317 réponses à ce sujet

[Han Shot First]

inversevideo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The only resource they consume are people, to create new Reapers. While torching worlds denies them the ability to produce those new Reapers, it also does more damage to the civilizations of the galaxy than it does the Reapers. Each world that gets annihilated would represent another steep loss in population, not to mention the loss of all the economic resources of that lost planet.

No. We disagree there. I'm not talking about propulsion. The Reapers harvest us. You are not damaging civilization, the Reapers have done that for you. You have not destroyed economic resources, if your system is lost, your population being slaughtered, converted to husk and goo, and you have no way to stop it, then the Reapers have already raped your planet. There is nothing left to save. No economy, no infrastructure, no populace. Everyone a husk or goo. Under those circumstances, I have no problem torching everything and collapsing the relay. Rather than engage in hope-against-hope type wishful thinking that the Reapers will spare some of your populace, and someday they will rebuild. Once the Reapers take a world, it is consumed.

Even so, that only denies them the ability to create new Reapers. It wouldn't destroy existing ones, and in a war of attrition the Reapers hold all the advantages. Even destroying a Mass Effect Relay wouldn't kill Reapers, as they are capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. The fastest particles being ejected by that explosion would be travelling at the speed of light, which the Reapers could easily outrun.

I destroy what I can. I see no point in lamenting about how unbeatable the enemy is and why I should just bend over and submit. If I have to go down, it will be fighting.

Using a superweapon to completely annihilate an enemy isn't an example of submission.

[AresKeith]

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

that fact that the relays blew up in endings pre-EC shows that Mac intended for it to be a Wasteland

The relays don't destroy the systems or Normandy's got no place to crash. So the relays blowing up proves nothing except the end of relay travel. . Which isn't great, but still leaves everybody with starships that are much, much better than TNG-era Star Trek ships. Edit: or maybe just about the same, depending on which Star Trek source you consult

Arrival literal shows us what happens when a Relay is damaged or destroyed, it does destroy a system or half of one. The Normandy scene was part of the reason people was calling the ending stupid because of that

[Zulufoxtrot]

Finn the Jakey wrote...

I like complaining about the endings as much as the next guy, but here's a question for CV'ers: What makes you think our cycle has a better chance than all the others in terms of beating the Reapers conventionally?

Several things:

1. This Cycle somehow maintained control of the Citadel. Why the Reapers didn't go for it straightaway is a seperate logical issue, but we have it , and that means we can coordinate and move the various fleets in our poessession, whereas in previous Cycles, the Reapers locked down the Mass Relay network and decapitated the leadership from the get go. This indicated that, even if they did not fear a loss by conventional means, they were at least open to the possiblity and acted to make sure it would not happen. You don't give an enemy the time or the chance to regroup and come at you, and you divide and conquer at will without having to worry about any forces they may possess as you can simply wait them out or overwhelm them with sheer numbers one by one without having to worry about them retreating or regrouping. This also happened in ME1, where Sovereign shut down the Relays, preventing the majority of the Citadel Fleet, which had been dispatched to secure the various Relays in Citadel Space, from bringing their fire to bear on him and his Geth Fleet. When the Relays were unlocked, the Alliance Fleets are the first to respond, as they had been warned by the Normandy to prepare, prior to the Relays being shut off. 

2. Access to Reaper Weapons. The remains of Sovereign, and the Thanix Cannon developed from them give us a huge advantage. Other cycles had destroyed Reapers yes, but these were more than likely during the Reaper Invasions, preventing them from researching any Reaper derelict in detail before they were wiped out. We got close to three years to study and implement this technology. While we still can't match the Reapers for Mass Effect Field Generation, or probably even equal them in terms of raw fire power, the Thanix still gives us an equalizer other Cycles did not have, and certainly improves the chances of a conventional victory. 

3. The Cycle was delayed. While the Council may not have done anything, others were doing something. For example it was TIM and Cerberus bringing you back to forestall Reaper intentions in the interim that also helped to delay the cycle further by preventing the Collectors from finishing the human reaper which would have replaced Sovereign as the Vanguard. And even though te Council didn't believe in the Reapers, it doesn't mean that things weren't changing. After The Battle of the Citadel, lessons learned from it would aid the Space Forces of the Citadel Powers in fighting the Reapers as they were applied, even if they don't believe in Reapers, they apparently believe in massive Geth Dreadnoughts, and want to counter that. There's also a recruitment drive on the part of the Alliance, and although it slackens off, it undoubtedly puts them in a better position then they would have been otherwise. 

