518 réponses à ce sujet

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...
How many Reapers are there in total?

You might eventually destroy a mountain with a pickaxe, but surviving to tell the tale is another matter altogether. 

I think you and me have been over this before but that might actually make the premise of sacrifice work for certain members of the audiance(myself included), instead of how it was protrayed in the actual game, least from my perspective.

Twilight has a point though just how powerful the Reapers are was a bit inconsistant in the last game. We've had them displayed both as invulnerability and having fairly easy to exploit weaknesses.

[RatThing]

@massive
Fair enough. All it really needs is variations and room for interpretation I guess. If there was a situation where the game unambiguously told me that no one else can beat this except Shepard it would kinda kill my hero type.

Modifié par RatThing, 13 octobre 2013 - 03:52 .

[dreamgazer]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
How many Reapers are there in total?

You might eventually destroy a mountain with a pickaxe, but surviving to tell the tale is another matter altogether. 

I think you and me have been over this before but that might actually make the premise of sacrifice work for certain members of the audiance(myself included), instead of how it was protrayed in the actual game, least from my perspective.

Twilight has a point though just how powerful the Reapers are was a bit inconsistant in the last game. We've had them displayed both as invulnerability and having fairly easy to exploit weaknesses.

Right, which is why the Refuse ending has a following at all. However, I honestly don't think the galaxy has enough stamina to take down that mountain, not by a long shot.  And while I agree that the game shows us some difference in their strength, you're still working with a small percentage of their ships being destroyed, even with conservative calculations of the Reapers' numbers. 

Some complain about "rocks fall, everyone dies" in the Refuse ending.  Well, that's a two-way street with the Reapers. Simply saying that each and every Reaper was defeated by varied, by-luck badassery in the end would be preposterous. 

Modifié par dreamgazer, 13 octobre 2013 - 04:06 .

[AlanC9]

GreatBlueHeron wrote...

High EMS Control and Synthesis are happy unbelievable Disney endings as shown in-game. The only conflict/downside happens in the player's mind, if at all. Everyone magically is OK with the reapers. Everyone magically gets along. I don't buy it. 

You don't have to buy that. Maybe people aren't OK with it. What then? Attack the Reapers? Establish extermination camps for husks? The best outcome is that your local relay doesn't get rebuilt and your system becomes a galactic backwater.

[GreyLycanTrope]

dreamgazer wrote...
Some complain about "rocks fall, everyone dies" in the Refuse ending.  Well, that's a two-way street with the Reapers. Simply saying that each and every Reaper was defeated by the varied, by-luck badassery of the universe in the end would be preposterous. 

I always took it as finding and exploiting an actual weakness and Reaper design flaws rather than by badassery myself. We replace the Quarian fleet and giant Tresher maws by a single Thanix missle with AI targeting guidance at the end. We also found out that Sovereign class ships can be flanked and succefully taken down without the heavy costs we had going up against Sovereign. That lone aspect is fairly practical as opposed to perposterous in my eyes. Armies do tend to learn and adapt new startagies as a war goes on.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 13 octobre 2013 - 04:14 .

[dreamgazer]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Some complain about "rocks fall, everyone dies" in the Refuse ending.  Well, that's a two-way street with the Reapers. Simply saying that each and every Reaper was defeated by the varied, by-luck badassery of the universe in the end would be preposterous. 

I always took it as finding and exploitning actual weakness and Reaper deisgn flaws rather than by badassery myself. We replace the Quarian fleet and giant Tresher maws by a single Thanix missle with AI targeting guidance at the end. We also found out that Sovereign class ships can be flanked and succefully taken down without the heavy costs we had going up against Sovereign. That lone aspect is fairly practical as opposed to perposterous in my eyes. Armies do tend to learn and adapt new startagies as a war goes on.

Grey, suggesting that there would be a high-enough success rate with all these operations is exceedingly problematic, especially with ageless annihilation machines that would learn from their mistakes.  For it to work consistently enough to purge their numbers would indeed be badassery. 

