271 réponses à ce sujet

[Tealjaker94]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

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.

During the whole sequence of the game, Shepard had been warning the council about the Reapers, etc. If they had prepared maybe two years ealier, the game would have gone down the path of beating them conventionally, this, concept of a super-weapon defeating the Reapers didn't show up till ME3.

But they didn't. This was a major plot point of the 2nd game and the whole reason you had to work with cerberus. Coming into the 3rd game I knew we had an ice cube's chance in hell of taking down the reapers conventionally.

[inko1nsiderate]

Brovikk Rasputin wrote...

So in order to achieve a conventional victory, people would have to rasie their readiness to 100%? Gee, what a great idea!

Yes, in order to beat the Reaper threat you have to have the Galaxy 100% prepared to defeat them, have maximum effective military strength, and basically have nothing going against you.  Seems reasonable to me.  It would be the rewarding ending for people who play all of ME3.  Since the forums would rage at having to play multiplayer, I'm basically saying it will be a cold day in hell before I accept conventional victory.

[someguy1231]

The title of this thread is misleading. There's a very big difference between "not supporting conventional victory" and "believing conventional victory is impossible given what the games tell us".

[Tealjaker94]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

JamesFaith wrote...

Did you speak about Rachni who had only two years for restoration of their race? They only be useful as foot soldiers, but if they had fleet, it would be very small.

And Collector base. Again there is problem with time factor - only six months. Even if we found some superweapons here, there wouldn't be anough time for re-arming fleet and these ship would be lost as first during defence of key planets ans Citadel, because Reapers are too strong.

Also the matter of Soveriegn's wreckage which was reverse enginneered to produce immensly powerful new generation weaponry.

Again, if I have an M16, I'm not suddenly superior to a trained soldier with an M16. The reapers both outnumber us and have superior technology.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Fireblader70 wrote...

Coventional victory does not suddenly equal a good ending.

The Crucible, as it is, sucks. But having a cheesy, cliched, Hollywood ending where the Reapers are beaten by the unstoppable force of unity just sounds ridiculous to me.

Just because the Crucible is badly done doesn't mean there aren't other ways to win unconventionally.

Like you said a conventional victory doesn't mean a happy ending. I expected massive losses and even hoped for a final choice where you either save Earth or the Citadel with one or the other destroyed beyond repair.

You can disparage "cliche Hollywood endings" but impoverished emo artists are a dime a dozne and Indie films barely turn a profit for a reason.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 06 juillet 2012 - 08:58 .

[Xilizhra]

inko1nsiderate wrote...

I would be ok with conventional victory if it required all of the following:

-Saving the Rachni

-Killing Wrex in ME1, destroying Maelon's data, sabotaging the Cure and saving Mordin

-Saving the collector base

-A perfect Suicide Mission with all DLC ME2 characters

-Completing every side quest in the game

-100% Galactic Readiness, 10,000 war assets

-Saving both the Geth and the Quarians

-Saving the original council

-Having Dr. Chakwas stay in the labs

-Having Virmire survivor work with Hackette

-Recruiting Javik, and having him touch his shard (ruining his life will make him fight better)

-Destroying the Heretics

And to top it all off, it should be available for NG+ only.

If you make conventional victory very very hard to acheive in game, then I think I could live with it existing.

100% galactic readiness

That requires multiplayer, and the ****storm ensuing from that would be even bigger.

[kristopherah]

The whole point of Mass Effect was never to beat the reapers conventionally but to just survive and by surviving you beat the reapers imo

[satunnainen]

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?
- 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

[DirtySHISN0]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

The reapers wouldn't be a galactic threat if you could defeat them conventionally.

Yes they would.

Not a trilogy worthy threat.

A one game flop at best.

[xsdob]

If the galaxy had unified and prepared immediately after sovereigns attack, Council races, geth, krogan, quarians, batarians, rachni, and the terminus systems, had worked in perfect harmony to prepare for the reapers arrival, than we may have stood a chance.

But we didn't, we unified only after heavy losses, and we don't have the power or numbers to pull it off on our own.

Also, what's wrong with us setting things up for the next cycle to stop the reapers the way the protheans did? They gave us 2 more years, maybe we give the next cycle enough of a heads up to stop the reapers in dark space and win that way.

Mike gambles tweet is not from the offical bioware ME3 news page and is hence not cannon, emily wongs was from the alliance news network, all the outside game things were from the Cerberuc news network or bioware homepage and twitter, but gambles quote was not.

So unless he makes a twitter account about the next cycle or a tumble page called the "ask the next cycle" about what happened, nothing supports his claim of a crucible victory.

Modifié par xsdob, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:00 .

[IanPolaris]

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

[Creepter]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

The reapers wouldn't be a galactic threat if you could defeat them conventionally.

Yes they would.

Not a trilogy worthy threat.

A one game flop at best.

The Galactic Empire was a trilogy worthy threat.
And they got their asses handed to them by teddy bears.


Why does trillogy villains have to be all but immortal suddenly for them to be relevant? >.>

[Binary_Helix 1]

naes1984 wrote...

