360 réponses à ce sujet

[flanny]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dreman, do you honestly expect me to believe what the Catalyst says? The ending shouldn't be counted considering it derails from the rest of the series. Do you know what else the Catalyst says? That I would die if I chose Destroy. The Catalyst telling you that you are outnumbered and cannot win is Hudson/Walters forcing you to go with their artistic ending if you want to win and actually complete the game. According the Bioware, there is no canon ending, and they want everyone to interpret their own version *cough cough bad writing cough cough laziness*. IT is still valid. So let's try not to bring something that is entirely open to the player's imagination into evidence.

In the end, conventional victory would have been possible, but it is clear that there was a conflict between the writers, and only two of them wrote the ending.

Yes.  Pick refuse and see what happens. He say the reaper have way more ships then you do. aND THEN WHEN TO Let the fight out is refuse, guess what...You LOSE.  The reapers told you they have more ships then you dod in ME1. iN me3 your never given a number of the ships but it's know they have more ships then we do. Before the last battle on earth you see the starmap covered with reapers.
You belief ,as the starchild says, is not required. The reaper are going to steam rolly no matter what you beleive. What you beliveis not fact. Cnventional victory is not possible. That is that.

that's because the endings are badly written and because of the nature as a contrivance and their conflict with past lore they cannot be used as good lore. besides the refuse ending was only put in their to get back at fans so you can hardly rely on it

The new ending is nto badly written. No having a convetion victory does n't make a story bad. Lothr and DA:O both are examples of plots ending with unconventional endings. It doesn't conflict with any past lore. From the start of ME, the reapers are show to bea highly  power full force that takes a unconvetional way to beat them. We had to stun sovergin in ME1 to kill him. Really, why is an unconvetional victory bad now when are first victory was unconvetional.

yes it does, also i'd say both DA:O and LotR are pretty convential, slaying a dragon is as conventional as storys get and the ring was only able to reach the mount doom through conventional battles, also both told you about the ending from the very beginning so even if you insist they're unconvventional you would still be unable to make a comparision. 

Also everything in ME1 and ME2 lead us to believe we can win conventially, also i'm not saying a 
unconvventional victory is bad, I'm simply saying that a conventional victory is possible

Unconventional does not mean relying upon magical superweapons etc.

no it doesn't magic forms the basis for most fantasy games and as such are conventional in that universe.

[T-Bone665]

flanny wrote...

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

I think i read somewhere (i think it was a mike gamble twitter post or something like that) that in most cycles the reapers don't lose Sovereign-class ships at all. It is however just a word fronm god, and unneccessary to discount the guesswork.

And this is also a demonstration why these threads always fail: After some time, the same old arguments are repeated again and again.

[dreman9999]

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dreman, do you honestly expect me to believe what the Catalyst says? The ending shouldn't be counted considering it derails from the rest of the series. Do you know what else the Catalyst says? That I would die if I chose Destroy. The Catalyst telling you that you are outnumbered and cannot win is Hudson/Walters forcing you to go with their artistic ending if you want to win and actually complete the game. According the Bioware, there is no canon ending, and they want everyone to interpret their own version *cough cough bad writing cough cough laziness*. IT is still valid. So let's try not to bring something that is entirely open to the player's imagination into evidence.

In the end, conventional victory would have been possible, but it is clear that there was a conflict between the writers, and only two of them wrote the ending.

Yes.  Pick refuse and see what happens. He say the reaper have way more ships then you do. aND THEN WHEN TO Let the fight out is refuse, guess what...You LOSE.  The reapers told you they have more ships then you dod in ME1. iN me3 your never given a number of the ships but it's know they have more ships then we do. Before the last battle on earth you see the starmap covered with reapers.
You belief ,as the starchild says, is not required. The reaper are going to steam rolly no matter what you beleive. What you beliveis not fact. Cnventional victory is not possible. That is that.

that's because the endings are badly written and because of the nature as a contrivance and their conflict with past lore they cannot be used as good lore. besides the refuse ending was only put in their to get back at fans so you can hardly rely on it

The new ending is nto badly written. No having a convetion victory does n't make a story bad. Lothr and DA:O both are examples of plots ending with unconventional endings. It doesn't conflict with any past lore. From the start of ME, the reapers are show to bea highly  power full force that takes a unconvetional way to beat them. We had to stun sovergin in ME1 to kill him. Really, why is an unconvetional victory bad now when are first victory was unconvetional.

yes it does, also i'd say both DA:O and LotR are pretty convential, slaying a dragon is as conventional as storys get and the ring was only able to reach the mount doom through conventional battles, also both told you about the ending from the very beginning so even if you insist they're unconvventional you would still be unable to make a comparision. 

