123 réponses à ce sujet

[bunch1]

Enough to know that there is zero chance of us ever defeating them without some kind of miracle technology.

I don't deny this and never have.  I simply argue that I didn't see 100,000 ships there and that is one of the largest collections of reapers we ever see in game.  Not what were told but what we actually see.

 

 

.I see a handful of Reapers at the Turian homeworld, tanking everything the Turians can throw at them, and the Turians acknowledging that they're being pushed back. At Earth? Not every Reaper in the galaxy is at Earth. In fact, I'd say that most weren't at Earth. The vast, vast majority of the Reapers are still out in the galaxy, doing what they've been doing. Reaping. They're out hunting, searching, patrolling, and searching for the races to harvest. I don't hold that they're overrated at all. I take the solution that you're deliberately ignoring and state that the Reapers don't have their full numbers at Earth. And an hour or two of sustained combat? It's more like the allied ships are deliberately throwing themselves in front of the Reapers to block them from firing on the Crucible. The fleet is nothing more than cannon fodder, bullet sponges to protect the Crucible.

If the reapers have so many ships then why don't they commit just a few more to Palaven and just break the Turian fleet and then move on?  What is the point of draging it out and loosing ships if you don't have to?  And the reapers are loosing ships.  The reaper campgin was to invade and decimate the Batarians, a power who was weaker then humaninty after only a decade or two in the stars, then they launched an attack on Earth and Palaven while also launching numerus raids across the galaxy where they simply comenced orbital shelling.  And once Earth is pretty well f**ked they launch an attack on Thesia.  Again you learn of other attacks but these seem to be where the main reaper effort is and outside of their attack on the Elchor homeworld they don't seem to be trying to harvest any other densly populated worlds.  As for the allied ships just throwing themselves infront I do recall them tearing down a dreadnaught barriers and blowing off a limp in opeing salvos of the battle before Shep even went planet side.

 

It is intresting though to think why they didn't commit a few thousand ships to defend the only peice of tech in the galaxy that could wipe out their entire race.  I mean so what if the harvest takes an extra 20 years because they pulled another 1000 ships back to protect it but I guess it just wasn't worth the effort.  Reapers are risk takers I guess.

 

Or, as I've already discredited your argument by stating that the limited nature of the Reapers that you've placed on the Reapers is not true (as the game shows; see the Reapers attacking Tuchanka, Thessia, and presumably other worlds at once). There are thousands of Reapers, and they're disseminated across the galaxy performing various functions.

See I like this, because I said it.  They have thousands of ships and they are spread out a bit thin which is why you never see a really large collection of them at any point of the game save the final mission.

[Iakus]

With the relays shut down, the Reapers would be free to pour thousands of their numbers into a single system, with no fear of serious reinforcement.  They could curb-stomp any fleet a star cluster could scrape together.

 

Hell, a dozen or so Sovereign class Reapers trashed three fleets (destroying one completely) and took out Arcturus station all by themselves.

[KrrKs]

What is the point of draging it out and loosing ships if you don't have to?

 

The best explanation to reaper behaviour in ME3: "This isn't about strategy or tactics!"

Maybe they just have too much fun, going rampant and stomping things instead of doing what always worked.

[God]

 

I don't deny this and never have.  I simply argue that I didn't see 100,000 ships there and that is one of the largest collections of reapers we ever see in game.  Not what were told but what we actually see.

 

 

What you see and what you're told are two different things. While the actual number of Reapers (the big ones) is down to a more comparable level of 20,000, the effect is the same. You can't portray every Reaper at once on screen. You don't see 50,000 Quarian ships over Rannoch, but you know that they're there. It's explicitly stated in the universe. And the reason they can't all be shown? Technical limitation of the game's engine. The game states that at least 1 billion years have passed since the Reapers began their cycles. And if we extrapolate a time of 50,000 years average between each cycle, there are at least 20,000 large Reapers. Even if they're not all shown, we know that they're there. There is more than meets the eye.

 

If the reapers have so many ships then why don't they commit just a few more to Palaven and just break the Turian fleet and then move on?  What is the point of draging it out and loosing ships if you don't have to?  And the reapers are loosing ships.  The reaper campgin was to invade and decimate the Batarians, a power who was weaker then humaninty after only a decade or two in the stars, then they launched an attack on Earth and Palaven while also launching numerus raids across the galaxy where they simply comenced orbital shelling.  And once Earth is pretty well f**ked they launch an attack on Thesia.  Again you learn of other attacks but these seem to be where the main reaper effort is and outside of their attack on the Elchor homeworld they don't seem to be trying to harvest any other densly populated worlds.  As for the allied ships just throwing themselves infront I do recall them tearing down a dreadnaught barriers and blowing off a limp in opeing salvos of the battle before Shep even went planet side.