[GreyLycanTrope]

I'd expect them to adapt as well but they shouldn't be able to overcome certain design flaws that are aspects of their very superstructure. The Reapers don't seem to adapt a new tactic save for just moving forward until they can overwhelm with numbers and firepower, or subversion via brainwashing. I'm not arguing for a strict conventional victory however just pointing out there there are some merits to that line of thinking, especially if you can reduce the efficiency of the enemy via weakening effects of a super weapon, which is the very reason the success rate would go up. That's contrived yes but not much more then the premise of super weapon we've already been given.

I know you don't personal like that approach Gazer but that's a matter of preference, there really is no getting around needing a super weapon to destroy Mecha-Cthulhu in this case, it just comes down to how one prefers to have it implemented.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 13 octobre 2013 - 04:41 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

The idea is that the Reapers make ONE capital ship per cycle. ONE. They lost not one, but several in our cycle alone. How many did the Protheans take out? How about the previous cycles? The cycle is not sustainable. The only advantage they had was indoctrination and if someone ever figured out a countermeasure they were toast. The Illusive Man was so close, but they had him go bat **** crazy.

Invulnerable reapers? Absolutely insane and a pile of bull****. How do you know when they're dead? So-called dead reapers still indoctrinate. You can't defeat them conventionally because of that. That's why we got the stupid ending we got. A reaper off button was the only way, unless you used the "Independence Day" virus, or some other way which people would have raged about. Bioware fans are the whiniest bunch I've ever seen. We'll b**** about this ending but if someone comes up with any kind of alternative it'll get ripped to shreds by the rest of you, leading us right back to a d.e.m. because someone wants to keep the reapers as giant invincible cthulhu monsters so they can have nightmares about them.

But the theme of the game was this "technology not earned is evil". The whole husk thing dehumanized the enemy IMO, but we needed mooks to shoot and hey, let's shoot zombies in different forms. And let's put the name Morinth over the one banshee just so that you can somehow tell that the one banshee is indeed Morinth.

Yet the Crucible was technology not earned as well. That was the reason for the original 10,000 year dark age. You got rid of the reapers by destruction, or they permanently ended their harvest by some kind of space magic, you died, the mass relays were destroyed, and the Normandy crashed. It was a wasteland. Explosions in different colors. The end. But hey, you saved the galaxy, right? See? Reapers aren't so tough. We won. Replay value 0 except for achievement hunting. The Multiplayer was the best part.

But now with the EC you don't have to suffer. You have it easy. You get this slide show and think everything is fine in the end. You see everything being rebuild, and it looks like it's all accomplished in a few months in all the endings.

Wow, I got out of the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[rekn2]

Greylycantrope wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...
Some complain about "rocks fall, everyone dies" in the Refuse ending.  Well, that's a two-way street with the Reapers. Simply saying that each and every Reaper was defeated by the varied, by-luck badassery of the universe in the end would be preposterous. 

I always took it as finding and exploiting an actual weakness and Reaper design flaws rather than by badassery myself. We replace the Quarian fleet and giant Tresher maws by a single Thanix missle with AI targeting guidance at the end. We also found out that Sovereign class ships can be flanked and succefully taken down without the heavy costs we had going up against Sovereign. That lone aspect is fairly practical as opposed to perposterous in my eyes. Armies do tend to learn and adapt new startagies as a war goes on.

weve been at it for billions of years

[dreamgazer]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Invulnerable reapers? Absolutely insane and a pile of bull****. How do you know when they're dead? So-called dead reapers still indoctrinate. You can't defeat them conventionally because of that. That's why we got the stupid ending we got. A reaper off button was the only way, unless you used the "Independence Day" virus, or some other way which people would have raged about. Bioware fans are the whiniest bunch I've ever seen. We'll b**** about this ending but if someone comes up with any kind of alternative it'll get ripped to shreds by the rest of you, leading us right back to a d.e.m. because someone wants to keep the reapers as giant invincible cthulhu monsters so they can have nightmares about them.