While you can argue that this still isn't enough to stop the Reapers by conventional means, I'd say it gives us a better chance than previous cycles in terms of dragging the organized resistance phase of the war out, 

Modifié par Zulufoxtrot, 25 août 2012 - 06:35 .

[3DandBeyond]

AlanC9 wrote...

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The entire purpose of Arrival was to demonstrate what happens when a mass relay is destroyed to set up the original ending so when Mac destroyed the relays: "It's a wasteland."

Really? If (pre-EC) Bio really meant us to think that the relays destroyed every system with a relay, where did you figure the Normandy crashed?

And are you actually saying you believed that was what happened pre-EC? Nobody's been admitting that lately.

AlanC9,
We went over this in another thread and I even posted the link at your request to the video of Mac Walters saying-in Feb that's what it meant.  He said there would be no post ending DLC because it would be a wasteland and no one would want to play there.  He very likely did create the Arrival to show just why that would happen as stated.  And in the Final Hours app, they showed their flowchart stating the crucible caused a galactic dark ages.  And they also had a codex in the game, Desperate Measures that said merely the rupture of a relay would ruin all terrestrial worlds within a system.  So, good luck finding food.

Apparently you ignored the video so I will not post the link again here for you.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 25 août 2012 - 06:44 .

[inversevideo]

Han Shot First wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

The only resource they consume are people, to create new Reapers. While torching worlds denies them the ability to produce those new Reapers, it also does more damage to the civilizations of the galaxy than it does the Reapers. Each world that gets annihilated would represent another steep loss in population, not to mention the loss of all the economic resources of that lost planet.

No. We disagree there. I'm not talking about propulsion. The Reapers harvest us. You are not damaging civilization, the Reapers have done that for you. You have not destroyed economic resources, if your system is lost, your population being slaughtered, converted to husk and goo, and you have no way to stop it, then the Reapers have already raped your planet. There is nothing left to save. No economy, no infrastructure, no populace. Everyone a husk or goo. Under those circumstances, I have no problem torching everything and collapsing the relay. Rather than engage in hope-against-hope type wishful thinking that the Reapers will spare some of your populace, and someday they will rebuild. Once the Reapers take a world, it is consumed.

Even so, that only denies them the ability to create new Reapers. It wouldn't destroy existing ones, and in a war of attrition the Reapers hold all the advantages. Even destroying a Mass Effect Relay wouldn't kill Reapers, as they are capable of travelling faster than the speed of light. The fastest particles being ejected by that explosion would be travelling at the speed of light, which the Reapers could easily outrun.

I destroy what I can. I see no point in lamenting about how unbeatable the enemy is and why I should just bend over and submit. If I have to go down, it will be fighting.

Using a superweapon to completely annihilate an enemy isn't an example of submission.

The problem is you have no super WMD. You have the plans for an ancient dark energy device, you barely understand, and you have moved Immediately to prepping for a 'hail Mary', all your hopes in one basket.
Which seems like a step above capitulation. You got nothing. A hope, a prayer, and a device you barely comprehend. Seems like there ought to be a plan-B, for, you know, the possibility the thing blows up in your face. Of course, I guess that could be an opportunity to get away from it all.

[3DandBeyond]

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

that fact that the relays blew up in endings pre-EC shows that Mac intended for it to be a Wasteland

The relays don't destroy the systems or Normandy's got no place to crash. So the relays blowing up proves nothing except the end of relay travel. . Which isn't great, but still leaves everybody with starships that are much, much better than TNG-era Star Trek ships. Edit: or maybe just about the same, depending on which Star Trek source you consult

Arrival literal shows us what happens when a Relay is damaged or destroyed, it does destroy a system or half of one. The Normandy scene was part of the reason people was calling the ending stupid because of that

Exactly.  They began retconning it on twitter when people started wondering if they'd gone crazy showing relays destroyed and then the Normandy crash scene.