 

I can't answer that. But me not having an answer does not mean that your conclusion is any more correct, lest you invoke the Only Game In Town Fallacy.

 

The Reapers are losing ships. This is what is stated as special about our cycle. However, the attrition rate and cost that we make to destroy those Reapers is unsustainable for us. Whereas before our cycle, the Reapers lost a handful of destroyers and a capital ship every few cycles, they're now losing a handful of capital ships for the same cost on us. We can't sustain that. The Reapers can.

 

One dreadnought. One. They're shooting to kill, yes, but don't mistake their purpose. Their purpose isn't to win, it's to put themselves in front of the Reapers and the Crucible. 

 

The Reapers meanwhile are busy working on harvesting everyone else. Why don't they commit to other planets that have large populations? Maybe they are. Maybe they're looking for said planets. They might not know where to find every planet.

 

It is intresting though to think why they didn't commit a few thousand ships to defend the only peice of tech in the galaxy that could wipe out their entire race.  I mean so what if the harvest takes an extra 20 years because they pulled another 1000 ships back to protect it but I guess it just wasn't worth the effort.  Reapers are risk takers I guess.

 

 

 

As it is, they have a pretty formidable defense as it is. The few hundred or so at Earth are more than enough to repel the entire galactic fleet. 

[bunch1]

As it is, they have a pretty formidable defense as it is. The few hundred or so at Earth are more than enough to repel the entire galactic fleet. 

And yet not enough to protect the citidel or destroy the crucible before it makes its way from pluto to Earth orbit.

 

 

One dreadnought. One. They're shooting to kill, yes, but don't mistake their purpose. Their purpose isn't to win, it's to put themselves in front of the Reapers and the Crucible.

That we see and as I said, it's sheilds were striped completly away in a minute or two and then a cruser was able to blast off it's limps and the rest of it was likely destroyed soon after.  My point in bringing it up was to show that they were hardly invulnerable to organics and likely several other ships are lost in the battle over Earth.  I know their job is simply to open a hole to the citidel for the Sheild fleet but the fact that any of them are still in fighting shape after atleast an hour of fighting with the reapers is impresive.  No, there is no way for them to win the battle but that fight alone will likly set back the reapers several hundred thousand years in ship building.

 

You know this debate got me thinking about a codex entry from the game I think you should check out.  Its about the battle of Palaven, the Turians didn't need the whole galaxy to take down several reaper capital ships(dreadnaughts) and then the follow one where they sneak bombs into the harvesting ships destroying them speicificly mentions both destroyers and capitals ships plural being destroyed.  Palaven is a meat grinder for the reapers and that is defended by only a few fleets means it dosen't take the entire galaxy to destroy a reaper dreadnaught during a harvest.

[Iakus]

Don't forget they not only failed to stop the Crucible from arriving, but that the Reapers knew this Grand Alliance was coming, thanks to TIM, and had time to prepare.

[Quarian Master Race]

People still argue this 3 years later?

No, the war isn't winnable by conventional means because that's the way the story is written. The writers needn't give you the technical specifications of every Reaper in existence and detailed loss numbers from every previous cycle for this premise to be possible.

Now, the asspulls necessary for the Reapers to not win despite such a massive advantage in both Technology as well as numbers from thousands of succesful cycles is an example of the "Sci Fi writers have no sense of scale" trope:http://tvtropes.org/...NoSenseOfScale 

but there is nothing wrong with how the Reapers actually got those numbers. Most cycles they win without facing any major resistance, that's more than a feasible enough explanation.

Also, attempting to count the number of Reapers visible over Earth in the cinematics to determine their numbers is frankly, retarded.
 

[SwobyJ]

This Cycle had a fighting chance. The other Cycles did not. By and large, the other Cycles were utterly ambushed and wrecked to hell.

 

This Cycle the Reapers had an innate advantage but not as much of an immense tactical one. But an innate advantage doesn't mean that they'll win. I also have my own theories that they intentionally left an opening to get into the CitadelCatalystEtc for experimental reasons, but I won't go beyond that here.

 

 

Everything in Mass Effect with the Reapers is with the idea of 'by the skin of their teeth'. That is, this Cycle is only succeeding to this level because of a combination (or ultimate reason of) of:

1)Luck. Outright luck. Or call it ultimate fate. Whatever you believe. Cosmic realities or whatever.

2)Planning. It may be seen as not/barely enough in itself, but every major success in this Cycle against the Reapers can be pointed to something done in a previous Cycle to stop the Reapers, either intentionally left for the future Cycles or not.

