big unknown.  That makes no sense at all.

Reverse the indoctrination energy.  Destroy the citadel with the star kid in it.  What happened with Conrad's dark energy plans (in ME3 and for the crucible).  Send Rachni and geth to try and get inside reapers.  Reverse engineer some of the reaper upgrades that were sent into the geth-destroyed the hive mind.  Get the geth and quarians working on that.  Work on stealth tech instead of the MacGuffin.  Create scenarios that get reapers ready to shoot (opening up a vulnerable area)-diversions, dare I say decoys.

It all comes down to another kind of circular logic that boils down to this.  They cannot use conventional (unconventional) means because they will not work and they will not work because the writers did not want them to use conventional means.

[3DandBeyond]

M25105 wrote...

M25105 wrote...

"The catalyst confirms!" Yeah, cause there's no way he would lie, right?

"Defeating the Reapers is impossible!" Sounds like defeatist talk to me. You wanna die like a free man, or live your life according to how the Reapers dictate it.

The catalyst has no reason to lie to you at that point. He's giving you options to destroy his solution or to kick him out of his position.

And it's fiction. Emotional arguments dont have any sway when every piece of evidence is against you.

He's giving you options to destroy his solution or to kick him out of his position??  That is exactly what he could be lying about.  No one knows who created the original plans for the crucible.  There is no way of knowing that the choices will do what he says they will do.

Consider that with the EC the writers decided to even dumb down the crucible.  With the original endings, people repeatedly said the crucible had to be so complicated to make that those working on it would have had to have some idea what it did and have the tech knowhow to build something like that.  The writers changed the crucible-they made it just one big energy beam that does nothing more that act as a big battery.  Hackett now says it was surprisingly easy to build.  Why they then needed all the best minds of the galaxy to build it, I don't know.  But, the choices are now originating from the citadel.  The citadel is both the kid's home and a part of him and it was created by the reapers.  So, where did the 3 choice consoles come from?  That's a big brand new plothole.  The crucible only powers the choices-the choices are where the kid lives.  The kid is also living in a place full of discarded human bodies.

The reasons for why the kid would lie are many.  He offers up 3 choices that he could have designed and really what they could do is solidify his power and make the harvesting faster and easier.  Shepard has killed reapers.  More may die.  Shepard destroyed the Collectors.  The kid doesn't want this because it takes a lot for them to make even one new reaper.  It also takes a long time for any one harvest to complete.  The citadel was moved nearer to Earth to make harvesting faster.  And the goal seems to be pretty clear-the harvesting of humans (and one specific human) is of prime importance to them this time around.  Humans must "taste" really good.  Harbinger spoke of their need to find another way (he said they would) after the collectors were defeated.  The catalyst says the answer was a new solution since the old one wouldn't work anymore.  What does he mean by this-are people actually winning?

The kid also has shown because he said it, that he has a duplicitous nature.  He put his creators in a reaper against their will.  The kid is the reapers and 2 reapers, Sovereign and Harbinger, clearly said they wanted to destroy people, not ascend them.  Salvation through destruction.  The kid tries to make it sound all nicey nice.  Shepard even tries to say he's killing people and the kid says he's harvesting them and putting them in reaper form.  That whole conversation boils down to Shepard saying the reapers are killing people (they are) and the kid trying to say they aren't "really".

Then the kid says the reapers are just doing what they are meant to do and that they don't care about war and conflict, acting like a cleansing fire (no brains).  But he is the reapers and he cares about conflict and he clearly knows he's creating it.  And Sovereign and Harbinger clearly had brains, independent of what the kid says.

So, why would he lie?  To get Shepard.  To stop the fighting and get it over with.  To stop conflict-he hates it and it's happening, caused by him.  His programming skipped a line of code-he's crazy.  Shepard has no idea that any choice does what the kid says it does-all of them could just be one big faster harvesting beam.

[George Costanza]

I like how "conventional victory is impossible!" and yet if your galactic readiness thing is at 100% it says that alliance forces are pushing the Reapers back or whatever. Yeah. I guess they just lack the killer instinct though and can't finish them off without a magical space machine.

