271 réponses à ce sujet

[LaughingDragon]

Wishfulllama wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

At no point in ME1 or ME2 is it implied or stated that the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means alone, that argument is entirely an ME3 construct. In fact going into ME3 I was under the impression that the reapers were incredibly vulnerable to the threat posed by a united, well directed galactic force, and their tactics in previous cycles (flood through the citadel and take out the leadership structures in place, shut down the relay system to isolate pockets of resistance and then methodically overwhelm the organic species system by system) seems to reflect a fear of facing organic forces head on in an all out confrontation.

ME3 throws all this logic out the window, radically changing the nature of the reapers from an incredibly advanced but possibly defeat able foe into invincible god like constructs. To me it makes the plot of ME3 (gathering resources and allies to battle the reapers) seem like a rather pointless endeavour.

If you listened to Sovereign and thought the Reapers were afraid of us, there is something wrong with your hearing.

When has a good villain in any work of fiction ever openly admitted to the protagonist they were worried and/or afraid of them? It would render the plot and achievement of the antagonist's defeat moot. Sovereign's actions judge her far louder than her bluster, and the fact that: 

(1) she existed hidden and in secret for so long never willing to reveal her true identity, and
(2) she was not prepared to attack the citadel and take on one moderately sized council fleet until she had a fricking geth armada to back her up

implies a level of caution and wariness that is consistent with an awareness of her own limitations and a concern of being defeated/destroyed

An entity is only cautious or wary if it fears being destroyed. A powerful entity does not fear, because it cannot be defeated.

[satunnainen]

IanPolaris wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

I dont support conventional victory because that would create a lot bigger logical plotholes than without it. For example:
- If conventional victory is possible, why hasnt anyone during the previous 20000 cycles won?

This is the first cycle EVER (see Chorbin's data and letter) that was able to avoid a Decapitation First Strike by the Reapers when they took the Citadel.  All other cycles had the relays shut down and their central govts destroyed when the Reapers arrived.  That is a good start right there.

- Why does the catalyst allow this cycle to develop to such a level that there is even slightest chance of reapers losing (he can deside when to start the harvest)
- And so on

So why was Saren needed in ME1 again?  If you overlook that plothole, you can overlook this one too.

-Polaris

Beginning of the fight is just one part of the war. They still had more "troops" (reapers), better equipment (armor, speed, etc) and more firepower. 

And for the Saren part, why did EDI need Joker crawling around the ship at some part of ME2? and why did she take over that body in ME3 while she already had full control of Normandy? Why would needing Saren be any different since the catalyst cannot control the keepers any more because of proteans.

I still call the catalyst/reapers waiting until the cycle has developed technically so far that they can be conventionally defeated a logical plothole, since I dont know any better term. It just doesnt make sense since he can decide when to start and he has been doing this successfully for about a 10^9 years.

Just things to consider.

[Andy the Black]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

At no point in ME1 or ME2 is it implied or stated that the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means alone, that argument is entirely an ME3 construct. In fact going into ME3 I was under the impression that the reapers were incredibly vulnerable to the threat posed by a united, well directed galactic force, and their tactics in previous cycles (flood through the citadel and take out the leadership structures in place, shut down the relay system to isolate pockets of resistance and then methodically overwhelm the organic species system by system) seems to reflect a fear of facing organic forces head on in an all out confrontation.

ME3 throws all this logic out the window, radically changing the nature of the reapers from an incredibly advanced but possibly defeat able foe into invincible god like constructs. To me it makes the plot of ME3 (gathering resources and allies to battle the reapers) seem like a rather pointless endeavour.

If you listened to Sovereign and thought the Reapers were afraid of us, there is something wrong with your hearing.

When has a good villain in any work of fiction ever openly admitted to the protagonist they were worried and/or afraid of them? It would render the plot and achievement of the antagonist's defeat moot. Sovereign's actions judge her far louder than her bluster, and the fact that: 

(1) she existed hidden and in secret for so long never willing to reveal her true identity, and
(2) she was not prepared to attack the citadel and take on one moderately sized council fleet until she had a fricking geth armada to back her up

implies a level of caution and wariness that is consistent with an awareness of her own limitations and a concern of being defeated/destroyed

An entity is only cautious or wary if it fears being destroyed. A powerful entity does not fear, because it cannot be defeated.

Only a fool has no fear, and Sovereign was no fool.

Now, I don't think Sovereign was so powerful it could have taken on the entier Citadel Fleet by itself, but I think it would have been a damn close call.  You foget that Sovereign couldn't really engage in the fight dew to dry humping the Citadel, and even when it did it was still taking out ships left and right.

