304 réponses à ce sujet

[Meltemph]

Your entire post sounds less like conventional victory and more like "an kind of unconventional victory that doesnt require the catalyst/crucible or an I WIN button". Which honestly, makes a lot of sense, the i win button crucible kind of takes teh heart out of the ME setting, imo.

But ya, when you say conventional and then a large amount of our war assets are anything but conventional, I think what you mean is NOT the crucible.

[N7 Spectre525]

Cheesesack wrote...

Also, people keep saying "How can we hope to achieve conventional victory when none of the other cycles in all this time did? This proves that it's impossible." Guess what, none of the other cycles managed to complete the Crucible and set it off either, and it's implied that every cycle has attempted it in some way (or at least, many of the more recent cycles). The whole point of ME is that this cycle if different; we're the ones that finally break the chain. If that wasn't the case, the game would just show us failing no matter what and be utterly pointless.

If we can achieve what no other cycle could; build and successfully deploy the Crucible, then why is it so unbelievable that we could also do what no other cycle could and win the fight? After all, we have many advantages over previous cycles.

We're also the first cycle with a united galaxy opposing the Reapers...thats never happened before.
The Reapers won in other cycles by trickery,deceit, and indroctrination. They snuck in the back door like ****es and took out communication networks and cut the races off from one another before anyone knew what hit them.
And then it takes hundreds of years to cull the galaxy. The Reapers have never faced the full might of the entire galaxy at once.
The Reapers are nothing but machines and machines can be broken.

[Cainne Chapel]

you mean a deus ex machina that was readily apparent was going to happen since ME1 Clennon?

yeah definately a derp moment

[Cainne Chapel]

thats also true N7

But they are big bad machines with the technological equivalent of us fighting tanks with guns

[Lord Goose]

In ME2, there
is a very clearly defined best ending, where everyone lives
and survives the so called 'sucide mission'. It's stated time
and again throughout the game that you aren't expectd to
return from beyond the relay, and that even if you do, you
should be prepared to suffer casualties. However, it is possible, through skill and exhaustively completing
everything the game has to offer, to achieve the impossible
and get everyone out alive. This is clearly the best ending,
yet does it invalidate all the others?

Yes, and no. Mass Effect 2 basically have two ending choices: save Collectors Base or destroy it. Survival of your squadmates depends on players effort in completing the game, but its not a choice.

[Lord Goose]

In ME2, there
is a very clearly defined best ending, where everyone lives
and survives the so called 'sucide mission'. It's stated time
and again throughout the game that you aren't expectd to
return from beyond the relay, and that even if you do, you
should be prepared to suffer casualties. However, it is possible, through skill and exhaustively completing
everything the game has to offer, to achieve the impossible
and get everyone out alive. This is clearly the best ending,
yet does it invalidate all the others?

Yes, and no. Mass Effect 2 basically have two ending choices: save Collectors Base or destroy it. Survival of your squadmates depends on players effort in completing the game, but its not a choice.

[saracen16]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

thats also true N7

But they are big bad machines with the technological equivalent of us fighting tanks with guns

Ideas are bulletproof, but Reapers have more than just bullets. And I agree with what you said earlier: a conventional victory is silly, to say the least, b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

[Fixers0]

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

Sacrifice was never a theme.

Modifié par Fixers0, 31 août 2012 - 04:51 .

[saracen16]

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

How so?

You do not simply beat a nigh-unstoppable enemy in conventional warfare... an enemy that survived and grew stronger over countless cycles... and expect a Pyrrhic Victory. Conventional warfare is exactly what all the cycles before have tried, and it's obvious that the end result was more Reapers. Even though this cycle is anomalous, it still developed along the paths of the technologies that the Reapers dictated: mass relays and Citade. To expect a conventional victory with pre-determined technology is like trying to break diamond with your bare hands: it just wasn't designed to happen. The only way to defeat the Reapers is on their own terms: with a superweapon and the Catalyst itself. That entails sacrifice and victory. Refusal means going down like every cycle did: fighting without winning.

[Hudathan]

You start out by saying that conventional victory does not equate beating the Reapers with brute force, but then you go right into talking about defeating the Reaper fleet at Earth and then winning over time with brute force. According to your plan, Bioware should release so many DLC's to buff the galaxy's fighting potential that at the very end of it all, ME3 becomes some kind of monstrosity where so much random stuff conveniently falls into place at the last minute that would have all the complaints about the Crucible being a Deus Ex Machina pale in comparison.

