269 réponses à ce sujet

[Urdnot Amenark]

Aaleel wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Is supporting an argument with out of context quotes any worse than not providing any support at all?

Were you talking about my quotes? Please explain why they are out of context (Saying this doesn't amke it so). 

All four of the quotes were specifically about the culmination of the narrative of the story, which is what is at issue here, and two of the four quotes were specifically regarding the endings themselves.

That's what bothers me. We've clearly been metagaming long before the events of Mass Effect 3 even occurred. There's no reason why players can't do so now and debate about the topic, even if it's getting stretched incredibly thin.

Well if we're meta-gaming then conventional victory definitely isn't possible because if you choose refuse the our cycle loses.

I've just been basing my argument off what I actually saw in the game, which was heavy loses everywhere you traveled where reapers had significant forces.  The only victories you really see in game are two isolated small class reapers on Rannoch and Tuchunka.  One took an armada bombarding it from space, and the other took the biggest Thresher Maw ever in existence.

Everywhere else was one sided.  Examples.

- Reapers come through to Earth. Hackett sacrifices the entire 2nd
fleet just so that the others can live and fight another day.
- You
get to Palaven and you hear. 'Oh no, not Palaven', 'the most advanced
military in the galaxy and they're being being obliterated', 'they're
being decimated'. Then later on Garrus says he's going to recommened
preserving the remaining assests for earth.
- Thessia, well that's a complete curb stomping
- Reapers even after beefed up security overwhelm the Citadel and move it before as much as a distress signal can be sent out.
-
Hammer forces sustain heavy losses just trying to get to the beam and
what's left is decimated and beaten back by one reaper standing next to a
beam.

No one even knows how many reapers there are and how many
of each type. Nothing I read in the codex, on a war asset, or saw in
game leads me to believe it's even close to possible.

THANK YOU. One thing I will note however, is that Palaven manages to hold its own, especially with the aid of the Krogan. It's also important to note that before the fall of Thessia the Asari were actually doing great. Also, the Reapers took over the Citadel due to TIM's warning. Had they not, we would've seized one of the most critical locations in this story in the Reaper War. I would also ignore Hammer, since they can actually hold their own for a while depending on EMS. I wanted to see another side in Reject, but I like that they added an ending where Shepard actually loses, since that's what most fans wanted, and gave players hope since Shepard's sacrifice led to the next cycle defeating the Reapers. Those were excellent points you made.

[fil009]

What a dumb OP.

[moater boat]

I completely agree. Had Bioware decided on a conventional victory, the games could have been written to allow for it. The only reason conventional victory isn't possible is because the writers disregarded every opportunity to allow for it to support their crappy ending.

Edit:
I can't believe how many people are citing in-game evidence to prove that conventional victory is not possible. I have a message for these geniuses, this isn't a historical documentary, the events of the game could have been written in ANY way. You can't cite the writing in the game as evidence of why the game must be written a certain way. This is such a simple concept and the fact that so many people don't understand it makes me worry about the future of the human race.

Modifié par moater boat, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:11 .

[hiraeth]

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

[Ratimir]

fil009 wrote...

What a dumb OP.

Oh, I agree, but there's not much point in saying that without pointing out why it's dumb. Just comes off as kneejerk flaming, and there's been more than enough of that on BSN.

[Aaleel]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

[arial]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Things happening just beacuse the plot demands it doesn't make them convincing, it makes them contrived.

[Urdnot Amenark]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

I think that's the point of her entire statement. We haven't seen the Reapers beaten conventionally.

[Aaleel]

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

I think that's the point of her entire statement. We haven't seen the Reapers beaten conventionally.

It's not possible for our cycle, which I thought was the point of the thread.  Could our Shepard and our cycle do it.

[hiraeth]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

I'm assuming you're referring to the Refuse ending? That wasn't added on until the EC and I'm of the opinion that Bioware added it to appease those who wanted to refuse the Catalyst's choices, not because they originally intended that to be a part of their ending. Personally, I find the Refusal ending to be a half-asssed attempt at an ending that should have been given more serious thought. 