[Andy the Black]

satunnainen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

I dont support conventional victory because that would create a lot bigger logical plotholes than without it. For example:
- If conventional victory is possible, why hasnt anyone during the previous 20000 cycles won?

This is the first cycle EVER (see Chorbin's data and letter) that was able to avoid a Decapitation First Strike by the Reapers when they took the Citadel.  All other cycles had the relays shut down and their central govts destroyed when the Reapers arrived.  That is a good start right there.

- Why does the catalyst allow this cycle to develop to such a level that there is even slightest chance of reapers losing (he can deside when to start the harvest)
- And so on

So why was Saren needed in ME1 again?  If you overlook that plothole, you can overlook this one too.

-Polaris

Beginning of the fight is just one part of the war. They still had more "troops" (reapers), better equipment (armor, speed, etc) and more firepower. 

And for the Saren part, why did EDI need Joker crawling around the ship at some part of ME2? and why did she take over that body in ME3 while she already had full control of Normandy? Why would needing Saren be any different since the catalyst cannot control the keepers any more because of proteans.

I still call the catalyst/reapers waiting until the cycle has developed technically so far that they can be conventionally defeated a logical plothole, since I dont know any better term. It just doesnt make sense since he can decide when to start and he has been doing this successfully for about a 10^9 years.

Just things to consider.

I thought it was Sovereign who controled the Keepers. Isn't that what he says his job is in Mass 1? He stays behind to monitor the growth of organic civilization and then when the time is right he signals the Keepers to open the citadel relay?

[Nragedreaper]

LaughingDragon wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

silentassassin264 wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

At no point in ME1 or ME2 is it implied or stated that the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means alone, that argument is entirely an ME3 construct. In fact going into ME3 I was under the impression that the reapers were incredibly vulnerable to the threat posed by a united, well directed galactic force, and their tactics in previous cycles (flood through the citadel and take out the leadership structures in place, shut down the relay system to isolate pockets of resistance and then methodically overwhelm the organic species system by system) seems to reflect a fear of facing organic forces head on in an all out confrontation.

ME3 throws all this logic out the window, radically changing the nature of the reapers from an incredibly advanced but possibly defeat able foe into invincible god like constructs. To me it makes the plot of ME3 (gathering resources and allies to battle the reapers) seem like a rather pointless endeavour.

If you listened to Sovereign and thought the Reapers were afraid of us, there is something wrong with your hearing.

When has a good villain in any work of fiction ever openly admitted to the protagonist they were worried and/or afraid of them? It would render the plot and achievement of the antagonist's defeat moot. Sovereign's actions judge her far louder than her bluster, and the fact that: 

(1) she existed hidden and in secret for so long never willing to reveal her true identity, and
(2) she was not prepared to attack the citadel and take on one moderately sized council fleet until she had a fricking geth armada to back her up

implies a level of caution and wariness that is consistent with an awareness of her own limitations and a concern of being defeated/destroyed

An entity is only cautious or wary if it fears being destroyed. A powerful entity does not fear, because it cannot be defeated.

Fear is an emotional response, I don't think reapers can fear.

[Wishfulllama]

Andy the Black wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

At no point in ME1 or ME2 is it implied or stated that the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means alone, that argument is entirely an ME3 construct. In fact going into ME3 I was under the impression that the reapers were incredibly vulnerable to the threat posed by a united, well directed galactic force, and their tactics in previous cycles (flood through the citadel and take out the leadership structures in place, shut down the relay system to isolate pockets of resistance and then methodically overwhelm the organic species system by system) seems to reflect a fear of facing organic forces head on in an all out confrontation.

ME3 throws all this logic out the window, radically changing the nature of the reapers from an incredibly advanced but possibly defeat able foe into invincible god like constructs. To me it makes the plot of ME3 (gathering resources and allies to battle the reapers) seem like a rather pointless endeavour.

If it wasn't implied by Sovereign OHKing dreadnoughts at the end of Mass 1, then maybe the Derelict Reaper in Mass 2 implieds it. A cycle built a mass accelerator that was powerful enough to make the Great Rift Valley on Klendagon and the Reapers still won.

You do realise you have just provided stronger evidence backing up the conventional victory theory. As I stated in the above post the greatest strengths of the reapers beyond their technology are the element of surprise they have upon arrival and the subsequent divide and conquer tactics they employ against organics. It wouldn't matter if you had 100 of these mass accelerator cannons that could 1 shot KO a reaper if they were spread over 100 systems, because the reapers would overwhelm you before it could effectively dent their numbers. What if you were able to concentrate said forces into one location however? How would that rebalance the odds in your favour against the reapers?