Basically, people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because it is. The only reason it's considered impossible is because Bioware had to throw a couple of allusions to that effect into the dialogue during the game so as to make way for the absolutely comical plot device that is the Crucible and its resident space boy.

[DevilBeast]

Now, I haven´t read through all the posts so i´m not sure if this has been brought up:
But if we are to assume that it´s possible to destroy the reapers in a conventional war, doesn´t it raise the question as to how the reapers have managed to continue the cycle for so long??
I know the Protheans failed to fight in a unified force, but they weren´t the first civilization to get harvested by the reapers and I doubt all the previous advanced species were like the Protheans.

Modifié par DevilBeast, 11 juillet 2012 - 02:30 .

[3DandBeyond]

DevilBeast wrote...

Now, I haven´t read through all the posts so i´m not sure if this has been brought up:
But
if we are to assume that it´s possible to destroy the reapers in a
conventional war, doesn´t it raise the question as to how the reapers
have managed to continue the cycle for so long??
I know the Protheans
failed to fight in a unified force, but they weren´t the first
civilization to get harvested by the reapers and I doubt all the
previous advanced species were like the Protheans.

Well, no one does know what took place before but it also seems clear that the current state of the galaxy is far better than anything that came before.  The Protheans did achieve one big thing-they stopped the signal from working so Sovereign had to do something different.  But in the current cycle there are many things that point to things being vastly different from any other time before.  The Protheans were not "honored" by having any reaper created in their image.  In fact, there must be some reason for there being very few different looking reapers.  There are the cuttlefish ones and then the ones that look like "hands".  Since they've been around for millions of years, you'd think there would be more types.

Also, they seem obsessed with humans in general and Shepard specifically and Shepard has killed more than one of them.  Humans may well be the most diverse species ever encountered by them.  But we don't know because the writers never explained why the Collectors were obsessed with finding human mutations and kept raiding human colonies, or why they were after Shepard's body.  They dropped the ball so we will never know what that was all about.

One other thing that it seems clear the reapers never expected was fully sentient Synthetic life.  In fact, that is exactly what the kid says they are trying to prevent in order to avoid the inevitable conflict (ugh).

My theory is that no other previous cycle had the diversity of the current one, nor the cohesiveness that was attained.  No other galaxy had Shepard, either-the embodiment of redemption, self-determination, self-reliance, betterment of purpose, and so on and so forth.  Shepard took what most people saw as dirt and created diamonds-people that were cast off (what Thane said Mouse was), and created respected people, merely by respecting them.  Diversity, unity through choice, autonomy, respect, all of these lead to varieties of free thought that can create unique ideas.  The writers chose another path-the opposite one.  Lack of free will, lack of diversity, enforced unity, inability to achieve when independent, and so on.  So, it's easy to see why they didn't think there way any other way-they are cynical.

Fandango9641 wrote...

That a conventional victory is not possible is an indication of how far entrenched Mac and Casey were in defending their original vision for the game, nothing more. That some people think that painting the galaxy 3 colours obtuse at the touch of a button represents a less fanciful conclusion to the trilogy is entirely on them.

Fanciful, demoralizing, fatalistic-as I said above I am more inclined to think the person that wrote all this is clinically depressed or just cynical.

[Gweedotk]

George Costanza wrote...

I like how "conventional victory is impossible!" and yet if your galactic readiness thing is at 100% it says that alliance forces are pushing the Reapers back or whatever. Yeah. I guess they just lack the killer instinct though and can't finish them off without a magical space machine.

Basically, people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because it is. The only reason it's considered impossible is because Bioware had to throw a couple of allusions to that effect into the dialogue during the game so as to make way for the absolutely comical plot device that is the Crucible and its resident space boy.

Hackett claims the Reapers will "bleed them slowly". The Protheans also fought this way. Attrition - System by system, planet by planet, city by city. Sacrifice a world to concentrate their forces and then launch an assault, or perhaps consolidate and harden defenses.

