343 réponses à ce sujet

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

If you still don't understand click here....

Point is, if they were trying to wipe out organic life they would use much more effective way to do so.

... of the things you listed they did 3.

They did not use the omega virus
They did not our planets to hell and back, Planets are not glassed
They did not drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
And with the husk force us, in mean massivly more then what we see in the game. Like using them the same way they did the collectors, but in fleets.

Again, what the difference?
There we have 1 trillion, there we don't. Also, they are "processing", not just randomly killing. It is the reason, why they sometimes restrain themselves from using mass destruction weapons.

Also, it is completely unrelated to the question, why they ever need citadel trap and turning relays off, if they could just crush any opposition(=fleets, ground forces pose no threat) without losing anything. And then slowly enjoy process of genocide.

[dreman9999]

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

So, they are preserving us by killing.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.

1. if they are just killing us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.

Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.

P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?

They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....

Death is a the matter of perspective.

The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.

They preserved President Kenedy's brain in a jar, is he still alive?

If it still has brain activity, yes. If it has no brain activity , no.

And guess what, every reaper has brain activity.

[What a Succulent Ass]

...A'ight. Peacing the **** out now.

[dreman9999]

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

If you still don't understand click here....

Point is, if they were trying to wipe out organic life they would use much more effective way to do so.

... of the things you listed they did 3.

They did not use the omega virus
They did not our planets to hell and back, Planets are not glassed
They did not drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
And with the husk force us, in mean massivly more then what we see in the game. Like using them the same way they did the collectors, but in fleets.

Again, what the difference?
There we have 1 trillion, there we don't. Also, they are "processing", not just randomly killing. It is the reason, why they sometimes restrain themselves from using mass destruction weapons.

Also, it is completely unrelated to the question, why they ever need citadel trap and turning relays off, if they could just crush any opposition(=fleets, ground forces pose no threat) without losing anything. And then slowly enjoy process of genocide.

1. The differnce is that they don't want to kill the races they are trying to perserve.
2. They are also a shackled AI that take no enjoy meant in conflict. 

You not getting they are shackled AI's doing what theya re programed to do?

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

So, they are preserving us by killing.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.

1. if they are just killing us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.

Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.

P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?

They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....

Death is a the matter of perspective.

The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.

*facepalm*

Result of joining together "Death is the matter of perspective" and "The only wrong here is the reapers are forcing this on us against our will" - means that we should voluntarily kill ourselves(=suicide), and then this would be okay. Because voluntarily

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Da fuq?

Just because billions are dyng does not make it alright for Shepard to sacrifice billions more. And just because I, as an individual, would choose a conventional victory does not make it any less of a moral compromise than the other endings already are: I`m causing far more death and destruction in the galaxy than is necessary to win for the sake of idealism.

You want a conventional victory so your do things you way with out comprmise. The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way. You're not going to feel guitly doing it your way because of the nature of war. In war there are loses. More loses is not going to be morilaly conflicting for you. If it was, you would have no problem picking the destroy option.

Oh, for the love of....

Did you even read my post about what the galaxy would be like if we won conventionally?

Here, I`ll repost it for you:

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 I choose a conventional victory, I`m dooming the galaxy for the sake of idealism. In all the other endings, the galaxy rebuilds and there is peace between all the species that came together and a bright future to look forward to. There is NO immediate bright future in a post conventional-victory galaxy, only a long period of strife and chaos.

By your logic, just because I see it as the casualties of war, then Destroy is also not a moral compromise. How do you defend that?

Thefact of the matter is that the issue you put up is a question of later. Nothing shows that a conentional victory means an inablity of furture restroation nor does it shows that the yahg with take over. The yagh arn't even space worth yet. At most it would mean a mass rest of power. It would not be as dark as you state it would. 

[dreman9999]

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

So, they are preserving us by killing.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.

1. if they are just killing us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.

Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.

P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?

They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....

Death is a the matter of perspective.

The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.