Modifié par Hudathan, 31 août 2012 - 04:59 .

[Fixers0]

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

How so?

You do not simply beat a nigh-unstoppable enemy in conventional warfare... an enemy that survived and grew stronger over countless cycles... and expect a Pyrrhic Victory. Conventional warfare is exactly what all the cycles before have tried, and it's obvious that the end result was more Reapers. Even though this cycle is anomalous, it still developed along the paths of the technologies that the Reapers dictated: mass relays and Citade. To expect a conventional victory with pre-determined technology is like trying to break diamond with your bare hands: it just wasn't designed to happen. The only way to defeat the Reapers is on their own terms: with a superweapon and the Catalyst itself. That entails sacrifice and victory. Refusal means going down like every cycle did: fighting without winning.

And what does sacrafice have to do with this?

[MerchantGOL]

No.

[saracen16]

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

How so?

You do not simply beat a nigh-unstoppable enemy in conventional warfare... an enemy that survived and grew stronger over countless cycles... and expect a Pyrrhic Victory. Conventional warfare is exactly what all the cycles before have tried, and it's obvious that the end result was more Reapers. Even though this cycle is anomalous, it still developed along the paths of the technologies that the Reapers dictated: mass relays and Citade. To expect a conventional victory with pre-determined technology is like trying to break diamond with your bare hands: it just wasn't designed to happen. The only way to defeat the Reapers is on their own terms: with a superweapon and the Catalyst itself. That entails sacrifice and victory. Refusal means going down like every cycle did: fighting without winning.

And what does sacrafice have to do with this?

A conventional victory renders sacrifice meaningless. There is no downside to any one choice. There is no loss of free will, loss of corpus, or loss of life. Using the Crucible means sacrificing pride for saving the most amount of lives. Refusing it as it stands now means sacrificing lives for your pride. A conventional victory renders this concept meaningless, and sacrifice has run through every core choice in Mass Effect: you might see no downside to a choice you have made in the previous games, but others do.

[Fixers0]

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

How so?

You do not simply beat a nigh-unstoppable enemy in conventional warfare... an enemy that survived and grew stronger over countless cycles... and expect a Pyrrhic Victory. Conventional warfare is exactly what all the cycles before have tried, and it's obvious that the end result was more Reapers. Even though this cycle is anomalous, it still developed along the paths of the technologies that the Reapers dictated: mass relays and Citade. To expect a conventional victory with pre-determined technology is like trying to break diamond with your bare hands: it just wasn't designed to happen. The only way to defeat the Reapers is on their own terms: with a superweapon and the Catalyst itself. That entails sacrifice and victory. Refusal means going down like every cycle did: fighting without winning.

And what does sacrafice have to do with this?

A conventional victory renders sacrifice meaningless. There is no downside to any one choice. There is no loss of free will, loss of corpus, or loss of life. Using the Crucible means sacrificing pride for saving the most amount of lives. Refusing it as it stands now means sacrificing lives for your pride. A conventional victory renders this concept meaningless, and sacrifice has run through every core choice in Mass Effect: you might see no downside to a choice you have made in the previous games, but others do.

Who says conventional victory doesn't require sacrifice?

[Hudathan]

I blame Mass Effect 2, and people's inability/refusal to understand that the might of the entire Reaper force dwarfs anything Shepard and co. has faced in the series and thus require unconventional solutions for victory to even be considered a possibility. Giving the galaxy conventional means to win comes at the cost of completely diminishing what makes this conflict so intriguing in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the Mass Effect series was not intended to be the misadventures of Shepard and friends while counting down to one big Reaper-killing party. I certainly didn't put in my 100 hours because I expected a simple outcome that I could write on a napkin. What people want is to have their cake and eat it too, except eating the cake in this case takes away everything special about the cake that made you want to eat it in the first place.

[FOX216BC]

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

saracen16 wrote...
b/c it takes Mass Effect's theme of sacrifice and throws it out the window.

How so?

You do not simply beat a nigh-unstoppable enemy in conventional warfare... an enemy that survived and grew stronger over countless cycles... and expect a Pyrrhic Victory. Conventional warfare is exactly what all the cycles before have tried, and it's obvious that the end result was more Reapers. Even though this cycle is anomalous, it still developed along the paths of the technologies that the Reapers dictated: mass relays and Citade. To expect a conventional victory with pre-determined technology is like trying to break diamond with your bare hands: it just wasn't designed to happen. The only way to defeat the Reapers is on their own terms: with a superweapon and the Catalyst itself. That entails sacrifice and victory. Refusal means going down like every cycle did: fighting without winning.