It didn't seem to work, the Reapers are a virtually innumerable force. They can build more Reaper Capital ships through harvesting selected populations. Those whom are not harvested are simply converted into Reaper shock troops. I'm sure a Cannibal can take several shots without flinching, while it takes only one bullet to breach the kinetic barriers of any Allied soldier (aside from the Krogan and Geth) and they are down.

And those spec ops that we play as in MP games? I have a strong feeling those are the guys we see ambushing the Reaper destroyer on Earth. All those elite soldiers killed by that one Reaper. That kind of experience can't be replaced. The Reapers and Cerberus can both create elite shock troops in days from our civilians.

[T-Bone665]

George Costanza wrote...

Basically, people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because it is.

People keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because they hate the Deus ex machina and desperately want the Refusal ending to lead to victory. I have yet to see a single convincing piece of hard evidence that shows the repeated statement that we can't win is false. Because that's what it takes to disprove a word of god. You can bash on the writers and their beloved artistic vision all you want, in the end it seems like a child trying the put the square toy into the round slot. (Just to be clear, i'm not saying anyone is behaving like a child, it's just a fitting picture. Most people in this thread are quite sensible.)

The game was written around the Reapers being undefeatable. That's how it is. For example, in the whole trilogy there is only one "real" Reaper whom we see killed - Sovereign. All the others are Destroyers or die off-screen. And if you think about it, the concept of the Reaper Destroyer is new to ME3. It seems they were written into the story for one specific purpose: To make any kind of victory against Reapers possible in the game. For example, if it had been Harbinger guard the Conduit all along, assaulting it would have just been suicidal.

Surely you can devise scenarios where conventinal victory would be possible, but that would be a very different game - putting it at the end of the game we got just doesn't make as much sense. I can understand dissatisfaction with they way Bioware did it, event hough i don't share it (anymore). But in the end, they are not going to change it anyway.

[3DandBeyond]

T-Bone665 wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

Basically, people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because it is.

People keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because they hate the Deus ex machina and desperately want the Refusal ending to lead to victory. I have yet to see a single convincing piece of hard evidence that shows the repeated statement that we can't win is false. Because that's what it takes to disprove a word of god. You can bash on the writers and their beloved artistic vision all you want, in the end it seems like a child trying the put the square toy into the round slot. (Just to be clear, i'm not saying anyone is behaving like a child, it's just a fitting picture. Most people in this thread are quite sensible.)

The game was written around the Reapers being undefeatable. That's how it is. For example, in the whole trilogy there is only one "real" Reaper whom we see killed - Sovereign. All the others are Destroyers or die off-screen. And if you think about it, the concept of the Reaper Destroyer is new to ME3. It seems they were written into the story for one specific purpose: To make any kind of victory against Reapers possible in the game. For example, if it had been Harbinger guard the Conduit all along, assaulting it would have just been suicidal.

Surely you can devise scenarios where conventinal victory would be possible, but that would be a very different game - putting it at the end of the game we got just doesn't make as much sense. I can understand dissatisfaction with they way Bioware did it, event hough i don't share it (anymore). But in the end, they are not going to change it anyway.

It's a given they are not going to change it and this and many threads explore mere what ifs and what could have beens.

On the one hand there were things that pointed to the possibility of some success being able to be achieved through conventional means, but then the preponderance of all things the writers for some reason wanted to say led to them making it clear they didn't want conventional means to be tried even if used unconventionally.  This was done to funnel players into that Deus ex ending.  War Assets are a joke-why even include these numbers.  Initially, I am sure everyone thought that accruing all these assets and getting high numbers was going to mean a good try at a fight.  No such thing at all.  The numbers and ultimately EMS are arbitrary items that are all leveled out no matter what you do to funnel you again to the Deus ex endings.

I know you aren't saying people have no reason to hate the Deus ex Machina ending, but what makes it worse is how closely it parallels the actual "Deus ex" ending-Control, Merge, Destroy.