*facepalm*

Result of joining together "Death is the matter of perspective" and "The only wrong here is the reapers are forcing this on us against our will" - means that we should voluntarily kill ourselves(=suicide), and then this would be okay. Because voluntarily

Nice way to warp my arguement. That's not what I mean. It'S a perspective of life and/pr death. The reaper feel life can make dramatic change in form to be partly synthetic. We feel the means death.

That mean life and death would be based on perspectic. 

Reaper say"You're alive in a new form."
Organics say"You're killing us."

Modifié par dreman9999, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:32 .

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

LucasShark wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

If you still don't understand click here....

Point is, if they were trying to wipe out organic life they would use much more effective way to do so.

... of the things you listed they did 3.

They did not use the omega virus
They did not our planets to hell and back, Planets are not glassed
They did not drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
And with the husk force us, in mean massivly more then what we see in the game. Like using them the same way they did the collectors, but in fleets.

Again, what the difference?
There we have 1 trillion, there we don't. Also, they are "processing", not just randomly killing. It is the reason, why they sometimes restrain themselves from using mass destruction weapons.

Also, it is completely unrelated to the question, why they ever need citadel trap and turning relays off, if they could just crush any opposition(=fleets, ground forces pose no threat) without losing anything. And then slowly enjoy process of genocide.

1. The differnce is that they don't want to kill the races they are trying to perserve.
2. They are also a shackled AI that take no enjoy meant in conflict. 

You not getting they are shackled AI's doing what theya re programed to do?

Comrade, you just lack basic logic comprehension.
Question was - why they ever need citadel trap and turning relays off, if they could
just crush any opposition(=fleets, ground forces pose no threat) without
losing anything. And then slowly enjoy process of genocide.

There is no relation at all with my question and your "answer".

As for your "answer".
1. Sure. Before invasion we had 1 trillion sentient beings. After invasion we have 0 sentient beings.
Of course they never wanted to kill anyone. But somehow, that trillion ended dead. Coincidence.
You hit wood stump with owl, you hit owl with the wood stump - that does not change opinion and perspective of said owl.

2. Leviathans is completely retarded. As is their creation. And it is irrelevant, it is sentient, and responsible for it's actions.

[grey_wind]

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Da fuq?

Just because billions are dyng does not make it alright for Shepard to sacrifice billions more. And just because I, as an individual, would choose a conventional victory does not make it any less of a moral compromise than the other endings already are: I`m causing far more death and destruction in the galaxy than is necessary to win for the sake of idealism.

You want a conventional victory so your do things you way with out comprmise. The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way. You're not going to feel guitly doing it your way because of the nature of war. In war there are loses. More loses is not going to be morilaly conflicting for you. If it was, you would have no problem picking the destroy option.

Oh, for the love of....

Did you even read my post about what the galaxy would be like if we won conventionally?

Here, I`ll repost it for you:

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 I choose a conventional victory, I`m dooming the galaxy for the sake of idealism. In all the other endings, the galaxy rebuilds and there is peace between all the species that came together and a bright future to look forward to. There is NO immediate bright future in a post conventional-victory galaxy, only a long period of strife and chaos.

By your logic, just because I see it as the casualties of war, then Destroy is also not a moral compromise. How do you defend that?

Thefact of the matter is that the issue you put up is a question of later. Nothing shows that a conentional victory means an inablity of furture restroation nor does it shows that the yahg with take over. The yagh arn't even space worth yet. At most it would mean a mass rest of power. It would not be as dark as you state it would. 

Make up your mind. First you say conventional victory is impossible, then when I point out the cost of actually seeing it through, you're telling me it won't be as dark as I'm saying it will.

The entire point of the idealism in a conventional victory is that you don't realize just how much disaster you'll bring upon the galaxy post-Reaper War because you were unwilling to sacrifice your integrity (or you do realize it but just don't care). You DOOMED the galaxy when there were perfectly alternative ways to end the conflict.

Modifié par grey_wind, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:36 .

[Maxster_]

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

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.