And what does sacrafice have to do with this?

A conventional victory renders sacrifice meaningless. There is no downside to any one choice. There is no loss of free will, loss of corpus, or loss of life. Using the Crucible means sacrificing pride for saving the most amount of lives. Refusing it as it stands now means sacrificing lives for your pride. A conventional victory renders this concept meaningless, and sacrifice has run through every core choice in Mass Effect: you might see no downside to a choice you have made in the previous games, but others do.

A conventional victory renders sacrifice meaningless? Not if it is only possible with a very high EMS.
The ME universe allready saw enough sacrifice even if you try to keep everyone alive.
Think of Thane, Legion and i don't want to break my promise to Wrexx so Then Mordin dies.
I liked both Kaiden and Ash and then Virmire happend.
Shepard had his share of sacrifice.
But now no matter what i choose i feel like i get a derailed storyline instead of a proper ending(s).
So the only thing that was sacrificed was ME3 chance to end a perfect trilogy.

Modifié par FOX216BC, 31 août 2012 - 05:25 .

[Cainne Chapel]

I agree Huda, I'm just more intrigued by how peopel THOUGHT we would win after the events of ME1 and then what amounted to exposition and side story in ME2.

Both games show you the lengths the reapers go to AND their nigh unstoppable power with what equates to TWO ships.

Now we're faced with untold number of ships with our petty armies and people somehow imagine we can beat reapers conventionally, and not only that, using weapons (outside of thanix cannons) based off of tech they WANTED us to have.

Superior fire power we just do NOT have. I mean heck Sovreign was trouncing ships left and right in ME1 even without the geth fleet.

Imagine the damage just 10 sovreigns could do given the chance, now throw in destroyers, husks, cannibals, whatever other things they had in ME2 and you got a recipe for a slow annihilation on our end,

[Cainne Chapel]

But Fox how is that so when technically shepard already died once? Its not like the man si IMMUNE to death, it was going to happen eventually, and what better way for the savior of the galaxy to go out? Than saving the galaxy at the cost of one more life out of million (if not billions dead) at this point?

Sure for us its bittersweet, we want o ur shepards to keep going, after all they ARE invincible, but just like with Thane, Mordin (sometimes), the VS and the SM squaddies, it was done for the greater good

[Conniving_Eagle]

www.youtube.com/watch

[ThaDPG]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I agree Huda, I'm just more intrigued by how peopel THOUGHT we would win after the events of ME1 and then what amounted to exposition and side story in ME2.

Both games show you the lengths the reapers go to AND their nigh unstoppable power with what equates to TWO ships.

Now we're faced with untold number of ships with our petty armies and people somehow imagine we can beat reapers conventionally, and not only that, using weapons (outside of thanix cannons) based off of tech they WANTED us to have.

Superior fire power we just do NOT have. I mean heck Sovreign was trouncing ships left and right in ME1 even without the geth fleet.

Imagine the damage just 10 sovreigns could do given the chance, now throw in destroyers, husks, cannibals, whatever other things they had in ME2 and you got a recipe for a slow annihilation on our end,

Sovreign also had the jump on everybody in ME 1, no one was prepared or very organized when he attacked.  Now everyone knows they're coming, and the reapers have never faced a united galaxy before, which includes organics AND synthetics.  I'm not saying this could be won in one battle, it could take decades, and I'm not saying there would be no losses at all, but with all the greatest military minds of every organic species, plus the leviathans onboard now, I would say conventional victory has at least a slim chance  of succeeding for this cycle

[saracen16]

Hudathan wrote...

I blame Mass Effect 2, and people's inability/refusal to understand that the might of the entire Reaper force dwarfs anything Shepard and co. has faced in the series and thus require unconventional solutions for victory to even be considered a possibility. Giving the galaxy conventional means to win comes at the cost of completely diminishing what makes this conflict so intriguing in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the Mass Effect series was not intended to be the misadventures of Shepard and friends while counting down to one big Reaper-killing party. I certainly didn't put in my 100 hours because I expected a simple outcome that I could write on a napkin. What people want is to have their cake and eat it too, except eating the cake in this case takes away everything special about the cake that made you want to eat it in the first place.