Remember this is the first cycle where the reapers have not been able to employ their tried and trusted tactics, the first time they have attacked an enemy who is already aware of their existence, and the first time they have had to face a united galactic resistance not isolated pockets just waiting to be overwhelmed and picked off. Mass Effect 1 & Mass Effect 2 made conventional victory not just possible but the most probable outcome to the series, Mass Effect 3 was the game that ignored all that and changed everything 

[satunnainen]

Andy the Black wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

satunnainen wrote...

I dont support conventional victory because that would create a lot bigger logical plotholes than without it. For example:
- If conventional victory is possible, why hasnt anyone during the previous 20000 cycles won?

This is the first cycle EVER (see Chorbin's data and letter) that was able to avoid a Decapitation First Strike by the Reapers when they took the Citadel.  All other cycles had the relays shut down and their central govts destroyed when the Reapers arrived.  That is a good start right there.

- Why does the catalyst allow this cycle to develop to such a level that there is even slightest chance of reapers losing (he can deside when to start the harvest)
- And so on

So why was Saren needed in ME1 again?  If you overlook that plothole, you can overlook this one too.

-Polaris

Beginning of the fight is just one part of the war. They still had more "troops" (reapers), better equipment (armor, speed, etc) and more firepower. 

And for the Saren part, why did EDI need Joker crawling around the ship at some part of ME2? and why did she take over that body in ME3 while she already had full control of Normandy? Why would needing Saren be any different since the catalyst cannot control the keepers any more because of proteans.

I still call the catalyst/reapers waiting until the cycle has developed technically so far that they can be conventionally defeated a logical plothole, since I dont know any better term. It just doesnt make sense since he can decide when to start and he has been doing this successfully for about a 10^9 years.

Just things to consider.

I thought it was Sovereign who controled the Keepers. Isn't that what he says his job is in Mass 1? He stays behind to monitor the growth of organic civilization and then when the time is right he signals the Keepers to open the citadel relay?

He also said that the mass relays and citadel were technology of his kind, and that they were each a nation, independent. Both of these were lies, or atleast only partially true since the reapers were just tools created by some ancient species and the catalyst controls the reapers somehow.

You could guess that the catalyst didnt want the reapers to mention him since it was supposed to be a surprise for every cycle that there is some higher controller living in (partly?) citadel and watching things. If some cycle found it out managed to write it down for the next cycles, predicting the development of the cycle would be a lot more difficult and the work of reapers would be a lot more difficult. Secrecy would also explain why the keepers were very independent and automatic normally, instead of being constantly controlled by some signal. If there is some constant signal, there is a risk that someone will find it and start asking questions.

Modifié par satunnainen, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:38 .

[AlexKavern]

Conventional victory:
http://eanordic.com/me3widget/

Modifié par AlexKavern, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:19 .

[RiouHotaru]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I'm not exactly sure where that is claimed, or even implied, but okay...

I don't support conventional victory because there is precious little evidence it's possible at all... which is kinda funny, because that's EXACTLY what the creators of the series have claimed REPEATEDLY.

Strange how that works.

Those were the biggest choices of the trilogy with some of the highest stakes and biggest potential pay off.

I never got the impression that the Reapers were unbeatable until ME3 decided it should be so.

So true, before ME3, the whole plot was to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

That was because we never saw the Reapers as a whole.  Sovereign alone should've been enough to make people realize it would take more than a few fleets to work against an army of Sovereigns.

[Andy the Black]

Wishfulllama wrote...

Andy the Black wrote...

Wishfulllama wrote...

At no point in ME1 or ME2 is it implied or stated that the reapers are impossible to defeat by conventional means alone, that argument is entirely an ME3 construct. In fact going into ME3 I was under the impression that the reapers were incredibly vulnerable to the threat posed by a united, well directed galactic force, and their tactics in previous cycles (flood through the citadel and take out the leadership structures in place, shut down the relay system to isolate pockets of resistance and then methodically overwhelm the organic species system by system) seems to reflect a fear of facing organic forces head on in an all out confrontation.

ME3 throws all this logic out the window, radically changing the nature of the reapers from an incredibly advanced but possibly defeat able foe into invincible god like constructs. To me it makes the plot of ME3 (gathering resources and allies to battle the reapers) seem like a rather pointless endeavour.

If it wasn't implied by Sovereign OHKing dreadnoughts at the end of Mass 1, then maybe the Derelict Reaper in Mass 2 implieds it. A cycle built a mass accelerator that was powerful enough to make the Great Rift Valley on Klendagon and the Reapers still won.