In any case, I'm not arguing that conventionally victory is possible. I'm saying that given that the writers clearly originally wanted players to choose an unconventional victory ending, trying to find evidence that a conventional victory is possible seems pointless. We probably won't find much concrete evidence because the writers don't want us to and wrote a story that pushes us toward the belief that we can't win the war conventionally. That doesn't mean that some of us can't believe that a conventional victory should have been an option, or at least that it would have made for just as good/valid an ending as the RGB finale.

[Ratimir]

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

[arial]

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

[Urdnot Amenark]

Aaleel wrote...

Urdnot Amenark wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

I think that's the point of her entire statement. We haven't seen the Reapers beaten conventionally.

It's not possible for our cycle, which I thought was the point of the thread.  Could our Shepard and our cycle do it.

No, "Bioware" saying it's impossible was, but we've moved on into a more interesting conversation. There's plenty of stuff in the lore that suggests it is, based on how you interpret it though, which I think is Mass Effect's greatest strength and strongest weakness; it's not clearly suggested apart from some of the moments in ME 3 that it's improbable.  I've heard quite a few people on these boards make some excellent arguments, especially given how little the contributions of some of these races seem to be utilized - the Geth specifically.

[Aaleel]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

I'm assuming you're referring to the Refuse ending? That wasn't added on until the EC and I'm of the opinion that Bioware added it to appease those who wanted to refuse the Catalyst's choices, not because they originally intended that to be a part of their ending. Personally, I find the Refusal ending to be a half-asssed attempt at an ending that should have been given more serious thought. 

In any case, I'm not arguing that conventionally victory is possible. I'm saying that given that the writers clearly originally wanted players to choose an unconventional victory ending, trying to find evidence that a conventional victory is possible seems pointless. We probably won't find much concrete evidence because the writers don't want us to and wrote a story that pushes us toward the belief that we can't win the war conventionally. That doesn't mean that some of us can't believe that a conventional victory should have been an option, or at least that it would have made for just as good/valid an ending as the RGB finale.

That's something entirely different.  I wholeheartedly agree that it should have been possible depending on War assets.  I would have actually liked to unravel the reaper mystery through the last two games, maybe find some more places like Ilos where other races preserved things, then put it all together to find a way to defeat them while learning about numerous cycles. 

But I digress, as the story was written it isn't, the crucible is the only way.  Nothing in the game supports a conventional victory, and if you're metaa-gaming it's shown it's not possible.

[Aaleel]

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

No one said they didn't use the crucible.  Liara saying we tried and couldn't win with the crucible is no different that the VI on Thessia saying many cycles have tried to build to crucible but none have defeated the reapers with it.

Just like Shepard said we'll be the first, they could have to.

Modifié par Aaleel, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:23 .

[Ratimir]

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

[Urdnot Amenark]

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

MassEffectFShep wrote...

arial wrote...
people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

I feel like those asserting that conventional victory is impossible have an unfair advantage: We've seen the reapers being beaten using unconventional means (i.e., if you buy that any of the three endings, particularly destroy, actually does its job), but there is no ending in which they are conventionally beaten. It's easier to justify why it's not possible because the game was written with an unconventional victory ending, so if course you're going to have dialogue where people tell you it's not possible, you're going to have people telling you numbers that make it seem like conventional victory can't work, etc. Me trying to pick evidence in a game written to specifically support an unconventional victory is a futile exercise.

The interesting question to me is do I think conventional victory should have been possible (which has already been addressed in many other forums)? Sure, I think it would have made uniting all the species together seem more meaningful (to me). And I believe that if Bioware wanted conventional victory to be possible, they could have easily rewritten/interpreted the game's lore and events from ME1-ME3 to make it work. <--This all goes back to "It's Bioware's game, not ours, so they can do whatever they want." Fair enough, but then I don't really see how this topic opens much room for discussion. It's sort of a dead end.

But there's an ending where you try to win conventionally and fail. 

Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

Link please?

[hiraeth]

Aaleel wrote...

As the story was written it isn't, the crucible is the only way.  Nothing in the game supports a conventional victory, and if you're metaa-gaming it's shown it's not possible.