A point that flies by most people is that Shepard did not spend the ending of Mass Effect 2 celebrating. He spent it telling TIM that the Reapers are coming, and heads off to prepare for their arrival. He may have beat the odds and put the ghosts of the Protheans (except maybe Javik) to rest, but he knows that his victory was the calm before the storm more than anything else.

[N7 Spectre525]

Cainne Chapel wrote...

thats also true N7

But they are big bad machines with the technological equivalent of us fighting tanks with guns

Never said it would be easy.

[N7 Spectre525]

I swear if the Reapers invaded Earth tommorrow half the BSN would give up on the spot.
I was taught that every man and creature has a weakness that can be exploited. Nothing is invincible. So what..a few people in game lost their heart and started spouting this "we cant win through conventional means nonsense"...BULL****. Where is your fighting spirit? Shep went through and came back through the Omega 4 relay,something said to be impossible. I didn't buy this game to go out like a punk...RED,GREEN,BLUE...gimme a break.I bought it to take back Earth and kick some Reaper ass with my united fleet, but artistic integrity got in the way.

[Cainne Chapel]

ThaDPG wrote...

Cainne Chapel wrote...

I agree Huda, I'm just more intrigued by how peopel THOUGHT we would win after the events of ME1 and then what amounted to exposition and side story in ME2.

Both games show you the lengths the reapers go to AND their nigh unstoppable power with what equates to TWO ships.

Now we're faced with untold number of ships with our petty armies and people somehow imagine we can beat reapers conventionally, and not only that, using weapons (outside of thanix cannons) based off of tech they WANTED us to have.

Superior fire power we just do NOT have. I mean heck Sovreign was trouncing ships left and right in ME1 even without the geth fleet.

Imagine the damage just 10 sovreigns could do given the chance, now throw in destroyers, husks, cannibals, whatever other things they had in ME2 and you got a recipe for a slow annihilation on our end,

Sovreign also had the jump on everybody in ME 1, no one was prepared or very organized when he attacked.  Now everyone knows they're coming, and the reapers have never faced a united galaxy before, which includes organics AND synthetics.  I'm not saying this could be won in one battle, it could take decades, and I'm not saying there would be no losses at all, but with all the greatest military minds of every organic species, plus the leviathans onboard now, I would say conventional victory has at least a slim chance  of succeeding for this cycle

But how so DPG when the basis of our technology, ALL OF IT, was the result of Reapers meddling, we are essentially bringing knives to a gun fight, even with the technology based off of sovereign.

They out number us, out power us, out gun us and it takes dozens of our ships to take down one of them.  We dont have supply lines anymore, they dont ahve base we canc apture and win from, nor lines we can cut off, ours  is a war of attrition against them, with the only thing dwindling is our supply of manpower and resources.

Everyone of our soldiers that goes down, is more meat for them to turn against us on the ground and they have shock and awe down pat.

ANY prolonged war favors their methods over ours, they slowly destroy our infrastructure and we quickly stop being a threat.  Dont forget we cant just KEEP building ships at the rate they destroy them.

and yes their numbers are finite, but so our ours and we depend on resources more than they do.

[Cainne Chapel]

has nothing to do withf ighting spirit N7, has everything to do with sheer power.

As tough as you are, as much fighting spirit as you have, isnt gonna stop a bombs propensity for destruction.

You should of known given the events of the last two games, shepard wasnt just going to fly in adn take every single reaper out.

He took down 3 in his life time, sure 2 were destroyers and he ahd help admittedly, But shepard also isnt going to take down a reaper onf oot on his own anyway.

and yes he had done the impossible, but theres a difference between overcoming odds and something that just doesnt fit in with the narrative. As much as you want him to be, Shepard SHOULDNT be a one many reaper armyd estroying person.

Granted through Deus Ex he becomes that, but it should happen jsut because you want it too.

How do you propose the fleets when conventionally when the reapers overpower us on a grand scale?


also aas an aside, if the Reapers DID invade earth tomorrow, sure we could fight... but if their power level were on levels that they were in the ME series...

Well we'd be F***ed, royally.  It'd be a resistance is futile type moment if there were any, sure we could try and take a few out and most likely would, but...yeah

Modifié par Cainne Chapel, 31 août 2012 - 06:05 .