You do realise you have just provided stronger evidence backing up the conventional victory theory. As I stated in the above post the greatest strengths of the reapers beyond their technology are the element of surprise they have upon arrival and the subsequent divide and conquer tactics they employ against organics. It wouldn't matter if you had 100 of these mass accelerator cannons that could 1 shot KO a reaper if they were spread over 100 systems, because the reapers would overwhelm you before it could effectively dent their numbers. What if you were able to concentrate said forces into one location however? How would that rebalance the odds in your favour against the reapers?

Remember this is the first cycle where the reapers have not been able to employ their tried and trusted tactics, the first time they have attacked an enemy who is already aware of their existence, and the first time they have had to face a united galactic resistance not isolated pockets just waiting to be overwhelmed and picked off. Mass Effect 1 & Mass Effect 2 made conventional victory not just possible but the most probable outcome to the series, Mass Effect 3 was the game that ignored all that and changed everything 

Because the Reapers would be so easily rounded up. Maybe builting a 100 of these cannons and spawn camping a Relay may have been the bast hope conventional victory.

The Reapers did have element of surprise in Mass 3, no one besides Shep his/her crew, Anderson, and TIM even believed they existed till it was to late and they had decimated the Alliance, and done who knows what to the other fleets of the galaxie. From my point of view Mass 3 only solidifies the Reapers power made clear first by Sovereign then by the fact that a cycle with a mass accelerator powerful enough to rip a hole the size of Valles Marineris into a planets surface still got wiped out.

I mean if Sovereign can one shot a dreadnought and it takes the power of the entire 5th fleet to take it down, without it's shields, how is a galaxie woefully unprepared going beat 1000+ Reapers through conventional means?

Modifié par Andy the Black, 07 juillet 2012 - 07:55 .

[Ticonderoga117]

AlexKavern wrote...

Conventional victory:
http://eanordic.com/me3widget/

GAH! BLASTED TIME LIMIT!

I was just getting a giant ball of a fleet moving too. Held about half the galaxy.

[Jadebaby]

Tealjaker94 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

chemiclord wrote...

I'm not exactly sure where that is claimed, or even implied, but okay...

I don't support conventional victory because there is precious little evidence it's possible at all... which is kinda funny, because that's EXACTLY what the creators of the series have claimed REPEATEDLY.

Strange how that works.

Those were the biggest choices of the trilogy with some of the highest stakes and biggest potential pay off.

I never got the impression that the Reapers were unbeatable until ME3 decided it should be so.

So true, before ME3, the whole plot was to defeat the Reapers conventionally.

Not true at all. The plot has always been to try to find some way to survive. Not sure where you got the impression that we could win conventionally. Maybe when the entire citadel fleet and alliance fifth fleet got their asses kicked by a single reaper until Shepard managed to completely disable it. I guess if 1 reaper can take out 2 fleets, conventional victory must be a distinct possibility. If anything, the reapers were weaker in ME3 than previously depicted.

Oh right coz that had nothing to do with the entire Geth armada Sovereign was with....

[Jadebaby]

To answer OP,

The Rachni having limitless tropps just means the Reapers have limitless possibility for ground troops.
And as for the collector base, I destroyed it.

[shodiswe]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

What about the Rachni? They were made out to be a limitless army. How about the Collector Base? That's Reaper tech.

Those two choices alone were suppose to change the balance of power.

Apparently the collector base was taken over by cerberus, the indoctrinated servants of the reapers...

The Rachni were still recoverign and the Reapers foudn them soemhow, killed whoever tried to resist then enslaved the queen to create rachni husks....

Sure if you freed the first rechni queen she managed to send you a few chachni transports with workers for the crucible. But it's not like she can give birth to an endless army in no time.. She was also hurt and weakened by events.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

vixvicco wrote...

The Protheans established that ages ago, a convention victory was not possible. Javik tells you you've gotten further than his people ever did.

I like how people completely ignores this. Maybe because you're right.

[Jeb231]

I'm not against it but IMO the only way for it to work would involve a complete rewrite of ME2 and ME3.

[Kamfrenchie]

silentassassin264 wrote...

Kamfrenchie wrote...

What makes you people think the reapers outnumber the allied forces ? IF that was the case the crucible would never make it halfwy through to the citadel.

Sure, Sovereign was powerful in Mass Effect 1, but we didnt know how the other reapers would be. In fact it would seeem logical to think overeign would be one of the strongest reappers since his role is so important.
And only his barriers made him so strong, he fell quickly when they went out.
Then we had weapons piercing barriers.