On a funny note, the planet the Normandy crashed on looks similar to the one for Jacob's loyalty mission-the one with the bad food that caused mental issues for the crew of the Hugo Gernsback orr whatever that ship's name was.  It's the only planet I could find that looks like it.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Aeia #### -- food caused mental issues. About 10-20 point IQ drops. Who knows what else. Probably killed you after 20 years.

[Zulufoxtrot]

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

that fact that the relays blew up in endings pre-EC shows that Mac intended for it to be a Wasteland

The relays don't destroy the systems or Normandy's got no place to crash. So the relays blowing up proves nothing except the end of relay travel. . Which isn't great, but still leaves everybody with starships that are much, much better than TNG-era Star Trek ships. Edit: or maybe just about the same, depending on which Star Trek source you consult

Arrival literal shows us what happens when a Relay is damaged or destroyed, it does destroy a system or half of one. The Normandy scene was part of the reason people was calling the ending stupid because of that

Exactly.  They began retconning it on twitter when people started wondering if they'd gone crazy showing relays destroyed and then the Normandy crash scene.

On a funny note, the planet the Normandy crashed on looks similar to the one for Jacob's loyalty mission-the one with the bad food that caused mental issues for the crew of the Hugo Gernsback orr whatever that ship's name was.  It's the only planet I could find that looks like it.

It could be Zorya, but if it's Aeia hilarity ensues. And yeah the Relays going boom was probably one of the worse aspects of the endings that they actually did fix, although you have to wonder why anyone would have allowed it to be taken in a direction that prevents post-endgame DLC. I mean this is EA we're talking about, the respone to ME3's ending in general has to be only time they've stood on the principal of artistic integrity over making a quick buck. But like Refusal, it flat out failed to evoke the emotional response I think they were going for (Shock and Awe) all it did was leave me incredibly pissed off. With the EC it just leaves me pissed off. The problem with not 'feeling' like the Reapers were impossible to defeat conventionally is matched by the other endings. I know Bioware likes to accuse the ending haters of just wanting a birght, sunshine, blue baby filled world, but I think most of us could live without that, if the endings had the bitter, grim, and dark tone they claim they have. They just fall flat, because you're still to busy going "WTF" over the Catalyst reveal/the sudden shift in theme to Organics VS Synthetics and even post EC they're still to short to really make me feel "Wow that's dark, Bioware, damn that's awesome". Now it's "Oh a slideshow...how quaint."  

[Star fury]

Probably lack of funding had an impact on all cut-scenes.

1) Invasion of Earth - one destroyed Alliance dreadnought and one fighter, all in-game cut-scenes. Almost no ground fighting. Pathetic.

2) Invasion of Palaven - it was okay. At least we saw space battle and Reapers' might. Ground fighting was executed very poor.

3) Invasion of Thessia - nothing in the space(While in codex is written that asari fought most succesfully against Reapsers amongst all). Ground fighting was good and atmosphere of hopelessness was perfect in the end.

4) Final battle - beginning is perfect(it reminded me of Babylon 5), but showing of battle was stopped in the most interesting place. Ground battle was more or less okay, especially fighting of all races against destroyer. But I didn't understand, why they didn't use Thanix missiles?

And now compare it with battle of Citadel. It was much better executed and showed all interesting moments. From annihilation of Citadel fleet to arrival of Alliance and destruction of Sovereign.

Modifié par Star fury, 25 août 2012 - 10:06 .

[SnakeSNMF]

You prepare an armada that blackens skies itself, with species that can build much more ships with devestating implications if placed in the right hand and mind.

With species that don't have to sleep, and enough people to volunteer to arm ships, all you need is people with guns that are effective enough to distract the Reapers and cover fire for dreadnaughts. However, that's just one fight, and is semantics. :|


I dearly do want conventinal warfare ending, at least to have it an option. An impossible win. Use the resources of the Crucible to build new ships with thanix cannons and planetary-defense cannons and missles that would do it instead.
High EMS would result in heavy Reaper loss, low would result in an outright reaping that wasn't delayed due tot he fleets being lost, middle being the Reapers took some losses, but oevrall, overpowered the delaying.