Aside from the "nightmares" part of your statement (come on, Julia), most of this is accurate. Just about every alternative will get torn to shreds because BioWare wrote themselves in a corner, both with the plot and their lore. Hence why it's a problem that has existed with the series since the beginning, since Sovereign's conversation.

[Reorte]

dreamgazer wrote...


At least the designed super-weapon does some justice to the Reapers' prowess, instead of "F*CK YEAH, GALAXY! Go out there and blow up the ancient, colossal, near-invincible mecha-Cthulhu that have been doing this for eons!".  To me, a conventional attrition victory would absolutely be more ridiculous than a vague relay-exploiting mega-device that can't operate to the extent of his destructive capabilities (the reason why all synthetics are targeted by the overload relay beam). I would have felt insulted as an audience member to see anything remotely resembling Independence Day ... or Babylon 5's "Get out of my galaxy!" shtick, for that matter. The execution simply needed to be better: different introduction of the plans, different discussion of the Crucible's capabilities across the galaxy, addressing lore questions.

Well yes, and judging from some of the other posts I think we're in agreement here, such as your last post replying to comments about alternative ideas getting equal short measure from the fans - because they're no more convincing. What was really needed was a sensible explanation for the very existence of the Crucible, how it could have convincingly survived that long without the Reapers wiping out the plans, and for it not to turn up at such a convenient time. IMO part of the big mistake there was saying that it went back further than the Protheans. I could buy it slipping through one cycle. Add in knowledge learned from the wreck of Sovereign, through in a bit more time, and IMO we could've had something that whilst it still might not have been any good would at least have been acceptable enough to suspend disbelief enough. It would give this cycle a convincing edge that no previous one would have had (too many other theories rely on things working that would almost certainly have got the Reapers destroyed long ago if they really worked).

And trust me, I don't have any kind of "obsession" with sacrifice.  What I do care about is the fact that the Reapers have been ingrained in the operations of the universe since time immemorial, something established in the first game, that they're the creators of the life-sustaining relays and Citadel, and that we're rushing to build a complex super-weapon to defeat them in a very, very short time period.  Right out removing all of them with the destroy option without repercussions (the unavoidable "sacrifice") with this hasty weapon amounts to even more of a reckless power-fantasy than even I can stomach.

I think I see where you're coming from to be honest - too clean, too easy (even with all the losses incurred up to that point). The problem is that if you're going to come up with an instant Reaper Off button it's rather hard to make any negative consequences of using it seem like they've put in for any other reason other than it would look too clean and easy without them. Since neither result is remotely convincing I'm not sure what's gained by going with the one that feels bad. Downsides need more careful thought and have to work better than upsides IMO since if something happens that you don't like you're going to damn well want a good reason why it happened.

My usual stance on this would be Destroy being something that gave enough of an edge over the Reapers that we know victory would eventually come, but we also know we'll probably lose many more worlds before that happens.

There's no excusing Synthesis' execution and place in all this, but it might have been interesting under different circumstances. Like I've said, I don't think the execution is solid, but I'd rather have a better version of the infrastructure of what we received---therefore tolerating what we've got---than the alternatives. 

Something could be done with the very basic bones of the ideas but the details would all need complete reworking, to the point that really ME2 should be redone from scratch too, or at least need a fourth game.

[JamieCOTC]

The 15 minutes (or whatever) of explaining what the Reapers were and why they did what they did in the EC did hurt the game. I kind of wish that had been in the main game as well, but that would have ruined the "twist" ending. The idea that Shepard can't really "win" is interesting, but it gets bogged down in so much necessary BS, the kid, the dreams, the reason for the Reapers, and the rationalizations of Leviathan and the EC just make it worse. There's a good story in there somewhere, but it was just badly executed or rushed or both. I get that they wanted a memorable high concept idea to end the trilogy, but ME isn't Shakespeare. It's space opera. It didn't need to be "memorable" as it would have been remembered just because of what it was.