3)Will. Particularly Shepard's, that he insists on continuing the fight no matter what. At several major points, the opposition seemed so daunting that anyone else would have crumbled and given up, but Shepard, for whatever internal/external reason, was obsessed/dedicated enough to push forward and 'find a way'. And this time, unlike with say Javik's story, a way was found (see #1-2).

 

This cycle was a fluke. This cycle was destiny. This cycle was successful. Whatever way you want to see it, this cycle had what was needed to hit the Reapers hard and at least communicate to them that they're not the absolute apex of the galaxy. 

 

The Reapers were still overwhelming until the end. They still had most confidence that they will succeed in the Harvest, but yes, we've already seen ideas like Sovereign being 'impressed' by Shepard, Harbinger being obsessed with Humanity, and the Catalyst being 'proven' by Shepard (at least in Higher EMS) that things cannot continue the way they have.

 

The Reapers didn't have this in previous cycles. I don't know why people are arguing so much about this, tbh. The Reapers may have lost a few destroyers over time (to a shrug by them, really), and maybe the very very rare Capital ship, but that never halts them, it never stops the Cycle, it never is done to the degree that it gives them any sort of pause, for all we know. The REAPERS are, until the end of ME3, to themselves, they are inevitable and as a faction, they are immortal, forever. 

 

Shepard just shows them, at least with Destroy mentality (and kinda Control mentality and sorta sorta Synthesis mentality) that they're not what they thought they were - or at least not 100% of it. He is the little sprite of Chaos that proves their Order WRONG. That's all. He's a statistical anomaly. That's his power. The Reapers lost more in this Cycle than ever before due to Shepard's actions. They were being pushed back in some areas due to Shepard's actions. But until the Crucible, they were still going to win.

 

It can even be argued that the Reapers gradual fixation on humanity and keeping Reapers on Earth was what also allowed for victory. It kept them from even caring to spread out (even as machines they seemed to come programmed with ultimate arrogance, now considered to be of the Leviathan origin through degrees) and hit everywhere at once, but instead harvest humanity ASAP. Shepard is at least partially responsible for that fixation, for better or worse. Shepard brings death and doom to many, but also hope - and that was the ending we saw, like it or not.

 

 

 

I'm looking at this all from a literal perspective btw. I know and many here know I have crazier ideas, but I'm staying very sane in this post.

[Iakus]

People still argue this 3 years later?

No, the war isn't winnable by conventional means because that's the way the story is written. The writers needn't give you the technical specifications of every Reaper in existence and detailed loss numbers from every previous cycle for this premise to be possible.

Now, the asspulls necessary for the Reapers to not win despite such a massive advantage in both Technology as well as numbers from thousands of succesful cycles is an example of the "Sci Fi writers have no sense of scale" trope:http://tvtropes.org/...NoSenseOfScale 

but there is nothing wrong with how the Reapers actually got those numbers. Most cycles they win without facing any major resistance, that's more than a feasible enough explanation.

Also, attempting to count the number of Reapers visible over Earth in the cinematics to determine their numbers is frankly, retarded.
 

The problem is, they stacked the deck so heavily against the galaxy that nothing short of space magic could have saved the galaxy.  They inflated the Reapers' strength to beyond ridiculous levels, to the point where they had to be so incompentent Conrad Verner could have done a better job in harvesting the galaxy to give this cycle a fighting chance.

[SwobyJ]

People still argue this 3 years later?

No, the war isn't winnable by conventional means because that's the way the story is written. The writers needn't give you the technical specifications of every Reaper in existence and detailed loss numbers from every previous cycle for this premise to be possible.

Now, the asspulls necessary for the Reapers to not win despite such a massive advantage in both Technology as well as numbers from thousands of succesful cycles is an example of the "Sci Fi writers have no sense of scale" trope:http://tvtropes.org/...NoSenseOfScale 

but there is nothing wrong with how the Reapers actually got those numbers. Most cycles they win without facing any major resistance, that's more than a feasible enough explanation.

Also, attempting to count the number of Reapers visible over Earth in the cinematics to determine their numbers is frankly, retarded.
 

 

It could also be argued that the Reapers didn't advance much further than their state due to internal programming and lack of true resistance over the Cycles. Then as collective intelligence of the Reapers, the Catalyst embodied all of that and kept it going in perpetuity. They could be even better than we saw, but they capped themselves off intentionally, already thinking they're the best, like their creators (one of the more interesting bits of Leviathan DLC imo).

 

All of this fight was pretty much an 'asspull' (giving rise to many personal theories of mine), but there's nothing new about a story of gigantic luck involved. That Shepard was just the exactly right person at the exactly right time of the exactly right galactic situation, and he only needed the will to continue and he was effectively destined to win as long as he kept going. One can hate or love that, but it is what it is. Included in this is the state of the Reaper War and the Reapers losing 'so many' this Cycle - things were set up in this Cycle and prior to it that gave this Cycle a better chance to resist. We must note too that with how this Cycle was structured and how the Reapers were advancing, they still would have totally won within the decade, no matter the more immediate losses.