High EMS for example could just be a war of time as oppsoed to anything else, deploying ships where it's right, and where it's not, avoiding them.

But again, semantics. I want a conventinal option. That's it.

[Rifneno]

I haven't read the whole thread, but wow, how do people still think conventional victory was ever even remotely possible? Let's do some math. The Leviathan of Dis was dated at "nearly a billion years old." The cycle is 50,000 years. That's 20,000 cycles. One of the writers said that the Reapers typically do not lose a single capital ship in a cycle. So let's assume they lose one 50% of the time. That gives us a Reaper fleet of 10,000 capital ships. Ten thousand. It takes three to four dreadnoughts to bring down a single one. How many dreadnoughts do we have? I think I remember reading somewhere that all the organic races combined have about 200. But wait, we're not done! Destroyers are said to make up the bulk of the Reaper fleet. How the hell many are there of THOSE? The damn things must number in the hundreds of thousands!

The odds were too overwhelming. I'm not saying space magic was the answer. I'm a big proponent of the FTL kamakazi plan personally. But there was absolutely zero chance of going toe to toe with the Reapers and not being utterly slaughtered. Their forces are so vastly superior it's a joke.

People will quote real life wars where the little guy won, like USA vs. Vietnam or the USSR vs. Afghanistan. Those aren't valid comparisons. This is more like a few hundred cavemen vs. the entire US army. Moreover, the goal of the war makes a difference. Vietnam and Afghanistan had only to make the superior military occupying decide it wasn't worth it and to leave. Occupation is much harder than annihilation. The Reapers aren't just trying to rule us, they're trying to end us. And they aren't going to decide this isn't worth it and pack up and leave. If they decide it isn't worth it to harvest us, they're just going to start hitting all populated areas with megaton or gigaton level blasts. That's not a victory for us.

[Krunjar]

Look guys I appreciate the desire to blow the reapers up into tiny bits but let's face it this is already a redundant question. The writers chose the way it would go and that's how it is to change something this fundamental now would require a re write of half of Me3 and that aint gonna happen.

[inversevideo]

Zulufoxtrot wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

that fact that the relays blew up in endings pre-EC shows that Mac intended for it to be a Wasteland

The relays don't destroy the systems or Normandy's got no place to crash. So the relays blowing up proves nothing except the end of relay travel. . Which isn't great, but still leaves everybody with starships that are much, much better than TNG-era Star Trek ships. Edit: or maybe just about the same, depending on which Star Trek source you consult

Arrival literal shows us what happens when a Relay is damaged or destroyed, it does destroy a system or half of one. The Normandy scene was part of the reason people was calling the ending stupid because of that

Exactly.  They began retconning it on twitter when people started wondering if they'd gone crazy showing relays destroyed and then the Normandy crash scene.

On a funny note, the planet the Normandy crashed on looks similar to the one for Jacob's loyalty mission-the one with the bad food that caused mental issues for the crew of the Hugo Gernsback orr whatever that ship's name was.  It's the only planet I could find that looks like it.

It could be Zorya, but if it's Aeia hilarity ensues. And yeah the Relays going boom was probably one of the worse aspects of the endings that they actually did fix, although you have to wonder why anyone would have allowed it to be taken in a direction that prevents post-endgame DLC. I mean this is EA we're talking about, the respone to ME3's ending in general has to be only time they've stood on the principal of artistic integrity over making a quick buck. But like Refusal, it flat out failed to evoke the emotional response I think they were going for (Shock and Awe) all it did was leave me incredibly pissed off. With the EC it just leaves me pissed off. The problem with not 'feeling' like the Reapers were impossible to defeat conventionally is matched by the other endings. I know Bioware likes to accuse the ending haters of just wanting a birght, sunshine, blue baby filled world, but I think most of us could live without that, if the endings had the bitter, grim, and dark tone they claim they have. They just fall flat, because you're still to busy going "WTF" over the Catalyst reveal/the sudden shift in theme to Organics VS Synthetics and even post EC they're still to short to really make me feel "Wow that's dark, Bioware, damn that's awesome". Now it's "Oh a slideshow...how quaint."  