[AndyAK79]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

The idea is that the Reapers make ONE capital ship per cycle. ONE. They lost not one, but several in our cycle alone. How many did the Protheans take out? How about the previous cycles? The cycle is not sustainable. The only advantage they had was indoctrination and if someone ever figured out a countermeasure they were toast. The Illusive Man was so close, but they had him go bat **** crazy.

It can be assumed that the destruction of a capital ship is unusual in any cycle, quite possibly because of the use of the Citadel to overwhelm any chance of a co-ordinated resistance early. Otherwise there would be dead Reapers all over the place and only two are ever mentioned (from previous cycles, I mean): The one discovered by Cerberus and the Leviathan of Dis. This cycle is the first time the Reapers have engaged in a war proper. You make an interesing point, though; I have to admit I never considered this until your post.

But the theme of the game was this "technology not earned is evil". The whole husk thing dehumanized the enemy IMO, but we needed mooks to shoot and hey, let's shoot zombies in different forms. And let's put the name Morinth over the one banshee just so that you can somehow tell that the one banshee is indeed Morinth.

I think claiming this as the main theme of the game is stretching it. Where is this implied apart from in discussions with Legion (mostly in ME2) and the historical consequences of the Krogan uplift? Surely this is a lesser concern at best. And I don't see how the husks in ME3 are any less 'humanised' than the Collectors or the Geth in the first game.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 13 octobre 2013 - 06:32 .

[Mr.House]

dreamgazer wrote...

Reorte wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Any ending that actually results in the defeat of the Reapers is an implausible "happy ending", really. Y'know, these things?



The more you try and do so by any kind of conventional, no-sacrifice means, the more ridiculous it becomes. It's a problem in the series' DNA that goes back to the first game.

So in other words if you have any sort of victory at all then it's just as implausible as having one without contrived losses inflicted by petty writers, so if victory is possible via space magic then it's just as realistic to make it turn out better (and indeed it gets horribly inconsistent anyway in what its negative consequences are - can do Synthesis but not the far easier Destroy without losses, and what it does destroy with Destroy is actually more complicated than just targetting the Reapers? Oh please.)

Interesting that you say a conventional "no-sacrifice" means. This "sacrifice" obesession from some quarters is frankly ludicrous, since they seem to always take it way beyond just plain wartime losses, of which there are plenty anyway. There's no good reason to have to end with any particular indivdual or group dead and whilst a fixed medium like a book or a film will have to pick individuals to die and stick with them it's hopeless when a game does it.

At least the designed super-weapon does some justice to the Reapers' prowess, instead of "F*CK YEAH, GALAXY! Go out there and blow up the ancient, colossal, near-invincible mecha-Cthulhu that have been doing this for eons!".  To me, a conventional attrition victory would absolutely be more ridiculous than a vague relay-exploiting mega-device that can't operate to the extent of his destructive capabilities (the reason why all synthetics are targeted by the overload relay beam). I would have felt insulted as an audience member to see anything remotely resembling Independence Day ... or Babylon 5's "Get out of my galaxy!" shtick, for that matter. The execution simply needed to be better: different introduction of the plans, different discussion of the Crucible's capabilities across the galaxy, addressing lore questions. 

And trust me, I don't have any kind of "obsession" with sacrifice.  What I do care about is the fact that the Reapers have been ingrained in the operations of the universe since time immemorial, something established in the first game, that they're the creators of the life-sustaining relays and Citadel, and that we're rushing to build a complex super-weapon to defeat them in a very, very short time period.  Right out removing all of them with the destroy option without repercussions (the unavoidable "sacrifice") with this hasty weapon amounts to even more of a reckless power-fantasy than even I can stomach.

There's no excusing Synthesis' execution and place in all this, but it might have been interesting under different circumstances. Like I've said, I don't think the execution is solid, but I'd rather have a better version of the infrastructure of what we received---therefore tolerating what we've got---than the alternatives. 