Also everything in ME1 and ME2 lead us to believe we can win conventially, also i'm not saying a 
unconvventional victory is bad, I'm simply saying that a conventional victory is possible

In dragon age we need to kill the arch demon in a spacific way, with a gray warden. That's what make it unconvetional. If we just blidly killed the arch demon, we would never win.
In lothr, the very actof destroying the one ring what a temendust task. The act that theoney way to win was to destory it made it unconvetional. Unconvetionl means not using the normal means of doing somthing.
And ME1 was not convetional. We had to stun Sovergin to win and doing that was a task on it's on. That an unconvetional tactic. ME2, we had an open weakness to explote.
And it was made clear for ME1 THAT CUNVETION VICTORY IS NOT POSSIBLE.,

[F4H bandicoot]

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dreman, do you honestly expect me to believe what the Catalyst says? The ending shouldn't be counted considering it derails from the rest of the series. Do you know what else the Catalyst says? That I would die if I chose Destroy. The Catalyst telling you that you are outnumbered and cannot win is Hudson/Walters forcing you to go with their artistic ending if you want to win and actually complete the game. According the Bioware, there is no canon ending, and they want everyone to interpret their own version *cough cough bad writing cough cough laziness*. IT is still valid. So let's try not to bring something that is entirely open to the player's imagination into evidence.

In the end, conventional victory would have been possible, but it is clear that there was a conflict between the writers, and only two of them wrote the ending.

Yes.  Pick refuse and see what happens. He say the reaper have way more ships then you do. aND THEN WHEN TO Let the fight out is refuse, guess what...You LOSE.  The reapers told you they have more ships then you dod in ME1. iN me3 your never given a number of the ships but it's know they have more ships then we do. Before the last battle on earth you see the starmap covered with reapers.
You belief ,as the starchild says, is not required. The reaper are going to steam rolly no matter what you beleive. What you beliveis not fact. Cnventional victory is not possible. That is that.

that's because the endings are badly written and because of the nature as a contrivance and their conflict with past lore they cannot be used as good lore. besides the refuse ending was only put in their to get back at fans so you can hardly rely on it

The new ending is nto badly written. No having a convetion victory does n't make a story bad. Lothr and DA:O both are examples of plots ending with unconventional endings. It doesn't conflict with any past lore. From the start of ME, the reapers are show to bea highly  power full force that takes a unconvetional way to beat them. We had to stun sovergin in ME1 to kill him. Really, why is an unconvetional victory bad now when are first victory was unconvetional.

yes it does, also i'd say both DA:O and LotR are pretty convential, slaying a dragon is as conventional as storys get and the ring was only able to reach the mount doom through conventional battles, also both told you about the ending from the very beginning so even if you insist they're unconvventional you would still be unable to make a comparision. 

Also everything in ME1 and ME2 lead us to believe we can win conventially, also i'm not saying a 
unconvventional victory is bad, I'm simply saying that a conventional victory is possible

Unconventional does not mean relying upon magical superweapons etc.

no it doesn't magic forms the basis for most fantasy games and as such are conventional in that universe.

Within the mass effect universe...

[flanny]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

[

flanny wrote...


agian opinion not fact, i'd say based on everthing i've seen and read we outnumber the reaper and after the sol battle even if we lose we'd recover faster

I'm sorry, but this is bull****. 
The Reapers have had over a billion years to be building 1 capitiol ship a cycle and turning all the others into destroyers. If we take the billion years and 1 per cycle without losing a ship, they hve 20,000 Sovereign class ships alone. Ok, so they probably don't always make 1 per cycle, say they only make 1 every 3 thats still 7000 ships, I'd say usually they don't lose many ships (due to cuting of system etc) but they still lose some, that's gonna put the number around 2000-5000 capitol ships

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

 

I'm using what the game tells me.