This. Instead of 'shock and awe' you are torn completely out of the story, dropped into some other story, and left feeling like WTF just happened! I'm not ashamed to say I wanted my 'blue baby'/happy ending, but I would have been fine with 'grim dark', if Shepard went out in a way that made sense, and within the same story I had been playing for several years. The ending should not make me avoid replay. The ending should setup the next 'post Shepard' arc, or at the very least not slam the door on future stories shut.

[inversevideo]

SnakeSNMF wrote...

You prepare an armada that blackens skies itself, with species that can build much more ships with devestating implications if placed in the right hand and mind.

With species that don't have to sleep, and enough people to volunteer to arm ships, all you need is people with guns that are effective enough to distract the Reapers and cover fire for dreadnaughts. However, that's just one fight, and is semantics. :|


I dearly do want conventinal warfare ending, at least to have it an option. An impossible win. Use the resources of the Crucible to build new ships with thanix cannons and planetary-defense cannons and missles that would do it instead.
High EMS would result in heavy Reaper loss, low would result in an outright reaping that wasn't delayed due tot he fleets being lost, middle being the Reapers took some losses, but oevrall, overpowered the delaying.

High EMS for example could just be a war of time as oppsoed to anything else, deploying ships where it's right, and where it's not, avoiding them.

But again, semantics. I want a conventinal option. That's it.

The problem is a we can't win by going toe-to-toe with the Reapers.  My issue with Bioware, on this, is that too much was left to head-canon.  We were shown an impossibly large Reaper fleet, at the end of ME2.
We certainly took heavy losses against Sovereign, in the battle for the Citadel. It took many ships to take down one Reaper.  So taking on the Reaper fleet head-on would be suicide. 

But we should have seen why we needed to build the crucible. As I said earlier, I would have bombarded Reaper installations with asteroids, and collapsed a relay or two. We should have seen something like that in-game, as well as have it shown why that would not work.  Think about most of your sci-fi invasion scenarios, The original H.G. Wells  'War of the Worlds' or 'Independence Day', we fight a conventional war, and use the biggest 'boom stick' we can find, and we see it is not enough.  Audience has to understand what they are up against. They are not left to head-canon why it will not work.  Instead, we get conversation about Reapers wiping out platoons, or dropping asteroids on Beckenstein.  No lie, talk to Allers, she will tell you Beckenstein was a peacful world that only made binoculars (I guess as a reporter she never met Donovan Hock), and that the Reapers did not land, they simply destroyed the colony from orbit with asteroids.   I know this story was supposed to drive home the overwhelming superiority of the Reapers, but I found it just stupid.  The Reapers wipe out Beckenstein, with asteroids, never land, no harvesting, no converting the population for husks, and leave.  And as far as I know the only way to get to Beckenstein is via the Mass Relay that leads to the Citidel. So the Reapers ignore the Citidel for Beckenstein?

We really needed to see some big sacrifices to stop the Reapers including the destruction of a Relay, and have it rubbed into our face that it would not work.  But since it was not shown, that it would not work, then it remains a possibility.  Like not using an A-Bomb in 'Independence Day' and having the audience muse 'why did the president not just order a nuclear strike? How does he know that will not work?'

Which brings us to the Crucible. If you are going to have us spend the entire game getting resources for the 23rd century's version of the 'Manhattan Project' , then do not rob us of the payoff at the last moment, particularly by introducing an element out of nowhere, that contradicts previous lore.

Sorry if I went a bit off topic, I guess I am still butt-hurt.

Modifié par inversevideo, 25 août 2012 - 02:24 .

[3DandBeyond]

Zulufoxtrot wrote...

It could be Zorya, but if it's Aeia hilarity ensues. And yeah the Relays going boom was probably one of the worse aspects of the endings that they actually did fix, although you have to wonder why anyone would have allowed it to be taken in a direction that prevents post-endgame DLC. I mean this is EA we're talking about, the respone to ME3's ending in general has to be only time they've stood on the principal of artistic integrity over making a quick buck. But like Refusal, it flat out failed to evoke the emotional response I think they were going for (Shock and Awe) all it did was leave me incredibly pissed off. With the EC it just leaves me pissed off. The problem with not 'feeling' like the Reapers were impossible to defeat conventionally is matched by the other endings. I know Bioware likes to accuse the ending haters of just wanting a birght, sunshine, blue baby filled world, but I think most of us could live without that, if the endings had the bitter, grim, and dark tone they claim they have. They just fall flat, because you're still to busy going "WTF" over the Catalyst reveal/the sudden shift in theme to Organics VS Synthetics and even post EC they're still to short to really make me feel "Wow that's dark, Bioware, damn that's awesome". Now it's "Oh a slideshow...how quaint."  