+1

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

@ Andy

Well the Geth are robots created by the Quarians. The robots rebelled during what is called the Morning War. The exact details are pretty sketchy, and they sound pretty far fetch on how a population of several billion could be brought crashing down to about 15 million so quickly, and I have my own ideas about that, and I haven't published them yet because they're in our project. I'm working on this section right now, hence the change in avatar.

Technology isn't evil? "The created will always rebel against their creators." Reaper tech is evil. Nothing good ever comes from reaper tech. Then in ME2, Reaper tech got the ability to indoctrinate. WTF? The Collector Base.... just because people died there and horrible atrocities happened there, doe it mean you should blow it up? Does it mean you shouldn't study the technology of the reapers to understand it so you can learn what makes up a reaper and learn it's strengths and weaknesses?

No. It means "this place is an abomination. I will not let fear compromise who I am."

Doesn't dehumanize? Listen to Mordin describe the collectors in ME2."Over several cloned generations...." This implies that they were indoctrinated Protheans. They looked exactly like Protheans. They were Protheans at first with control chips added. "The reapers started adding tech to compensate for deterioration of internal organs." They replaced parts with tech. "Collectors final insult." The Collectors were the end product.

So did you think about Batarians when you were shooting cannibals? No you were shooting those ugly monsters. Did you think about Krogan when you shot brutes? No. You were shooting those ugly spiky monsters. Banshees? Since they don't show up until after the monastery, obviously Asari husks. Straight to husks. Yet, you hear stories from the PTSD Asari talking about the one with the medical condition by name. How did she recognize that hideous monster? You hear Garrus talk about "you're fighting along side your friend one day, then he's fighting for the enemy the next. And you hesitate." Then you hear Javik talk about "In my cycle, they used our own children against us." They indoctrinated their children, probably gave them grenades and had them blow up stuff thinking the Protheans wouldn't shoot their children.

But us in the game? Straight to husks. Zombies. Shoot 'em. Mooks. Nothing to even think about. Ceberus? fully cover their faces so you can't see they're people, then when you take the helmet off make them husks underneath. Make the game PG because we know for a fact that just because a game is rated M, that parents are buying it for their 12 year olds.

Okay, I really did get out of the wrong side of the bed.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 13 octobre 2013 - 06:58 .

[Redbelle]

Surely the distinction should be made that not all Reaper technology indoctrinates. Only some does and the notino that all Reaper tech indoctrinates is held by a fish head majority who hasn't read the research, becaue the research is in it's infancy.....

.... The end result is that people treat Reaper Tech like the genetic snake in the grass and shy away from it because all Reaper tech might indoctrinate them. When in reaility it is only certain Reaper devices that indoctrinate.

[AndyAK79]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

Technology isn't evil? "The created will always rebel against their creators." Reaper tech is evil. Nothing good ever comes from reaper tech. Then in ME2, Reaper tech got the ability to indoctrinate. WTF? The Collector Base.... just because people died there and horrible atrocities happened there, doe it mean you should blow it up? Does it mean you shouldn't study the technology of the reapers to understand it so you can learn what makes up a reaper and learn it's strengths and weaknesses?

This seems to be deflecting from what I said - and more pertinently what you said. You said that 'unearned technology is evil' is the theme of the game, and I still say that this is difficult to substantiate. I don't think the game suggests that technology is evil either. EDI, Legion, the Normandy, and the genophage cure are all examples of technology being used for good. If ME3 has anything to say about technology it's that it's what you make of it. 

No. It means "this place is an abomination. I will not let fear compromise who I am."

It only means this if the player chooses to destroy the base, which is not a given.

Doesn't dehumanize? Listen to Mordin describe the collectors in ME2."Over several cloned generations...." This implies that they were indoctrinated Protheans. They looked exactly like Protheans. They were Protheans at first with control chips added. "The reapers started adding tech to compensate for deterioration of internal organs." They replaced parts with tech. "Collectors final insult." The Collectors were the end product...