You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

The reaper, if hey wanted to kill us off can do a much effectively then send reaper force in.

They have the omega virus
The bomb our planets to hell and back.
They can drop massive astrodes on us and we would not be ableto stop it.
The can send near endless ammount s of husk forces to take us down.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact. And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do should be seen in that light.

If they want to perserve us, then every action they do is about the long term goal of perserving us. 

So, they are preserving us by killing.
After each harvest there is no one remaining except husks.
At the start of each harvest, there was a big galatic population. At the end of each harvest, there is no one.

The fact remain that the reaper are not trying to kill us off is a fact.
And if the reapers plan is about perserving us, then all action they do
should be seen in that light.

1. if they are just killing us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.
2. if they are "preserve" us.
In the start of the each harvest we have, for example, 1 trillion of sentient beings.
In the end of each harvest we have no one.

Now please tell me, where the difference? Especially in context that they were not needed the citadel trap and turning down relay network, if they were so strong.

P.S. you do understand, that your previous(and that one) post is complete nonsensical mess, do you?

They make us into a new form and perserve our minds in a reaper body....

Death is a the matter of perspective.

The only wrong here is the the reaper are forcing this on us ageist our will.

*facepalm*

Result of joining together "Death is the matter of perspective" and "The only wrong here is the reapers are forcing this on us against our will" - means that we should voluntarily kill ourselves(=suicide), and then this would be okay. Because voluntarily

Nice way to warp my arguement. That's not what I mean. It'S a perspective of life and/pr death. The reaper feel life can make dramatic change in form to be partly synthetic. We feel the means death.

That mean life and death would be based on perspectic. 

Reaper say"You're alive in a new form."
Organics say"You're killing us."

1. It is completely irrelevant to my question.
2. I'm not interested in reaper pawn's propaganda.

[Maxster_]

LucasShark wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
You don't see that the reaper arenot tryin gto kill us off right?

Dude I'm not Maxter's biggest fan but I'm pretty sure the Reapers are trying to kill us.

Oh no: those are beams of rainbows and kittens! /sarcasm

That somehow reminded me of Guild Wars 2 forum

[johnj1979]

The Reapers were a waste of time in Mass Effect 3 because lets face it Cerberus ARE the main villians

[Han Shot First]

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

[KENNY4753]

johnj1979 wrote...

The Reapers were a waste of time in Mass Effect 3 because lets face it Cerberus ARE the main villians

That's what BW really did. They turned Cerberus into the major enemy and the Reapers were a side note. They should have either had ME3 focus on dealing with Cerberus and building our forces and ME4 would be the real Reaper war or have us choose which side we wanted to be on, the Alliance or Cerberus.

[Clayless]

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Everyone always ignores this, presumably because they don't realise how big the galaxy actually is and assume that taking hundreds of years to wipe out a complete galactic civilisation means the Reapers were struggling.

Modifié par Our_Last_Scene, 03 octobre 2012 - 07:49 .

[LucasShark]

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Examine HOW they destroyed civilizations, not just that they did.

[LucasShark]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Everyone always ignores this, presumably because they don't realise how big the galaxy actually is and assume that taking hundreds of years to wipe out a complete galactic civilisation means the Reapers were struggling.

I call misrepresentation of points on that.

[Eterna]

LucasShark wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Examine HOW they destroyed civilizations, not just that they did.

Wuth Lazer beams and numbers. 

[Han Shot First]

LucasShark wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Examine HOW they destroyed civilizations, not just that they did.

Does the how really matter?

They had an undefeated record that stretched back billions of years. Consider that there is no nation on Earth older than a few thousand years, and all of those nations have lost the occasional war. The Reapers have been around for billions, and have never lost.

[Maxster_]

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

That's no excuse to turn plot into nonsensical mess, with lore-butchering and negative iq characters.

[dreman9999]

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

grey_wind wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

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.

Da fuq?