Nothing done in the game means anything.  You could actually strip away a great deal of ME3 and all of ME1 and ME2 and still get the same endings.  Just play a little MP, get just enough of an EMS and that's it.  This is why the writers determined that conventional means should not work, but they set it up to lead us to believe it might at least help the crucible that was supposed to be some sort of weapon but is just a big battery now MacGuffin.

People think conventional methods are cliche, that having the crucible be a real weapon of some sort is cliche, that even one possible victorious and happy ending is cliche, and so on, but what did we end up with?  The whole game (ME3) is one cliche after another set off with meaningless missions that change nothing in the endings. 

I'd much rather have a crucible that goes boom and knocks out reaper shielding allowing for some battles in space and on planets than what we have now. Fighting with conventional weapons would be way more satsifying that slow motion nauseating false logic and flawed reasoning, backed up with cool looking Shepard god, green eyes, and great voice acting.

I know it isn't happening, because someone wanted to sound smart.  They failed in my opinion and made the game seem stupid with a demoralizing, fatalistic ending.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 11 juillet 2012 - 04:57 .

[DevilBeast]

3DandBeyond wrote...

DevilBeast wrote...

Now, I haven´t read through all the posts so i´m not sure if this has been brought up:
But
if we are to assume that it´s possible to destroy the reapers in a
conventional war, doesn´t it raise the question as to how the reapers
have managed to continue the cycle for so long??
I know the Protheans
failed to fight in a unified force, but they weren´t the first
civilization to get harvested by the reapers and I doubt all the
previous advanced species were like the Protheans.

Well, no one does know what took place before but it also seems clear that the current state of the galaxy is far better than anything that came before.  The Protheans did achieve one big thing-they stopped the signal from working so Sovereign had to do something different.  But in the current cycle there are many things that point to things being vastly different from any other time before.  The Protheans were not "honored" by having any reaper created in their image.  In fact, there must be some reason for there being very few different looking reapers.  There are the cuttlefish ones and then the ones that look like "hands".  Since they've been around for millions of years, you'd think there would be more types.

Also, they seem obsessed with humans in general and Shepard specifically and Shepard has killed more than one of them.  Humans may well be the most diverse species ever encountered by them.  But we don't know because the writers never explained why the Collectors were obsessed with finding human mutations and kept raiding human colonies, or why they were after Shepard's body.  They dropped the ball so we will never know what that was all about.

One other thing that it seems clear the reapers never expected was fully sentient Synthetic life.  In fact, that is exactly what the kid says they are trying to prevent in order to avoid the inevitable conflict (ugh).

My theory is that no other previous cycle had the diversity of the current one, nor the cohesiveness that was attained.  No other galaxy had Shepard, either-the embodiment of redemption, self-determination, self-reliance, betterment of purpose, and so on and so forth.  Shepard took what most people saw as dirt and created diamonds-people that were cast off (what Thane said Mouse was), and created respected people, merely by respecting them.  Diversity, unity through choice, autonomy, respect, all of these lead to varieties of free thought that can create unique ideas.  The writers chose another path-the opposite one.  Lack of free will, lack of diversity, enforced unity, inability to achieve when independent, and so on.  So, it's easy to see why they didn't think there way any other way-they are cynical.

Well, I believe what we are seeing is the result of changing the story line halfway through the series. You know, the whole dark energy plot etc.
As for the human reaper: I´m not sure I would have liked another sci-fi story that treats humanity like we are the most special beings in the universe. And the humans are the most genetically diverse species also rubs me the wrong wau, since here on Earth ****** sapiens are actually one of the least diverse species.
So, if that were true, the other species in the ME universe would be even less diverse, and having a tiny genepool isn´t very good for your health at all, so I doubt it is for the aliens either.

[T-Bone665]

3DandBeyond wrote...

It's a given they are not going to change it and this and many threads explore mere what ifs and what could have beens.