SInce we had no real idea of the numbers of the reapers before ME3, I thought it was logical e could win without a DEM.
Then they decided to come up with billlions of reapers and Sovereign class destroyers, make TIM stupid, make every officer stupid (hackett didn't even kill a destrooyer at the beginning, th defense commitee is incompetent and stupid etc)

The axis were a formidable ennemy but were defeated convntionnaly. It was still a bloody war with many losses. Conventional victory doesn't mean we just charge at them in a massive battle.
An enemy doesn't need t have super power to be effective. Even humans can work well as a threat to the galaxy if the story is done well.

Heck, the Balrog gets killed by gandalf with sword and magic, not a mac guffin/DEM, but it's still a badass, powerfl, threatening demon

If anything, DEM reduce the merit of the heroes, since they survive almost only through sheerr luck

The Reapers outnumber the victory forces because they don't get a clear shot to the citadel for the crucible until Harbinger and crew breaks off to stop hammer.  Alsoif you haven't noticed, the Reapers have full armies on each system at the end of the game and you are taking the allied forces largest force to face the Reapers in Sol.  And I know all you convential types don't believe the catalyst but there is a reason it balks like you are insane when you suggest not using the Crucible since you are vastly outnumbered.  

The ground forcs may outnumber ours, but space ship wise they don't. Again, oherwise, since they 1 sot most ships, the crucible woul never make it near the citadel, and the allied fleet  would be toast in 20 sec

[AxStapleton]

v3paR wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

Well, it is implied in the refusal ending that the next cycle does beat the Reapers conventionally (given that they don't use the Crucible)

i really hope they didnt use it

they have now proof that reapers exist. and some info about their weak points. if they build big enough fleet and let reapers go through citadel then they could catch them all in one place or just wait near each mass relay taking them by surprise.

in our cycle we were running around for 3yrs? instead of preparing ships and weapons. and no one believed Shepard until the reapers actualy land on earth. this all makes the conventional victory quite impossible right now.

If they could build a machine that could kill the Reapers in an instant and save billions of lives from a war that would no doubt go on for decades, maybe even centuries, they would do it. Remember the Yahg probably care about Synthetics as much as the next Krogan would.

Modifié par AxStapleton, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:43 .

[Kamfrenchie]

you could somewhat write the story so that the council actually believed shepard during ME2, but didn't tell him because he's with cerberus and they aren't ure it's reaaly him.

THere is your preparation time, 2 years.

+ blow up a mass relay where the bigest raper lfeet is and bingo

[Dusen]

satunnainen wrote...
And for the Saren part, why did EDI need Joker crawling around the ship at some part of ME2? and why did she take over that body in ME3 while she already had full control of Normandy? Why would needing Saren be any different since the catalyst cannot control the keepers any more because of proteans.

Uh, in-game it's stated that Joker needs to unlock her so they can escape or something along those lines. In ME3 EDI states that she wants to be a part of ground operations and to get funky with Joker in a more physical way, hence her new body. I don't understand what you mean in that last one.

Modifié par Dusen, 07 juillet 2012 - 10:47 .

[No_MSG]

AxStapleton wrote...

v3paR wrote...

naes1984 wrote...

Well, it is implied in the refusal ending that the next cycle does beat the Reapers conventionally (given that they don't use the Crucible)

i really hope they didnt use it

they have now proof that reapers exist. and some info about their weak points. if they build big enough fleet and let reapers go through citadel then they could catch them all in one place or just wait near each mass relay taking them by surprise.

in our cycle we were running around for 3yrs? instead of preparing ships and weapons. and no one believed Shepard until the reapers actualy land on earth. this all makes the conventional victory quite impossible right now.

If they could build a machine that could kill the Reapers in an instant and save billions of lives from a war that would no doubt go on for decades, maybe even centuries, they would do it. Remember the Yahg probably care about Synthetics as much as the next Krogan would.

Unless, of course, they were smart enough to not throw everything they have on a device that they have no idea how it works, or where one critical component is, or how it works.  The don't know where it came from, or who it came from.

Also of note, all of our technological advances come from the race trying to kill us.  Why should I believe that these plans for a super-MacGuffin aren't just one of their tools?

[Ridwan]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

What about the Rachni? They were made out to be a limitless army. How about the Collector Base? That's Reaper tech.

Those two choices alone were suppose to change the balance of power.

Don't forget the Krogans if you cure the genophage, didn't EDI say they laid up to 1000 eggs?