Creepter wrote...

A conventional victory WOULD have been possible.
The Reapers are only invincible and/or impossible to defeat in conventional ways because Bioware painted them into a corner by claiming that they are impossible to beat.

As I've said many times before: if you, in your story, constantly point out that your antagonists are immortal then it's basically unavoidable that you have to drag a BS plot point out of your ass in the third act if your villains are to be defeated.

That's why we ended up with the Crucible, a deus ex machina weapon; because Bioware wrote themselves into a corner with the Reapers.

They wrote themselves into many corners that they couldn't figure out how to solve. The only time the Reapers are vulnerable is when they are "hibernating" in Dark Space. THAT should have been the basis of the plot.

Yeah and since they couldn't use their nomral route into Citadel space they should have been weakened by the long journey.

[Binary_Helix 1]

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?
- 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

Well in previous cycles civilizations were always taken by surprise and wiped out as a result.

In this cycle the Protheans ensured they couldn't do that effectively breaking the most important Reaper advantage.

[Fireblader70]

@Binary_Helix 1

For such an interesting series to end with an obvious, done-before conclusion would have disappointed me more than what we have now.

What about the Keepers? What about the secrets of the past? What about shocking revelations? The stuff we have now isn't a masterpiece, hell no, but it's certainly more interesting than 'BAM reaper dead'. To me, anyway.

[Johnners91]

What exactly do we as gamers/viewers miss out on because it's not a 'conventional' victory. It's not like the galaxy resorted to a Gandhian non-violent resistance is it? There's a huge action-packed finale. I don't know why this, specifically, would worry anybody, even if they have some issues with the plot.

[v3paR]

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.

[DirtySHISN0]

Creepter wrote...

The Galactic Empire was a trilogy worthy threat.
And they got their asses handed to them by teddy bears.


Why do trilogy villains have to be all but immortal suddenly for them to be relevant? >.>

for exactly the same reason this game isn't star wars.

Look how that franchise has turned out.

[Creepter]

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Creepter wrote...

The Galactic Empire was a trilogy worthy threat.
And they got their asses handed to them by teddy bears.


Why do trilogy villains have to be all but immortal suddenly for them to be relevant? >.>

for exactly the same reason this game isn't star wars.

Look how that franchise has turned out.

So simply because the franchise is Mass Effect, the villains have to be unstoppable immortals?
BS.

[naes1984]

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.

Liara's holograph says the Crucible does not work so these future people have ot come up with another solution to the problem and they do because of the little kid and her mother talking at the end.

[Brovikk Rasputin]

Creepter wrote...

DirtySHISN0 wrote...

Creepter wrote...

The Galactic Empire was a trilogy worthy threat.
And they got their asses handed to them by teddy bears.


Why do trilogy villains have to be all but immortal suddenly for them to be relevant? >.>

for exactly the same reason this game isn't star wars.

Look how that franchise has turned out.

So simply because the franchise is Mass Effect, the villains have to be unstoppable immortals?
BS.

Not every franchise has to be similar! Just because Star Wars did something in one way, doesn't mean that Mass Effect should do the same. The Reapers were unstoppable immortals from the beginning! You're not making any sense, AT ALL.

[MegaSovereign]

Defeating the Reapers conventionally defeats the narrative purpose of building the Crucible in the first place.

They sacrificed so much just to dock it at the Citadel. Can you imagine how pissed everybody would be if Shepard was like "lol guys forget the Crucible let's just take our chances."

There is a freaking reason why they originally didn't have the refusal ending pre-EC. They didn't think people were that stupid. I guess the forums proved them wrong.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .

[Fireblader70]

Goddamnit, phone won't let me edit posts. By the current ending being more interesting than 'BAM reaper dead', I meant that the current endings have more answers concerning the Mass Effect universe, as crap as they may be. I realise the Crucible is essentially a 'BAM reaper dead' button.

[treekanicko]

I'm pretty sure Sovereign says the reapers numbers are immeasurable in the first game. I think the whole idea of conventional battle with the reapers is ridiculous, especially when they are in numbers. The battle at the end is really only for cinematic effect. Just look at the opening of Mass effect 2. The collector ship ripped apart the normandy sr1 with it's reaper tech. As physics says, laser effectively go forever, and reaper lasers could probably shoot across the whole battlefield in space. Additionally, think of all the shells that missed their reaper targets. They pretty much all hit the surface of earth seeing as it was right behind it, and we know that's a bad idea from ME2 Basically, the sheer number or reapers is the problem with conventional victory. If every reaper ship took down one council ship solely by ramming it, the reapers would win.

[DirtySHISN0]

Creepter wrote...


So simply because the franchise is Mass Effect, the villains have to be unstoppable immortals?
BS.

Its called variation.

If it was yet another conventional enemy and a conventional victory what is the point of playing it.
Star wars has had its day. I like its influence, but im happy to keep trying fresh content rather than sampling repeats.

Modifié par DirtySHISN0, 06 juillet 2012 - 09:12 .