Meaning that Bio could have come up with some sort of way for the ME1 scene to have been very misleading concerning Sovereign's strength? Sure. Never underestimate the power of retcon.
Yes, that's exactly what I mean. And it wouldn't have had to be a retcon, just a different perspective on these events would have sufficed. Just like we get a different perspective on the geth in ME2.
I don't see how we get Sovereign down to a level that makes fighting a couple of hundred of him to be a workable proposition, though ME3's invention of the destroyer type could help here.
First time should have happened a long time ago, then.
Why?
This is the first time that we know of that someone managed to Fling a Light Into the Future. This cycle had the opportunity to do things differently.
I'm just referring to standard tactical doctrine, which is in the Codex. If you're going to talk about this stuff you really need to be more familiar with the material.
But sure, Bio could have retconned Sovereign to be much weaker than he appeared to be in ME1. Hell, if we're talking rewrites I'd just cut the whole Saren-hopper sequence and have Sovereign be blown up by the fleet, full stop.
How do you know the fleet wouldn't have blow up Sovereign eventually anyway?
How do you know they wouldn't have had an easier time of it if they hadn't lost ten cruisers to the geth before engaging the Reaper?
Inusannon did, at the very least.
Wait, what? 
The Reapers always started their invasion by capturing the Citadel, decapitating galactic leadership, and shutting down the relay network. How was their cycle any different?
How do you know the fleet wouldn't have blow up Sovereign eventually anyway?
How do you know they wouldn't have had an easier time of it if they hadn't lost ten cruisers to the geth before engaging the Reaper?
Steady on, the Alliance lost 8 cruisers. Cape Town, Cairo, Emden, Jakarta, Madrid, Seoul, Shenyang and Warsaw. And yes. I remember them all. The Alliance ows them all medals. The Council ows them much more than that.
Which also warrants a question: How big is a single fleet and how many ships it has? Because no number is given in ME1 or ME2. The fleet might as well have 30 cruisers and a dreadnought which was unable to engage due to knife-fight range for all we know.
Wait, what?
The Reapers always started their invasion by capturing the Citadel, decapitating galactic leadership, and shutting down the relay network. How was their cycle any different?
Yeah, I misunderstood the post. I thought he was making a general statement about knowledge of the relay network, not that the network was active during the invasion.
Which also warrants a question: How big is a single fleet and how many ships it has? Because no number is given in ME1 or ME2. The fleet might as well have 30 cruisers and a dreadnought which was unable to engage due to knife-fight range for all we know.
I don't think that is consistent at all. Especially when you make it into the war assets where this fleet and that fleet all lost ships somehow.
I don't think that is consistent at all. Especially when you make it into the war assets where this fleet and that fleet all lost ships somehow.
I don't take data from "ME3" into consideration.
Steady on, the Alliance lost 8 cruisers. Cape Town, Cairo, Emden, Jakarta, Madrid, Seoul, Shenyang and Warsaw. And yes. I remember them all. The Alliance ows them all medals. The Council ows them much more than that.
If Hackett any sense he would've had the ships firing on Sovereign from behind right at the beginning without losing those ships or at least minimize the losses.
I don't take data from "ME3" into consideration.
You should. It's a thing, just as much as you should take data from "ME2" into consideration. 
You should. It's a thing, just as much as you should take data from "ME2" into consideration.
I take into consideration all data from games which have narrative legitimacy. Which ME2 does have. "ME3" does not.
If Hackett any sense he would've had the ships firing on Sovereign from behind right at the beginning without losing those ships or at least minimize the losses.
Battle of the Citadel could have been handled better by the Alliance, who didn't know what they were getting into. The lesson is simple - "don't engage Reapers at knife-fight ranges"
I take into consideration all data from games which have narrative legitimacy. Which ME2 does have. "ME3" does not.
You mean the game that starts off with killing and resurrecting the hero, rebooting a dead brain, retconning all weaponry, turning a small black ops organization in "Cerberus", diverting the player's attention with a side villain, and ending with "organic essence" and a Baby Reaper?
The disparity of "narrative legitimacy" between the two isn't what you think it is.
You mean the game that starts off with killing and resurrecting the hero, rebooting a dead brain, retconning all weaponry, turning a small black ops organization in "Cerberus", diverting the player's attention with a side villain, and ending with "organic essence" and a Baby Reaper?
The disparity of "narrative legitimacy" between the two isn't what you think it is.
I think we've been over this.
I think we've been over this.
We have, in a roundabout way. Just reminding you of the things you're overlooking and saying has "narrative legitimacy".
You mean the game that starts off with killing and resurrecting the hero, rebooting a dead brain, retconning all weaponry, turning a small black ops organization in "Cerberus", diverting the player's attention with a side villain, and ending with "organic essence" and a Baby Reaper?
The disparity of "narrative legitimacy" between the two isn't what you think it is.
I'm certainly no fan of ME2's space magicky wierdness. But even so, ME3 makes ME2 look good in comparison. IMO
How do you know the fleet wouldn't have blow up Sovereign eventually anyway?
I'm certainly no fan of ME2's space magicky wierdness. But even so, ME3 makes ME2 look good in comparison. IMO
Synthesis tips the scales. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't agree.
Best thing that could happen is that we do not get a ME3 2.0.
These ideas are, at the very best, sub-par and entirely unoriginal.
Pretty much the only part I like is seperating EMS into different catagories. But that's been suggested before and suggested better.
There's nothing else of value here.
These ideas are, at the very best, sub-par and entirely unoriginal.
Pretty much the only part I like is seperating EMS into different catagories. But that's been suggested before and suggested better.
Hi, Bob. I'm dreamgazer. Would you please offer us an original, above-par idea of how to solve the Reaper threat in ME3?
If Hackett any sense he would've had the ships firing on Sovereign from behind right at the beginning without losing those ships or at least minimize the losses.
Hello Dreamgazer. I unfortunately cannot. I can, however, explain why popping in hub worlds left and right makes does pretty much nil to make a good story or the player 'care' about planets, as seems to be the assumption, and why removing the Rachni and weakening Cerberus troops would be a very bad gameplay decision.
Synthesis tips the scales. If it weren't for that, I wouldn't agree.
One of the reasons I disliked Synthesis is that it was implemented the same way Control and Destroy operated. If it was not homogenised and instead had a very different operational way of working, it would be a little better. I hope Bioware does not make this same mistake in their future works, but with Mac Walters claiming the original endings to the logical ones has me very worried as no logic or thought was made into that ending, and even more worried he's in lead of writing for ME4. I almost feel like we'll be walking in one big circle.
Retour en haut