343 réponses à ce sujet

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

[plfranke]

Okay after reading the OP (I admit I didn't read the whole thing before I posted) I think the title is misleading from what he's actually saying. I agree with the point of this thread now, which is that the Reaper's power is tailored specifically for each situation they're in and not a consistent thing. For instance, if you're hearing a story about the Reapers they're all powerful and tearing up entire militaries. However, when you're actually fighting them there are times they are incompetent and easily defeated. For instance, the Reaper on Rannoch compared to the Reapers on the Turian moon that were destroying entire platoons in one blow.

[dreman9999]

plfranke wrote...

Okay after reading the OP (I admit I didn't read the whole thing before I posted) I think the title is misleading from what he's actually saying. I agree with the point of this thread now, which is that the Reaper's power is tailored specifically for each situation they're in and not a consistent thing. For instance, if you're hearing a story about the Reapers they're all powerful and tearing up entire militaries. However, when you're actually fighting them there are times they are incompetent and easily defeated. For instance, the Reaper on Rannoch compared to the Reapers on the Turian moon that were destroying entire platoons in one blow.

Dude, fighting one reaper destroy is not he same as fighting a fleet. The problem here is that you taking tactic and actions based around one reaper as say a fleet fallow that same weaknesses and actions.

Numbers make a differance.

Imagine rennoch with a fleet of reaper ship instead of one and you'll get may point.

Added, the reaper onthe turian moon was a flag ship, which is much more powerfull than a destroyer.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 05:46 .

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

And if conventional victory costs more than Destroy, how is that not a moral choice? You're choosing to sacrifice billions of lives more than necessary for the sake of idealism. That would have actually been a great moral dilemma at the end rather than the forced and arbitrary one that exists:
Do you defeat the enemy on the terms he dictates but at the cost of the soul of your species, or do you maintain your intergrity and doom billions more than necessary for the sake of winning on your own terms?

[Robhuzz]

I disagree. The Reapers were portrayed as incredibly powerful from the very beginning. Literally nothing even so much as touched Sovereign during the battle. Its shields help up against everything the human and citadel fleets (what was left of it) had to offer for quite some time. If not for Sovereign losing power because his Saren puppet died, who knows how much longer he would've withstood their fire. Possibly even long enough to destroy the entire remaining fleet.

Where BioWare went horribly wrong is that they didn't make sovereign a special case. If Sovereign had been among the few 'nearly invincible' Reapers among Harbinger and a few others, then we could've actually had a fight with them without having to resort to a deus ex machina. Instead, BioWare made Sovereign a rather standard Reaper and added a few 1000 of them. If only they had lessened the Reaper's strength for ME3 we could've fought them properly. The Reapers would've still held the advantage but it wouldn't have been David versus Goliath...

[What a Succulent Ass]

dreman9999 wrote...

Think sticky tape traps use to catch flys alive in stead of using a fly swater. In short , the reaper are holding back.

...

What has that got to do with their methodology? If they had any sense at all, they would stay the course. A splintered galactic civilisation means fewer chances for the population to recoup and fewer fatal resistances. It also minimises reaper casualties.

They would not send capital ships to go stomp down skyscrapers and kill millions (or billions) of organics per day. That's just foolishness.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:03 .

[Bill Casey]

Shepard insulted the reapers...
It's on now ****...

Shock and awe...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:05 .

[dreman9999]

Random Jerkface wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think sticky tape traps use to catch flys alive in stead of using a fly swater. In short , the reaper are holding back.

...

What has that got to do with their methodology? If they had any sense at all, they would stay the course. A splintered galactic civilisation means fewer chances for the population to recoup and fewer fatal resistances. It also minimises reaper casualties.

They would not send capital ships to go stomp down skyscrapers and kill millions (or billions) of organics per day. That's just foolishness.

But they don't have much of a choice. Shepard stop the plan for the trap. If plan a fail, they have to do plan b.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

And if conventional victory costs more than Destroy, how is that not a moral choice? You're choosing to sacrifice billions of lives more than necessary for the sake of idealism. That would have actually been a great moral dilemma at the end rather than the forced and arbitrary one that exists:
Do you defeat the enemy on the terms he dictates but at the cost of the soul of your species, or do you maintain your intergrity and doom billions more than necessary for the sake of winning on your own terms?

The problem is that it would be an easy way out and would counter to the story bw is trying to say. The set itup for you to see what you would do ageints the near absolute and extreme.  If the absolute and extreme can be beaten with force, then the point they are trying to make goes.

[rekn2]

damaging the citadel makes no sense. its what the reapers need, of coarse sov wouldnt destroy it.


my whole issue with the reapers is they fight wars all wrong. i wouldve shot an indoc probe or something to every planet and just let time pass...

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

And if conventional victory costs more than Destroy, how is that not a moral choice? You're choosing to sacrifice billions of lives more than necessary for the sake of idealism. That would have actually been a great moral dilemma at the end rather than the forced and arbitrary one that exists:
Do you defeat the enemy on the terms he dictates but at the cost of the soul of your species, or do you maintain your intergrity and doom billions more than necessary for the sake of winning on your own terms?