On the one hand there were things that pointed to the possibility of some success being able to be achieved through conventional means, but then the preponderance of all things the writers for some reason wanted to say led to them making it clear they didn't want conventional means to be tried even if used unconventionally. This was done to funnel players into that Deus ex ending. War Assets are a joke-why even include these numbers. Initially, I am sure everyone thought that accruing all these assets and getting high numbers was going to mean a good try at a fight. No such thing at all. The numbers and ultimately EMS are arbitrary items that are all leveled out no matter what you do to funnel you again to the Deus ex endings.

I know you aren't saying people have no reason to hate the Deus ex Machina ending, but what makes it worse is how closely it parallels the actual "Deus ex" ending-Control, Merge, Destroy.

Nothing done in the game means anything. You could actually strip away a great deal of ME3 and all of ME1 and ME2 and still get the same endings. Just play a little MP, get just enough of an EMS and that's it. This is why the writers determined that conventional means should not work, but they set it up to lead us to believe it might at least help the crucible that was supposed to be some sort of weapon but is just a big battery now MacGuffin.

People think conventional methods are cliche, that having the crucible be a real weapon of some sort is cliche, that even one possible victorious and happy ending is cliche, and so on, but what did we end up with? The whole game (ME3) is one cliche after another set off with meaningless missions that change nothing in the endings.

I'd much rather have a crucible that goes boom and knocks out reaper shielding allowing for some battles in space and on planets than what we have now. Fighting with conventional weapons would be way more satsifying that slow motion nauseating false logic and flawed reasoning, backed up with cool looking Shepard god, green eyes, and great voice acting.

I know it isn't happening, because someone wanted to sound smart. They failed in my opinion and made the game seem stupid with a demoralizing, fatalistic ending.

A lot of people on these boards seem to think this way about the war assets, and i can understand that. They should have done more with them, even if not to offer conventional victory. The EC is paradoxical in this because it adds a little more meaning to your score and then arbitrarises it by lowering the required EMS. Now i can't even see the worst ending without cheating, because of multiplayer.

To me, war assets aren't just numbers but more a way of giving closure (is that a badword yet?). Let points be just some points, what's more important is the texts. It was clear that they could not possibly hold their promise of resolving everything, at least not with cutscenes or the like. Again, they could have made more out of it, but i like having at least something to read about what happens to minor story points. That's also why i'm probably going to buy non-ending DLC. It's the age-old "road is more important than the destination" argument. Either you see it that way or you don't.

[George Costanza]

T-Bone665 wrote...

George Costanza wrote...

Basically, people keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because it is.

People keep insisting that conventional victory is possible because they hate the Deus ex machina and desperately want the Refusal ending to lead to victory. I have yet to see a single convincing piece of hard evidence that shows the repeated statement that we can't win is false. Because that's what it takes to disprove a word of god. You can bash on the writers and their beloved artistic vision all you want, in the end it seems like a child trying the put the square toy into the round slot. (Just to be clear, i'm not saying anyone is behaving like a child, it's just a fitting picture. Most people in this thread are quite sensible.)

The game was written around the Reapers being undefeatable. That's how it is. For example, in the whole trilogy there is only one "real" Reaper whom we see killed - Sovereign. All the others are Destroyers or die off-screen. And if you think about it, the concept of the Reaper Destroyer is new to ME3. It seems they were written into the story for one specific purpose: To make any kind of victory against Reapers possible in the game. For example, if it had been Harbinger guard the Conduit all along, assaulting it would have just been suicidal.

Surely you can devise scenarios where conventinal victory would be possible, but that would be a very different game - putting it at the end of the game we got just doesn't make as much sense. I can understand dissatisfaction with they way Bioware did it, event hough i don't share it (anymore). But in the end, they are not going to change it anyway.

Yes, but there's no compelling evidence as to why conventional victory being impossible is true, either. We've seen Reapers destroyed. Once Sovereign lost its shields it went down. And I fully expected the Crucible to be some sort of virus or magic shields off button that would allow the galactic forces to penetrate their defences.

Unfortunately, I just feel like they came up with the ending, and then had to shoe horn players into that scenario regardless of how much sense it made. We've seen Reapers destroyed so we know they're not invincible. But suddenly we have Hackett telling us its impossible and we're just supposed to nod along and accept it so that we can be shepherded towards the ending with the Catalyst. It's just another of the inconsistencies that make the ending stand out like it doesn't belong with the rest of the series.