Just because billions are dyng does not make it alright for Shepard to sacrifice billions more. And just because I, as an individual, would choose a conventional victory does not make it any less of a moral compromise than the other endings already are: I`m causing far more death and destruction in the galaxy than is necessary to win for the sake of idealism.

You want a conventional victory so your do things you way with out comprmise. The death you see doing this would only be nessiary cassualties of doing things your way. You're not going to feel guitly doing it your way because of the nature of war. In war there are loses. More loses is not going to be morilaly conflicting for you. If it was, you would have no problem picking the destroy option.

Oh, for the love of....

Did you even read my post about what the galaxy would be like if we won conventionally?

Here, I`ll repost it for you:

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 I choose a conventional victory, I`m dooming the galaxy for the sake of idealism. In all the other endings, the galaxy rebuilds and there is peace between all the species that came together and a bright future to look forward to. There is NO immediate bright future in a post conventional-victory galaxy, only a long period of strife and chaos.

By your logic, just because I see it as the casualties of war, then Destroy is also not a moral compromise. How do you defend that?

Thefact of the matter is that the issue you put up is a question of later. Nothing shows that a conentional victory means an inablity of furture restroation nor does it shows that the yahg with take over. The yagh arn't even space worth yet. At most it would mean a mass rest of power. It would not be as dark as you state it would. 

Make up your mind. First you say conventional victory is impossible, then when I point out the cost of actually seeing it through, you're telling me it won't be as dark as I'm saying it will.

The entire point of the idealism in a conventional victory is that you don't realize just how much disaster you'll bring upon the galaxy post-Reaper War because you were unwilling to sacrifice your integrity (or you do realize it but just don't care). You DOOMED the galaxy when there were perfectly alternative ways to end the conflict.

1. My arguement on conventional victory is not possible did not change. I'm argueing hypatheticals.

2.Please, what ever distaster you think will happen after conventional victory would happen if you pick he destroy option. If the fleets are capible of taking out the reaper fleet then the losses would be simular to the losses in MID-LOW EMS.  Those emslevel would weaken the forces that they would not take a yagh invasion. High ems is the same case. Add we also have the leviathens.

If it's acase that convetion victroy would cause furture disaster, so would the destory option.

[dreman9999]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Everyone always ignores this, presumably because they don't realise how big the galaxy actually is and assume that taking hundreds of years to wipe out a complete galactic civilisation means the Reapers were struggling.

The does not mean struggling. That just means the galexy is big.

[dreman9999]

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

That's no excuse to turn plot into nonsensical mess, with lore-butchering and negative iq characters.

What in ME3 butchersthe lore? ME started out with the reaper being unstoppable, the fact that they stayed unstoppable some how butchers th elore and plot?

[Clayless]

dreman9999 wrote...

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Did we play different games?

Because in the Mass Effect games I had played, the Reapers had destroyed every single space faring civilization that had ever existed in the Milky Way, and they had been doing it for billions of years. Among these destroyed civilizations were the Protheans, a race that the first game kept reminding you were more technologically advanced than the current civilizations. Sovereign, the first Reaper we meet, was seemingly invulnerable until Shepard managed to bring down its shields.

I'd say taking all of the above into account, their portrayal in ME3 was about what was expected. In fact after the release of ME1 there was many a discussion on the old boards about how in the hell Shepard was going to manage to defeat an entire fleet of Reapers, when a single Reaper caused so much trouble for the combined Citadel fleets.

Everyone always ignores this, presumably because they don't realise how big the galaxy actually is and assume that taking hundreds of years to wipe out a complete galactic civilisation means the Reapers were struggling.

The does not mean struggling. That just means the galexy is big.

I know, I said most people ignore that.

We know for a fact that the Reapers vastly outnumber us, even with the Geth and Quarian fleets, and that they are immensely powerful (which was set up in the first game, heck if it wasn't for Deus Ex Vigil and Saran failing Sovereign would've won) yet people try to pretend they were set up as unbeatable in ME3, which just isn't true.

[MegaSovereign]

You're all wrong.

I'm right.

Deal with it.