The problem is that it would be an easy way out and would counter to the story bw is trying to say. The set itup for you to see what you would do ageints the near absolute and extreme.  If the absolute and extreme can be beaten with force, then the point they are trying to make goes.

How is that an easy way out?
If a conventional victory is followed to its logical conclusion, then the state of the galaxy will be abysmal once the Reapers are defeated. Every superpower like the Turians would be severely weakened with a massive population drop, the galactic economy would be in pieces, Earth would be a burning pile of rubble with the remains of humanity at the mercy of the rest of the galaxy, resources would be scarce, species like the Yahg might suddenly rise up to take advantage of a war-torn galaxy, and a galactic interspecies war would be inevitable.

If you want to talk about an easy way out, it's already in the game. It's green and called Synthesis.

Modifié par grey_wind, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:42 .

[What a Succulent Ass]

dreman9999 wrote...

If plan a fail, they have to do plan b.

Wat?

The only thing Shepard stopped was a surprise attack. They took the Citadel off-screen. They could have done it at any time.

It also doesn't explain why they send capital ships to squash the civilian population they are meant to harvest.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:36 .

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

And if conventional victory costs more than Destroy, how is that not a moral choice? You're choosing to sacrifice billions of lives more than necessary for the sake of idealism. That would have actually been a great moral dilemma at the end rather than the forced and arbitrary one that exists:
Do you defeat the enemy on the terms he dictates but at the cost of the soul of your species, or do you maintain your intergrity and doom billions more than necessary for the sake of winning on your own terms?

The problem is that it would be an easy way out and would counter to the story bw is trying to say. The set itup for you to see what you would do ageints the near absolute and extreme.  If the absolute and extreme can be beaten with force, then the point they are trying to make goes.

How is that an easy way out?
If a conventional victory is followed to its logical conclusion, then the state of the galaxy will be abysmal once the Reapers are defeated. Every superpower like the Turians would be severely weakened with a massive population drop, the galactic economy would be in pieces, Earth would be a burning pile of rubble with the remains of humanity at the mercy of the rest of the galaxy, resources would be scare, species like the Yahg might suddenly rise up to take advantage of a war-torn galaxy, and a galactic interspecies war would be inevitable.

If you want to talk about an easy way out, it's already in the game. It's green and called Synthesis.

It's an easy way out for your Shepard. You Shepard would not die or conprimise his/her morals to stop the reapers. The galexy would have losses but your Shepard would lose nothing.
Synthesis is not an easy way out because it comprimises  morality and sHEPS LIFE.

[What a Succulent Ass]

How is allowing billions of people to die in the face of an alternative not a moral compromise?

I feel like I'm being BlueProtoss'd.

And for the record, living with consequences (and psychological scars) is many times far more difficult than dying (especially when you will be apotheosised afterward). What you're saying is inane.

Modifié par Random Jerkface, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:35 .

[dreman9999]

Random Jerkface wrote...

How is allowing billions of people to die in the face of an alternative not a moral compromise?

I feel like I'm being BlueProtoss'd.

Again, Shepard would not have to compromise his/her morals or lose His /her lifeto stop the reapers. Shepard would not lose anything directly, the reast of the galaxy would.

And this is a war, live are bound to be lost in it. Shepard is not going to fell more upset if more lives are lost then what happens if you pick one of the 3 choices. Their is not going to be more of a burden.

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 06:38 .

[KENNY4753]

dreman9999 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

How is allowing billions of people to die in the face of an alternative not a moral compromise?

I feel like I'm being BlueProtoss'd.

Again, Shepard would not have to compromise his/her morals or lose His /her lifeto stop the reapers. Shepard would not lose anything directly, the reast of the galaxy would.

Shepard can still lose their life in a conventional victory.

[What a Succulent Ass]

Going to ask this question again:

How is allowing billions of people to die in the face of an alternative not a moral compromise?

And how is becoming a god overlord or the galactic Christ lamb more potent a sacrifice than living with the repercussions of one's decisions?

And why does Shepard need to "sacrifice" anything at all? S/he has lost plenty already. Senseless death is not profound. It is idiotic.

[LucasShark]

MegaSovereign wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

Gruntburner wrote...

Darn, I could have sworn I saw hundreds of reaper ships that looked like Sovereign appear in dark space at the end of ME2. But that can't be true, because if it were that would mean that there would be an entire fleet of ships that could essentially tear through most fleets single handed.

I know, right?
I mean, you see SO many Reapers in that final cutscene in ME2, that if you counted them their numbers would show how numerous they are, how the Reapers alone outnumber every ship in the galaxy put together, how there are a grand total of....


295 Reapers.

The cycle is at least 1 billion years old.

There are tens of thousands of capital Reaper ships. Even more Destroyers.

According to ME3 DLC, irrevelant.

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

IsaacShep wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

Plain and simple: up until Bioware had to force the crucible into existance or relevance, the Reapers were never as strong as they claimed.  Period.