And the whole thing does make the EMS thing seem pointless. Without an option to win due to the combined strength of the galaxy, gathering forces to gain a higher score seems pointless. The EMS becomes arbitrary, other than to change how "good" the ending you get is, for reasons that still escape me.

Our cycle has the best chance yet against the Reapers thanks to the Protheans messing with the Citadel signal, and with the united galaxy against Reapers having to adapt to a new strategy, it makes sense for this to be the cycle that defeats them. I know we're not going to get a change to let us do this, but it just seems like they dropped the ball for the sake of trying to come up with a pseudo-intellectual finish that nobody saw coming. Twists can be great. But storytelling matters more.

[3DandBeyond]

T-Bone665 wrote...

A lot of people on these boards seem to think this way about the war assets, and i can understand that. They should have done more with them, even if not to offer conventional victory. The EC is paradoxical in this because it adds a little more meaning to your score and then arbitrarises it by lowering the required EMS. Now i can't even see the worst ending without cheating, because of multiplayer.

To me, war assets aren't just numbers but more a way of giving closure (is that a badword yet?). Let points be just some points, what's more important is the texts. It was clear that they could not possibly hold their promise of resolving everything, at least not with cutscenes or the like. Again, they could have made more out of it, but i like having at least something to read about what happens to minor story points. That's also why i'm probably going to buy non-ending DLC. It's the age-old "road is more important than the destination" argument. Either you see it that way or you don't.

I am actually more of an I want it all type of person.  I don't feel the journey nor the destination can claim to be the most important part of any trip.  If either one is bad, then it can ruin the other.  We all live with conundrums.  Are you satisfied if you like hockey (I like hockey), if it's a good game that will determine who wins the Stanley Cup, if your team loses?  Well, I'm not.  I can appreciate the game, but I'm not happy and I won't lie and say I am.

I've been on a lot of trips in my life and I will say that whoever said that never took a road trip in their life.  But, as to this game and all stories in particular, the road you are on is one that should eventually take you home.  That means it brings you back around almost full circle and will answer the questions you had at the beginning of the story.  It will also answer those that built along the way, that stemmed from those initial questions.  I brought up the human question because it was an abandoned ignored unexplained plotline.  It meant something at some point, but it was abandoned.  But in terms of human diversity-it's just that in the game they state humans of all advanced organics are more genetically diverse.  Sure humans are alike, but not as alike as many other species within ME.  That's what they wrote so that is what we are to believe.  It's just never fully explained as to why that even matters.  That journey was more like an acid trip.

[3DandBeyond]

T-Bone665 wrote...

--snipped

The game was written around the Reapers being undefeatable. That's how it is. For example, in the whole trilogy there is only one "real" Reaper whom we see killed - Sovereign. All the others are Destroyers or die off-screen. And if you think about it, the concept of the Reaper Destroyer is new to ME3. It seems they were written into the story for one specific purpose: To make any kind of victory against Reapers possible in the game. For example, if it had been Harbinger guard the Conduit all along, assaulting it would have just been suicidal.

Surely you can devise scenarios where conventinal victory would be possible, but that would be a very different game - putting it at the end of the game we got just doesn't make as much sense. I can understand dissatisfaction with they way Bioware did it, event hough i don't share it (anymore). But in the end, they are not going to change it anyway.

Actually, you put the example out there of the game not being written around the reapers as being undefeatable.  Sovereign.  Surely he was hard to defeat, but the fact that he was proved they were not undefeatable.  Had he won and flown off shouting, "I'll be back," well that would have said they might not be defeatable.

And as well the scenarios for a conventional war and possible victory wouldn't have been a different game-that would have been an ME game.  The star kid ending-that's from a different game entirely.  It was "borrowed" from a whole lot of other sources.  You can look up the babylon 5 chaos/order video, the 2000 game Deus ex ending, Matrix, and the list goes on and on, and you will see that this ending is what is different.  This game was about conventional people doing things very conventionally.  What was out of place about the Collector's base suicide mission?  How did they accomplish that?  They did something that has been done since ships took to the sea-they snuck on board.