Here's Aeia:


And here's the jungle planet:




I can't find a good picture of Zorya though to compare.

Modifié par 3DandBeyond, 25 août 2012 - 05:53 .

[Zulufoxtrot]

Zorya's got the same general jungle look to it, but that comparison is..wow it really does match up pretty close.

[NS Wizdum]

I agree with the OP 100%. Compare Mass Effect 3 to something like Falling Skies. In Falling Skies, the military is pretty much wiped out. The resistance is made up of less than 1000 people, with about 1/4 of those having any military experience at all. Just walking down the road is a risk.

In Mass Effect 3, not only are we still in contact with multiple military leaders, but also our council and civilian leaders. The council members remain comfortable in their offices, with all their staff, happily pushing papers while the reapers do their thing. Shepard is so unconcerned by the reapers, that he/she even has time to do people's shopping for them FFS.

[wisekill1]

I think it is possible to defeat the reapers, and I will give you a example.


http://images.wikia....uarianFleet.png

Take a look at that ship and tell me how a reapers suvives a ramming attempt by that, it doesn't even have to travel at FTL.
We allready saw a worm crushing a Reaper, I think a big ship will do just fine.

I'm not sure if it's a dreadnought or a cruiser but I do know the quarians have a lot of them.


Now, another tactic for killing reapers:

step 1: Get a fleet in a random star system
step 2: Go there with Normandy and scan
step 3: A few destroyer class reapers check it out
step 4: use guns
step 5: use some more guns
step 6:???
step 7: GTFO before more reapers come
step 8: repeat from step 1

Modifié par wisekill1, 25 août 2012 - 08:10 .

[wisekill1]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Zulufoxtrot wrote...

It could be Zorya, but if it's Aeia hilarity ensues. And yeah the Relays going boom was probably one of the worse aspects of the endings that they actually did fix, although you have to wonder why anyone would have allowed it to be taken in a direction that prevents post-endgame DLC. I mean this is EA we're talking about, the respone to ME3's ending in general has to be only time they've stood on the principal of artistic integrity over making a quick buck. But like Refusal, it flat out failed to evoke the emotional response I think they were going for (Shock and Awe) all it did was leave me incredibly pissed off. With the EC it just leaves me pissed off. The problem with not 'feeling' like the Reapers were impossible to defeat conventionally is matched by the other endings. I know Bioware likes to accuse the ending haters of just wanting a birght, sunshine, blue baby filled world, but I think most of us could live without that, if the endings had the bitter, grim, and dark tone they claim they have. They just fall flat, because you're still to busy going "WTF" over the Catalyst reveal/the sudden shift in theme to Organics VS Synthetics and even post EC they're still to short to really make me feel "Wow that's dark, Bioware, damn that's awesome". Now it's "Oh a slideshow...how quaint."  

Here's Aeia:


And here's the jungle planet:




I can't find a good picture of Zorya though to compare.

Even the planet and moon seems to be right.
Does anybody know the distance between earth and Aeia ?

[Zulufoxtrot]

I think it's pretty far, Aeia's deep in Terminus on the otherside if I remember right, but given the massive energy wave, I have a feeling the Normandy might be lucky it's still in the Galaxy at that point.

[AlanC9]

AresKeith wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

AresKeith wrote...

that fact that the relays blew up in endings pre-EC shows that Mac intended for it to be a Wasteland

The relays don't destroy the systems or Normandy's got no place to crash. So the relays blowing up proves nothing except the end of relay travel. . Which isn't great, but still leaves everybody with starships that are much, much better than TNG-era Star Trek ships. Edit: or maybe just about the same, depending on which Star Trek source you consult

Arrival literal shows us what happens when a Relay is damaged or destroyed, it does destroy a system or half of one. The Normandy scene was part of the reason people was calling the ending stupid because of that

I agree there was stupidity going on.