Not at all. You're just saying it because they didn't give you happy conventional victory ending

You do realize that a conventional victory would have cost more than any of the other three endings?
In fact, a conventional victory would make the casualties in Destroy look positively peachy......

Your Shepard would not lose anything directly in an ending like that. Everyone else would have loss.

What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?
At most, he dies. That can be forced in a conventional ending too.
In fact, just to please the grimdark fans who think darkness = deep, we can have Shep's death in that be a slow and cruel one too.

"What the hell does Shepard lose in any of the other endings anyway?"
The player is force to sacrific Shepards life, morality, or both.

The choice are done that way to bring the player to moral conflict over the choices at hand.
Basicly this...
http://penny-arcade....enriching-lives

And if conventional victory costs more than Destroy, how is that not a moral choice? You're choosing to sacrifice billions of lives more than necessary for the sake of idealism. That would have actually been a great moral dilemma at the end rather than the forced and arbitrary one that exists:
Do you defeat the enemy on the terms he dictates but at the cost of the soul of your species, or do you maintain your intergrity and doom billions more than necessary for the sake of winning on your own terms?

The problem is that it would be an easy way out and would counter to the story bw is trying to say. The set itup for you to see what you would do ageints the near absolute and extreme.  If the absolute and extreme can be beaten with force, then the point they are trying to make goes.

How is that an easy way out?
If a conventional victory is followed to its logical conclusion, then the state of the galaxy will be abysmal once the Reapers are defeated. Every superpower like the Turians would be severely weakened with a massive population drop, the galactic economy would be in pieces, Earth would be a burning pile of rubble with the remains of humanity at the mercy of the rest of the galaxy, resources would be scare, species like the Yahg might suddenly rise up to take advantage of a war-torn galaxy, and a galactic interspecies war would be inevitable.

If you want to talk about an easy way out, it's already in the game. It's green and called Synthesis.

It's an easy way out for your Shepard. You Shepard would not die or conprimise his/her morals to stop the reapers. The galexy would have losses but your Shepard would lose nothing.
Synthesis is not an easy way out because it comprimises  morality and sHEPS LIFE.

How is this not a moral compromise???
You're choosing to sacrifice billions for the sake of your ideals, when there are perfectly viable alternatives that would cost far less.
And if you're really so hellbent on Shepard needing to die, conventional victory can also include a slow, painful end for him. Happy now?

And the only reason anybody says we sacrifice our morals in Synthesis is because the fans thought about it more than Hudson and Walters. It's clearly intended to be the best ending as it has no drawbacks (other than Shep dying), is endorsed by the author avatar (StarJar), and its unfortunate implications are downplayed as much as possible.

[RustyMcBlade]

*Sigh* This guy always post the dumbest stuff on these forums...

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

If they are so strong they don't need entire citadel trap and shutting down relay network.
And that was hilariously illustrated in ME3, when they didn't even bother to come to a Citadel, and when they got it, they don't even bother to shut down relay network.

Most people who ask this don't realize that the trap is there so the reaper don't kill us. Normal reaper forces kill more organics then the trap. They are atacking directly because theyare forced to.

Yeah, this nonsensical mumbling somehow reminded me of ME3 plot.
Translate, please.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...



How is this not a moral compromise???
You're choosing to sacrifice billions for the sake of your ideals, when there are perfectly viable alternatives that would cost far less.
And if you're really so hellbent on Shepard needing to die, conventional victory can also include a slow, painful end for him. Happy now?

And the only reason anybody says we sacrifice our morals in Synthesis is because the fans thought about it more than Hudson and Walters. It's clearly intended to be the best ending as it has no drawbacks (other than Shep dying), is endorsed by the author avatar (StarJar), and its unfortunate implications are downplayed as much as possible.

This is a war that billion are already dieing. Saying because doing it your way with out comprimising your morality is moralily conflict goes ageints  the point of moral conflict. If you took the conentional victory route to avoide moral conflict, the result would not be moraly conflicting be of the satifaction of doing it your way.

[KENNY4753]

RustyMcBlade wrote...

*Sigh* This guy always post the dumbest stuff on these forums...

[LucasShark]

dreman9999 wrote...

Random Jerkface wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Think sticky tape traps use to catch flys alive in stead of using a fly swater. In short , the reaper are holding back.

...

What has that got to do with their methodology? If they had any sense at all, they would stay the course. A splintered galactic civilisation means fewer chances for the population to recoup and fewer fatal resistances. It also minimises reaper casualties.

They would not send capital ships to go stomp down skyscrapers and kill millions (or billions) of organics per day. That's just foolishness.

But they don't have much of a choice. Shepard stop the plan for the trap. If plan a fail, they have to do plan b.

Except plan B shouldn't have been "hulk smash!"

It is gone into specific detail why they can't do that, why they don't do it, and they don't until ME3's stupidity pagent.

This is like saying "oh yes, he's a great boxer", except when you look at it, all said boxer's matches have been rigged with their opponent tied down, and they are given a knife.