You're saying that the Protheans almost wiped out the repears, whereas Vigil tells me that they were Obliterated by the Reapers

and yet again you're making things up that i said to try and win an argument... I know what i typed, i typed it.

to clarify i'm saying a few are made each cycle some are lost each cycle... some cycles they'll gain ships others they will lose ships there is simply no way of knowing

[flanny]

T-Bone665 wrote...

flanny wrote...

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

I think i read somewhere (i think it was a mike gamble twitter post or something like that) that in most cycles the reapers don't lose Sovereign-class ships at all. It is however just a word fronm god, and unneccessary to discount the guesswork.

And this is also a demonstration why these threads always fail: After some time, the same old arguments are repeated again and again.

I don't read twitter nor do i consider it a source, if you want it to be canon put it in the game

[dreman9999]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Up until this point, we were meant to believe that conventional victory would be possible, or atleast that we could win.

We are given the sense of "Our Cycle is Different." The Reapers' effectiveness at 'reaping' comes not from their firepower or military capabilities, it comes from their patience and uncanny tactical planning. In the previous cycles, the Reapers would pour through the citadel, killing the galaxy's leaders and gaining a plethora of vital information about life in the galaxy. Furthermore, they gain total control of the Mass Relays. In the previous cycles, the Reapers would shut down all the relays, only opening one at a time and systematically wiping out the respective local civilizations. This is what Sovereign meant when it said "We are legion. Our numbers will darken the skies of every world." Sovereign didn't mean this would happen simultaneously, rather to each planet individually. The Reapers' success is the result of swarming each planet one by one.

The Reapers have already lost this critical advantage. I'd like to know how they knew anything about this galaxy such as which planets were colonies, homeworlds, the location of Arcturus Station. In addition, with the destruction of Sovereign, the Turians developed Thanix weaponry and technology. This along with the Reaper tech that Shepard recovered from the derelict dreadnought and Collector Base, the Reapers are at a huge disadvantage.

Javik comments that the reason the Protheans lost was due to their hegemony, and even then, the Protheans came close to defeating the Reapers.

The reason why they know everything about use is because the collector have been getting this info onusfor centries. We unknowingly gave it to the enemy via giving the collector what ever they wanted.

The Collectors were a reclusive species that stuck to the Terminus systems. In their rare dealings with other species, they traded their technology for slaves/genetic samples. I don't think the Collectors would have been able to collect that much intel.

The collectors are prothean husk who are slaves to the reapers. People thought they were a reclusive species and traded with them info in ignorance. That still means giving the enemy all the info  about us being the collectors are tools for the reapers.

[Kamfrenchie]

dreman9999 wrote...

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

sth128 wrote...

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

When the ants are able to come up with a device that can kill the entire universe in a moment, then come back with this analogy.

When you realize that

a) Humans did not come up with the Crucible
The Crucible is not a conventional victory
c) The Crucible did not "kill the entire universe"
d) Understand the difference between "galaxy" and "universe"

then come back to this thread.

Listen,

Ants, with ALL their might, with ALL their combined unity, against a couple of humans with flamethrowers.

Not even a close fight. Stop making this ****** poor comparison. Ants are strictly melee, and anything other than that, humans can wear protection against any venom, it wouldnt even hit the range anyway.

So no. It is possible in ME3 for the galatic force to defeat several reapers when wokring togteher.

ANTS, have NO Chance.

Come back when you are done with this crappy analogy. Unless you can come up with a plan, of how ants, can defeat humans defending on full force with all their technolgy. Hell, flamethrowers and protection is enough.

Our fleet can't beat the reapers fleets in any type of fight.
They have the Oculus, 
http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Oculus , they make in swarms.
They have more ships the take harder blows then ours and kill ours in a single blow.
The reapers can just destory our fleets by sending endless swarms of Oculus at them and that would be it.

To all of you who support the ideathat reapersand their oculus ar unstoppable, please explain m how the crucible make it t the citadel then ?

Accordng to you, we areoutnummbered, outteched, get one shotted and whatnot.

But somehow we manage to make a breakthrough through reaper lines and sop them from detroyin the crucible ?

No way. This is space. Not the middle age. ou ca't protect that evice by surrounding it with ships, it dosn't work. THere is no cover in space either.