I guess my follow-up question would be: What's your point? I agree that I will be hard-pressed to find anything that concretely supports that a conventional victory is possible; although some people have raised really good points that could suggest it is possible, what we see throughout ME3 clearly points at the writers wanting us to buy that it's not. Do I believe that conventional victory is completely unfathomable in the Mass Effect universe? No. Give the writers some time and I have no doubt that they could use existing codex entries, dialogue, and plot devices to create a perfectly coherent ending in which it is. That all being said, what does proving that-as the story is currently written-conventional victory is impossible gain us? Does it mean that we should be more accepting of the RGB finale?

EDIT: If discussing the implications of buying that conventional victory isn't possible is not a part of the motivation behind this forum, then you can ignore this post. I don't mean to derail the thread, it just seems like the next logical question.

Modifié par MassEffectFShep, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:31 .

[arial]

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

If i recall it was said at a convention, look back on these forums a few months, it was a rather talked about topic when they said it

[Aaleel]

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

Why is a conventional victory impossible?

* Sovereign was clearly Geth technology. /sarcasm
* They couldn't account for 1/2 that thing.
* No one bothered to record 1) the conversation with Sovereign; 2) the conversation with Vigil
* The reapers travel at 30 ly/day except when they are traveling from Dark Space to the Alpha Relay from the end of ME2 when they get to travel a few thousand ly/day with no fuel consumption in a period of six months. But that got retconned so they could start at the end of ME1 which still made it "Ludicrous Speed" with their patented "Space Magic Drive". It should have taken them about 15 years between the end of ME2 and their arrival if one eyeballs the distance using the graphic at the end of ME2.

* The Leviathan of Dis was about a billion yrs old.

* The Cycles are too close together averaging every 50,000 years, but say there were 1000 original machine reapers, and say they lost 1 capital ship every cycle. That would leave them with about 1000 capital ships, and assume those would be 1000 true reapers. The fleet would be about 40,000 total including all the destroyers and transports.

* The problem was time and stupidity. The first four items were why there is no possibility of conventional victory. Lack of preparation and time to actually build up.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 14 octobre 2012 - 06:36 .

[arial]

Aaleel wrote...

Ratimir wrote...

arial wrote...

Ratimir wrote...
Actually, that ending fairly solidly establishes that the Reapers can be beaten conventionally. Liara specifically warns the next cycle that the Crucible is a no-go, and they still win.

So we have a partial answer. The Reapers can be beaten conventionally. The real question is whether they can be beaten conventionally by the current cycle.

Bioware has stated in press releases if Shepard chooses refuse, the next Cycle DOES use the Crucible, your post is invalid

SHOW ME this press release, please. Or at least quote it.

I've actually seen this one, it was a tweet.

https://twitter.com/...770232138301440

Thank you Aaleel

[Aaleel]

MassEffectFShep wrote...

Aaleel wrote...

As the story was written it isn't, the crucible is the only way.  Nothing in the game supports a conventional victory, and if you're metaa-gaming it's shown it's not possible.

I guess my follow-up question would be: What's your point? I agree that I will be hard-pressed to find anything that concretely supports that a conventional victory is possible; although some people have raised really good points that could suggest it is possible, what we see throughout ME3 clearly points at the writers wanting us to buy that it's not. Do I believe that conventional victory is completely unfathomable in the Mass Effect universe? No. Give the writers some time and I have no doubt that they could use existing codex entries, dialogue, and plot devices to create a perfectly coherent ending in which it is. That all being said, what does proving that-as the story is currently written-conventional victory is impossible gain us? Does it mean that we should be more accepting of the RGB finale?

EDIT: If discussing the implications of buying that conventional victory isn't possible is not a part of the motivation behind this forum, then you can ignore this post. I don't mean to derail the thread, it just seems like the next logical question.

I don't know why you just focused on that part, I was agreeing with you that it should have been an option.

[Humanoid_Typhoon]

arial wrote...

 people here always seem to argue that conventional victory is possible when infact it is not.

Reason conventional victory is impossible is simple, Bioware says so.

The Mass Effect universe Is Biowares, not yours. as such Bioware decides what happens, what is possible, and what is impossible.

Well I'm glad I wasn't told by BW it was my story, that might be cause for some anger.