Arrival shows what happens when you slam an asteroid into one.But that simply isn't what happened at the end of ME3. At the end of ME3 the energy in the relays is tapped to do work.

If you can control the energy released from a relay precisely enough to destroy just synthetic life while leaving organics intact, or reprogram all Reapers, or fundamentally alter all intelligent life in the galaxy, venting the remaining energy away from the inhabited systems isn't exactly unimaginable.

[wisekill1]

Zulufoxtrot wrote...

I think it's pretty far, Aeia's deep in Terminus on the otherside if I remember right, but given the massive energy wave, I have a feeling the Normandy might be lucky it's still in the Galaxy at that point.

But.. when you look at the cinematics of relays blowing up the energy wave stops pretty quickly and is just picked by the next relay.

I'll just add this one to my list of plotholes....

[Fixers0]

AlanC9 wrote...

I agree there was stupidity going on.

Arrival shows what happens when you slam an asteroid into one.But that simply isn't what happened at the end of ME3. At the end of ME3 the energy in the relays is tapped to do work.

If you can control the energy released from a relay precisely enough to destroy just synthetic life while leaving organics intact, or reprogram all Reapers, or fundamentally alter all intelligent life in the galaxy, venting the remaining energy away from the inhabited systems isn't exactly unimaginable.

Arrival: Relay destroyed = System totally wiped out.
Mass Effect 3's ending: Relay destroyed:  System not wiped out.

this is as far as exposition on the subject goes, everything mentioned in your third paragraph can be labbeled as supposition, as is the fact that the systems is wiped out is because of slamming an asteroid into the relay. 

[AlanC9]

inversevideo wrote...
But we should have seen why we needed to build the crucible. As I said earlier, I would have bombarded Reaper installations with asteroids, and collapsed a relay or two. We should have seen something like that in-game, as well as have it shown why that would not work.  Think about most of your sci-fi invasion scenarios, The original H.G. Wells  'War of the Worlds' or 'Independence Day', we fight a conventional war, and use the biggest 'boom stick' we can find, and we see it is not enough.  Audience has to understand what they are up against. They are not left to head-canon why it will not work.

Of course, we do see Earth's defenses blown to shreds in the opening scenes, and we see the turians getting pounded at Palaven. So it's not like the game doesn't have any of this stuff. 

I'm not quite sure how ihis would work. We spend, say, 1/3 of the game being defeated, and then get going on the Crucible? And are we talking about adding this material, so it's now a 40- 50 hour game?

The closest parallel to ME3's situation that I can think of in gaming is Wing Commander 3 -- also about a space war that's being lost conventionally and needs to be won with a super-weapon (or two). In that game we don't actually see much of the war being lost. We do see the wreck of the Concordia in the opening scenes, and Angel's covert mission didn't go too well, but after those scenes Blair's own part of the war can go quite well if the player wins his missions. You only find out that the war in general is being lost from Rollins' radio intercepts, and later on when Admiral Tolwyn explains why they're deploying the Behemoth before it's completed.

That worked fine for me. Anyone else remember that game, or am I just dating myself?

Modifié par AlanC9, 25 août 2012 - 08:46 .

[AlanC9]

Fixers0 wrote...

Arrival: Relay destroyed = System totally wiped out.
Mass Effect 3's ending: Relay destroyed:  System not wiped out.

this is as far as exposition on the subject goes, everything mentioned in your third paragraph can be labbeled as supposition, as is the fact that the systems is wiped out is because of slamming an asteroid into the relay. 

The thing is, the only two planets we see after the relays blow up are not wiped out. The Citadel is a relay itself, and it doesn't destroy Earth when it blows  -- unless you want to assume that it explodes twice, once before the cutscene and an unseen explosion after the cutscene. I can't prove that didn't happen.. The jungle planet is not destroyed either. You can either add even more space magic to make those two planets special somehow while everything else gets blown up, or assume that the Crucible does the things it's shown doing and doesn't do things that it isn't shown doing.