Crucibl victory makes no sense if reapers are that strong

[Conniving_Eagle]

I wish we could have some other voices chime in right now. This thread has been kept alive by a grand total of about 5 people.

BTW, anti-victory people, did you actually like the current ending?

[flanny]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dreman, do you honestly expect me to believe what the Catalyst says? The ending shouldn't be counted considering it derails from the rest of the series. Do you know what else the Catalyst says? That I would die if I chose Destroy. The Catalyst telling you that you are outnumbered and cannot win is Hudson/Walters forcing you to go with their artistic ending if you want to win and actually complete the game. According the Bioware, there is no canon ending, and they want everyone to interpret their own version *cough cough bad writing cough cough laziness*. IT is still valid. So let's try not to bring something that is entirely open to the player's imagination into evidence.

In the end, conventional victory would have been possible, but it is clear that there was a conflict between the writers, and only two of them wrote the ending.

Yes.  Pick refuse and see what happens. He say the reaper have way more ships then you do. aND THEN WHEN TO Let the fight out is refuse, guess what...You LOSE.  The reapers told you they have more ships then you dod in ME1. iN me3 your never given a number of the ships but it's know they have more ships then we do. Before the last battle on earth you see the starmap covered with reapers.
You belief ,as the starchild says, is not required. The reaper are going to steam rolly no matter what you beleive. What you beliveis not fact. Cnventional victory is not possible. That is that.

that's because the endings are badly written and because of the nature as a contrivance and their conflict with past lore they cannot be used as good lore. besides the refuse ending was only put in their to get back at fans so you can hardly rely on it

The new ending is nto badly written. No having a convetion victory does n't make a story bad. Lothr and DA:O both are examples of plots ending with unconventional endings. It doesn't conflict with any past lore. From the start of ME, the reapers are show to bea highly  power full force that takes a unconvetional way to beat them. We had to stun sovergin in ME1 to kill him. Really, why is an unconvetional victory bad now when are first victory was unconvetional.

yes it does, also i'd say both DA:O and LotR are pretty convential, slaying a dragon is as conventional as storys get and the ring was only able to reach the mount doom through conventional battles, also both told you about the ending from the very beginning so even if you insist they're unconvventional you would still be unable to make a comparision. 

Also everything in ME1 and ME2 lead us to believe we can win conventially, also i'm not saying a 
unconvventional victory is bad, I'm simply saying that a conventional victory is possible

Unconventional does not mean relying upon magical superweapons etc.

no it doesn't magic forms the basis for most fantasy games and as such are conventional in that universe.

Within the mass effect universe...

yes but the guy said DA:O and LotR, these are fantasy genres 

[dreman9999]

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

[

flanny wrote...


agian opinion not fact, i'd say based on everthing i've seen and read we outnumber the reaper and after the sol battle even if we lose we'd recover faster

I'm sorry, but this is bull****. 
The Reapers have had over a billion years to be building 1 capitiol ship a cycle and turning all the others into destroyers. If we take the billion years and 1 per cycle without losing a ship, they hve 20,000 Sovereign class ships alone. Ok, so they probably don't always make 1 per cycle, say they only make 1 every 3 thats still 7000 ships, I'd say usually they don't lose many ships (due to cuting of system etc) but they still lose some, that's gonna put the number around 2000-5000 capitol ships

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

 

I'm using what the game tells me.

You're saying that the Protheans almost wiped out the repears, whereas Vigil tells me that they were Obliterated by the Reapers

and yet again you're making things up that i said to try and win an argument... I know what i typed, i typed it.

to clarify i'm saying a few are made each cycle some are lost each cycle... some cycles they'll gain ships others they will lose ships there is simply no way of knowing

But it's not a significat ammout. It still is shown that the reapers have way more ships then we do.

[flanny]

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

[

flanny wrote...


agian opinion not fact, i'd say based on everthing i've seen and read we outnumber the reaper and after the sol battle even if we lose we'd recover faster

I'm sorry, but this is bull****. 
The Reapers have had over a billion years to be building 1 capitiol ship a cycle and turning all the others into destroyers. If we take the billion years and 1 per cycle without losing a ship, they hve 20,000 Sovereign class ships alone. Ok, so they probably don't always make 1 per cycle, say they only make 1 every 3 thats still 7000 ships, I'd say usually they don't lose many ships (due to cuting of system etc) but they still lose some, that's gonna put the number around 2000-5000 capitol ships

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

 

I'm using what the game tells me.