[Ticonderoga117]

Stp29 wrote...

*snip*

1. Yes, because information from a previous game contradicts his statements on Reaper making. There are still a lot of Reapers, but we don't know anything else. Stop saying "We know how many there are" because we don't.

2. Because it's needed for the Cruicible plot. We never see the battle, we just get told "Yeah, they took it, even with all of your preperations."

3. My point? Resources that could've been better spent elsewhere were used on a device no one knows what it will do.

4. No we don't. For the organics we see them charge the Reapers in a line. That's not different tactics, thats all using the same stupid tactic. The ships aren't using FTL to make tactical jumps to gain the advantage, nor attack from different angles. It's "CHARGE!" all the time, every time. No wonder we would lose like that.

5. Because the plot said so. The entire Alliance force consisting of the 2nd, 3rd, and 5th fleets lose to a similiar amount of Reapers that the Turians killed in the opening volleys of Palaven. Really? It's inconsistent and only because the plot called for it. Why did Hackett even loose the 2nd?

6. Define "rapid". If we mean in the time it takes for a battle, how are we even able to fight back? Place to fall back too? Another city or empty patch where there are no Reapers. Remember, they only focus on major centers, so anywhere but cities. This also pokes holes in the Reapers numbers, because if they are "OMG THERE'S SO MANY".... why is anyone able to avoid them?

7. Ground forces easy to kill... yeah. Shepard blazes through them. Granted, he's an N7, but when regular troops travel in squads larger than 3 and have makos as support, they would be easy pickings. And you're right, the near-space around planets need to be secured.... so why are we using ground-war solutions to a space-war problem?

8. That doesn't answer the question. If we can't defeat them conventionally, the Reapers would've torn right through Shield fleet and trash the Cruicible because we can't beat them conventionally. However, if Shield fleet was able to hold off the Reapers, then we can win conventionally, and only the writers make it impossible.

9. And these are the same people who ruined using foreshadowing as a storytelling technique.

10. The wiki doesn't say if it's a Reaper or not, but LOOK AT IT. It looks like a cannon on a Destroyer. You kill a Reaper. I don't need specifications when you view it in action. It fires straight up. Therefore, coming in from further away and lower would negate it's use.

11. How would they lose ships? Sure, the occasional loss, but they only pulled back because the Reapers pressed the attack on Palaven. Even then, I don't know why they stopped that tactic. Zoom in, strike, zoom out. Very simple, very effective. You either force the Reapers to take the hits or they pull back from Palaven. Krogan can't help against space threats, so yeah. The space-war is much more important than the ground-war. Even still, the Krogan destroyed a good number of Reapers on the ground.

12. Yes it is. ME1, we destroy a Reaper with only losing 8 cruisers because we don't know how to fight them yet. We then get a ton of new tech and imporvements from the remains of Soverign. Are they unbeatable? No.
ME2, fight the Collectors and an incomplete Reaper. Collector ship easily killed with two blasts from a frigate sized Thanix. Reaper killed with small arms fire. Reapers unbeatable? No. Suddenly, in ME3, we get pounded by stupidity and Hackett yelling "WE CAN'T BEAT THEM" even though it's only 10 minutes into the war. Then we find out the Turians pasted them, the Krogan killed a good number on the ground, and we wreck three using a Giant Worm, some Orbital fire, and one CAIN shot. Yet, the narrative railroad keeps on chugging towards "We can't win this conventionally!"

13. Pretty much, especially since if we can win the battle at Earth, it's all downhill from there. If we can beat them while most of thier forces are at Earth while being outnumbered... why can't we win this conventionally?
Or, we can't, the Reapers take a few losses on thier rush to the Crucible, and screw us anyway.

[satunnainen]

They are unbeatable because they are unbeatable. If they were beatable it would have been a different story. What more explanation do you need?