...But us in the game? Straight to husks. Zombies. Shoot 'em. Mooks. Nothing to even think about. Ceberus? fully cover their faces so you can't see they're people, then when you take the helmet off make them husks underneath. Make the game PG because we know for a fact that just because a game is rated M, that parents are buying it for their 12 year olds.

Yeah, but I wasn't shooting the collectors thinking "My God, here I am being forced to shoot the remnants of a once proud civilization. It is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions. DAMN YOU REAPERS!!! WHY, GOD, WHY!?!" I was more just shooting at the insecty things.

All the cannon fodder has a backstory, and it doesn't give anyone pause for thought when your shooting at them. I'd say all the cannon fodder is equally dehumanised.

Modifié par AndyAK79, 13 octobre 2013 - 09:34 .

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

I know it's not a given that the player destroy the collector base. 90% did. Bioware has the numbers. 90% of players mindlessly choose upper right. "I will not let fear compromise who I am." -- Hey wake up Shepard! What the hell do you think you just did? You let fear get in the way of common sense. That was one of the biggest cringe-worthy lines of the game.

Bah! I play pragmatists.

And I just finished my taxes. So that's my excuse.

[KR96]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I know it's not a given that the player destroy the collector base. 90% did. Bioware has the numbers. 90% of players mindlessly choose upper right. "I will not let fear compromise who I am." -- Hey wake up Shepard! What the hell do you think you just did? You let fear get in the way of common sense. That was one of the biggest cringe-worthy lines of the game.

Bah! I play pragmatists.

And I just finished my taxes. So that's my excuse.

I chose destroy as well, not because I was mindlessly chosing the upper right choice presented on the dialogue wheel, but because I actually felt that as Reaper technology has the capability to indoctrinate, and the Collectors' work did obviously rely on that reaper tech, it could have a huge blowback effect on Cerberus and humanity as a whole.

P.S is there a major difference in ME3 when the player actually chose to keep the base? 

[dreamgazer]

killerrabbit1996 wrote...

P.S is there a major difference in ME3 when the player actually chose to keep the base? 

Only if you have a low EMS score.

Keep the base = Control only. Destroy the base = Destroy only.

[KR96]

Thanks, seems like a pretty harsh 'punishment' though.

Modifié par killerrabbit1996, 13 octobre 2013 - 11:08 .

[Mr.House]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I know it's not a given that the player destroy the collector base. 90% did. Bioware has the numbers. 90% of players mindlessly choose upper right. "I will not let fear compromise who I am." -- Hey wake up Shepard! What the hell do you think you just did? You let fear get in the way of common sense. That was one of the biggest cringe-worthy lines of the game.

Bah! I play pragmatists.

And I just finished my taxes. So that's my excuse.

Ok no. I destoryed it because giving Cerberus the base is stupid as hell. They where incomptent that always had every single project blow up.. The issue is instead of allowing us to save the base and give it to a faction we either destroy it and give a horrible speech about moral(lol) or give it to incomptent Cerby.

The Collector base choice was moronic, just like the bulk of ME2.

Modifié par Mr.House, 13 octobre 2013 - 11:10 .

[KR96]

Yup. Pretty much every Cerberus project Shepard encountered in ME1 was one big F-up.

[GreatBlueHeron]

sH0tgUn jUliA wrote...

I know it's not a given that the player destroy the collector base. 90% did. Bioware has the numbers. 90% of players mindlessly choose upper right. "I will not let fear compromise who I am." -- Hey wake up Shepard! What the hell do you think you just did? You let fear get in the way of common sense. That was one of the biggest cringe-worthy lines of the game.

Bah! I play pragmatists.

And I just finished my taxes. So that's my excuse.

Uh, no.  Can people stop accusing others of stupidity for making certain choices?  I picked destroy the base for 2 reasons---to keep it out of TIM's hands (thanks bioware for giving it to him, anyway) and to put a stop to the reaper controlled collectors.  I didn't want to let it set there ready to use for the reapers---I did what I could to slow them down as much as possible, not because human atrocities were done there.