You're saying that the Protheans almost wiped out the repears, whereas Vigil tells me that they were Obliterated by the Reapers

and yet again you're making things up that i said to try and win an argument... I know what i typed, i typed it.

to clarify i'm saying a few are made each cycle some are lost each cycle... some cycles they'll gain ships others they will lose ships there is simply no way of knowing

But it's not a significat ammout. It still is shown that the reapers have way more ships then we do.

where? 

[F4H bandicoot]

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I wish we could have some other voices chime in right now. This thread has been kept alive by a grand total of about 5 people.

BTW, anti-victory people, did you actually like the current ending?

No, it was rubbish. and unconventional warfare doesn't mean we have to rely on the crucible, it just means we have to think outside the box, sacrifice our planets, think like the reapers etc. Thhe way the war player out completely benefited the Reapers.


@Flanny, apologies, it was eagle that wrote about how the protheans almost won.

Modifié par F4H bandicoot, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:54 .

[RadioKon]

sth128 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

That's a very poor analogy.

No it's a perfect analogy. It takes a bunch of ants to defeat one human. Humans are far more superior than ants. A human can travel a large distance in a short time compare to ants.

Humans collect ants and indoctrinate them into thinking the glass ant farm is their home. Humans are beyond the ant's comprehension. In most daily situations, humans are the vanguard of their end (via finger, shoes, or Raid).

Also, from time to time, an ant would escape a massacre only to find himself standing before a human child who proceeds to taunt the ant with a device that focuses tremendous amounts of energy (ie. sunlight) into a beam (ie. Synthesis).


Seriously, ants vs. humans is the best possible analogy for the Reaper conflict.

Ants don't have human-sized ships with which to punch us in the face.

[dreman9999]

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

Dreman, do you honestly expect me to believe what the Catalyst says? The ending shouldn't be counted considering it derails from the rest of the series. Do you know what else the Catalyst says? That I would die if I chose Destroy. The Catalyst telling you that you are outnumbered and cannot win is Hudson/Walters forcing you to go with their artistic ending if you want to win and actually complete the game. According the Bioware, there is no canon ending, and they want everyone to interpret their own version *cough cough bad writing cough cough laziness*. IT is still valid. So let's try not to bring something that is entirely open to the player's imagination into evidence.

In the end, conventional victory would have been possible, but it is clear that there was a conflict between the writers, and only two of them wrote the ending.

Yes.  Pick refuse and see what happens. He say the reaper have way more ships then you do. aND THEN WHEN TO Let the fight out is refuse, guess what...You LOSE.  The reapers told you they have more ships then you dod in ME1. iN me3 your never given a number of the ships but it's know they have more ships then we do. Before the last battle on earth you see the starmap covered with reapers.
You belief ,as the starchild says, is not required. The reaper are going to steam rolly no matter what you beleive. What you beliveis not fact. Cnventional victory is not possible. That is that.

that's because the endings are badly written and because of the nature as a contrivance and their conflict with past lore they cannot be used as good lore. besides the refuse ending was only put in their to get back at fans so you can hardly rely on it

The new ending is nto badly written. No having a convetion victory does n't make a story bad. Lothr and DA:O both are examples of plots ending with unconventional endings. It doesn't conflict with any past lore. From the start of ME, the reapers are show to bea highly  power full force that takes a unconvetional way to beat them. We had to stun sovergin in ME1 to kill him. Really, why is an unconvetional victory bad now when are first victory was unconvetional.

yes it does, also i'd say both DA:O and LotR are pretty convential, slaying a dragon is as conventional as storys get and the ring was only able to reach the mount doom through conventional battles, also both told you about the ending from the very beginning so even if you insist they're unconvventional you would still be unable to make a comparision. 

Also everything in ME1 and ME2 lead us to believe we can win conventially, also i'm not saying a 
unconvventional victory is bad, I'm simply saying that a conventional victory is possible

Unconventional does not mean relying upon magical superweapons etc.

no it doesn't magic forms the basis for most fantasy games and as such are conventional in that universe.

Within the mass effect universe...

yes but the guy said DA:O and LotR, these are fantasy genres 

I said ME1's victory is unconvetional as wellbeing that we had to stun Harbinger to kill him.

[DecCylonus]

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

I say thats just poor writing. It would have been IMMENSLY satisfying, if the first act allowed us to choose our tactics for the end game, instead of

"SHEPARD I'M SORRY BUT WE CANT WIN DERP"

nonsense, you telling me no one tried tactics over numbers? The fact that the reapers, were thought as gods, but as we clearly see we can defeat them, means that there is still a chance to win.Add to the fact that our cycle was prepeared, and diverse, means that we stand a better chance than any other.

To introduce a plot device, ALA crucible just because "Conventional Victory" isnt possible, is just insanely bad and contrived writing. Why not let us choose our rules of engagement? Hell, everytime we face a reaper, we win, sure you can argue that they have immense numbers, but like theprotheans, they lack divrersity, and their tactics can be easily out smarted. The fact that the destroy ending is just destroying all synthetics, means that its just as feasible to have a device to disabled all synthetics within an area.

SO no one thought of that? Sure, just trust some random plot device because "Conventional" victory isnt possible. I'm sorry, but a deux ex machina is as conventional as you can get in generic bad writing.

Check out the latest issue of Marauder Shields, it really is the ending most of us wanted, and stays thematically true to the Mass Effect series.

http://koobismo.devi...ffect-317007892

What tactics? We saw in the first game that it takes two large fleets to defeat one Reaper dreadnought, and those fleets take massive losses in the battle. Advances in technology between ME1 and ME3, like the Thannix Cannon, were helpful, but still required overwhelming numbers to defeat one Reaper. Even if the Reapers were stupid enough to continue to allow single engagements with allied fleets, the galactic races did not have enough ships to win that war of attrition. It was set up from ME1 that victory would require an unconventional means. If that is bad writing, then Mass Effect was badly written from the first game.

Personally I liked a story where it took more than a battered old freighter, a handful of X Wings, and a bunch of teddy bears to defeat a galactic superpower.

Modifié par DecCylonus, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:56 .

[flanny]

F4H bandicoot wrote...

Conniving_Eagle wrote...

I wish we could have some other voices chime in right now. This thread has been kept alive by a grand total of about 5 people.

BTW, anti-victory people, did you actually like the current ending?

No, unconventional warfare doesn't mean we have to rely on the crucible, it just means we have to think outside the box, sacrifice our planets, think like the reapers etc. Thhe way the war player out completely benefited the Reapers.


@Flanny, apologies, it was eagle that wrote about how the protheans almost won.

ah

[dreman9999]

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

flanny wrote...

F4H bandicoot wrote...

[

flanny wrote...


agian opinion not fact, i'd say based on everthing i've seen and read we outnumber the reaper and after the sol battle even if we lose we'd recover faster

I'm sorry, but this is bull****. 
The Reapers have had over a billion years to be building 1 capitiol ship a cycle and turning all the others into destroyers. If we take the billion years and 1 per cycle without losing a ship, they hve 20,000 Sovereign class ships alone. Ok, so they probably don't always make 1 per cycle, say they only make 1 every 3 thats still 7000 ships, I'd say usually they don't lose many ships (due to cuting of system etc) but they still lose some, that's gonna put the number around 2000-5000 capitol ships

god i hate that argument, yes they make some new ones every cycle but they also loose sum every cycle, you are making an assumption you are not using facts.

 

I'm using what the game tells me.

You're saying that the Protheans almost wiped out the repears, whereas Vigil tells me that they were Obliterated by the Reapers

and yet again you're making things up that i said to try and win an argument... I know what i typed, i typed it.

to clarify i'm saying a few are made each cycle some are lost each cycle... some cycles they'll gain ships others they will lose ships there is simply no way of knowing

But it's not a significat ammout. It still is shown that the reapers have way more ships then we do.

where? 

The entire mass effect plot...And the star child. We also have the scene in ME2 with the reapers coming out of dark space.The comments from sovergin. The statement of every mility leader we met in ME3. aND THE STAR MAP before the last battle on earth. Them have more ships then we do is a fact.

[flanny]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]I said ME1's victory is unconvetional as wellbeing that we had to stun Harbinger to kill him.
[/quote]

he was weakened but he still would have been destroyed in any case, the geth were still occupied with council, I consider that to be conventional. The only reason soveregn got as far as he did was becasue of the geth

Modifié par flanny, 26 juillet 2012 - 04:57 .

[F4H bandicoot]

You have no proof of that flanny,
And anyway, Reapers have occuli and Destroyers, similar to Geth ships, so saying the Geth made it possible is irrelevent in terms of a conventional victory.

[dreman9999]

Kamfrenchie wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

sth128 wrote...

StrawberryRainPop wrote...

When the ants are able to come up with a device that can kill the entire universe in a moment, then come back with this analogy.

When you realize that

a) Humans did not come up with the Crucible
The Crucible is not a conventional victory
c) The Crucible did not "kill the entire universe"
d) Understand the difference between "galaxy" and "universe"

then come back to this thread.

Listen,

Ants, with ALL their might, with ALL their combined unity, against a couple of humans with flamethrowers.

Not even a close fight. Stop making this ****** poor comparison. Ants are strictly melee, and anything other than that, humans can wear protection against any venom, it wouldnt even hit the range anyway.

So no. It is possible in ME3 for the galatic force to defeat several reapers when wokring togteher.

ANTS, have NO Chance.

Come back when you are done with this crappy analogy. Unless you can come up with a plan, of how ants, can defeat humans defending on full force with all their technolgy. Hell, flamethrowers and protection is enough.

Our fleet can't beat the reapers fleets in any type of fight.
They have the Oculus, 
http://masseffect.wi...com/wiki/Oculus , they make in swarms.
They have more ships the take harder blows then ours and kill ours in a single blow.
The reapers can just destory our fleets by sending endless swarms of Oculus at them and that would be it.

To all of you who support the ideathat reapersand their oculus ar unstoppable, please explain m how the crucible make it t the citadel then ?

Accordng to you, we areoutnummbered, outteched, get one shotted and whatnot.

But somehow we manage to make a breakthrough through reaper lines and sop them from detroyin the crucible ?

No way. This is space. Not the middle age. ou ca't protect that evice by surrounding it with ships, it dosn't work. THere is no cover in space either.

Crucibl victory makes no sense if reapers are that strong

Because the reapers /starchild let the crucible in.
Know whatthe reapers what and you'll understand. No matter what Shepard does, this will be the last cycle the reapers have a chance of winning and the reapers know it.

[Rovay]

Good Lord people! Stop making quote pyramids every second post!

[flanny]

dreman9999 wrote...

The entire mass effect plot...And the star child. We also have the scene in ME2 with the reapers coming out of dark space.The comments from sovergin. The statement of every mility leader we met in ME3. aND THE STAR MAP before the last battle on earth. Them have more ships then we do is a fact.

again where? in ME2 you see 10s of reapers, at no point in the plot of ME do they ever suggest the numbers are above 100s. as i've said the ME3 ending is so conflicting you can't rely on it. not sure what your talking about for the star map as that give no suggestion of numbers. though it does say the allied forces are winning, which kind of backs up the conventional victory idea

Modifié par flanny, 26 juillet 2012 - 05:02 .

[dreman9999]

[quote]flanny wrote...

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

[/quote]I said ME1's victory is unconvetional as wellbeing that we had to stun Harbinger to kill him.
[/quote]

he was weakened but he still would have been destroyed in any case, the geth were still occupied with council, I consider that to be conventional. The only reason soveregn got as far as he did was becasue of the geth

[/quote]
How? The only reson we killed him wasbecausehew was stunned. If we did not kill him he would of escaped and trie again with more numbers.
The end of me1 was not conventional.

[dreman9999]

flanny wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

The entire mass effect plot...And the star child. We also have the scene in ME2 with the reapers coming out of dark space.The comments from sovergin. The statement of every mility leader we met in ME3. aND THE STAR MAP before the last battle on earth. Them have more ships then we do is a fact.

again where? in ME2 you see 10s of reapers, at no point in the plot of ME do they ever suggest the numbers are above 100s. as i've said the ME3 ending is so conflicting you can't rely on it. not sure what your talking about for the star map as that give no suggestion of numbers. though it does say the allied forces are winning, which kind of backs up the conventional victory idea

 
That is not 10 reapers. They clearly have maore ships then we do.

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 juillet 2012 - 05:05 .