[SwobyJ]

The problem is, they stacked the deck so heavily against the galaxy that nothing short of space magic could have saved the galaxy.  They inflated the Reapers' strength to beyond ridiculous levels, to the point where they had to be so incompentent Conrad Verner could have done a better job in harvesting the galaxy to give this cycle a fighting chance.

 

I don't hate that unlike other people, but I do consider it a problem. The Shepard Trilogy itself could have very well been fine enough with a focus (including the enidng) on the mix/choice of planning vs action, not magical concepts beyond comprehension. Not to say that the latter couldn't exist at all (actually I'm all for transcendental sci fi stories), but SHEPARD'S STORY didn't exactly need it to be SO BIG by the end. 

 

We could have had just a Red and Blue choice, with a Green-ish-maybe(?) ideal aspect of either choice. We didn't necessarily need Synthesis IMO, no matter the post-human concepts the developers seemed to want in.

 

A weapon to destroy a ton (not even all) the Reapers, or a tool to control a ton (not even all) the Reapers would have been conclusion enough to me. If Bioware wanted a bigger thing to happen, or wanted a bigger concept of merging with the machines, I don't think ME3 is necessarily the best time for that. Shepard himself has been about the red and blue, with green only shown as a color of the utterly monstrous enemy prior to ME3. It doesn't provide good trilogy continuity.

[Iakus]

This Cycle had a fighting chance. The other Cycles did not. By and large, they other Cycles were utterly ambushed and wrecked to hell.

 

This Cycle the Reapers had an innate advantage but not as much of an immense tactical one. But an innate advantage doesn't mean that they'll win. I also have my own theories that they intentionally left an opening to get into the CitadelCatalystEtc for experimental reasons, but I won't go beyond that here.

 

 

Everything in Mass Effect with the Reapers is with the idea of 'by the skin of their teeth'. That is, this Cycle is only succeeding to this level because of a combination (or ultimate reason of) of:

1)Luck. Outright luck. Or call it ultimate fate. Whatever you believe. Cosmic realities or whatever.

2)Planning. It may be seen as not/barely enough in itself, but every major success in this Cycle against the Reapers can be pointed to something done in a previous Cycle to stop the Reapers, either intentionally left for the future Cycles or not.

3)Will. Particularly Shepard's, that he insists on continuing the fight no matter what. At several major points, the opposition seemed so daunting that anyone else would have crumbled and given up, but Shepard, for whatever internal/external reason, was obsessed/dedicated enough to push forward and 'find a way'. And this time, unlike with say Javik's story, a way was found (see #1-2).

 

This cycle was a fluke. This cycle was destiny. This cycle was successful. Whatever way you want to see it, this cycle had what was needed to hit the Reapers hard and at least communicate to them that they're not the absolute apex of the galaxy. 

 

The Reapers were still overwhelming until the end. They still had most confidence that they will succeed in the Harvest, but yes, we've already seen ideas like Sovereign being 'impressed' by Shepard, Harbinger being obsessed with Humanity, and the Catalyst being 'proven' by Shepard (at least in Higher EMS) that things cannot continue the way they have.

 

The Reapers didn't have this in previous cycles. I don't know why people are arguing so much about this, tbh. The Reapers may have lost a few destroyers over time (to a shrug by them, really), and maybe the very very rare Capital ship, but that never halts them, it never stops the Cycle, it never is done to the degree that it gives them any sort of pause, for all we know. The REAPERS are, until the end of ME3, to themselves, they are inevitable and as a faction, they are immortal, forever. 

 

Shepard just shows them, at least with Destroy mentality (and kinda Control mentality and sorta sorta Synthesis mentality) that they're not what they thought they were - or at least not 100% of it. He is the little sprite of Chaos that proves their Order WRONG. That's all. He's a statistical anomaly. That's his power. The Reapers lost more in this Cycle than ever before due to Shepard's actions. They were being pushed back in some areas due to Shepard's actions. But until the Crucible, they were still going to win.

 

It can even be argued that the Reapers gradual fixation on humanity and keeping Reapers on Earth was what also allowed for victory. It kept them from even caring to spread out (even as machines they seemed to come programmed with ultimate arrogance, now considered to be of the Leviathan origin through degrees) and hit everywhere at once, but instead harvest humanity ASAP. Shepard is at least partially responsible for that fixation, for better or worse. Shepard brings death and doom to many, but also hope - and that was the ending we saw, like it or not.

 

 

 

I'm looking at this all from a literal perspective btw. I know and many here know I have crazier ideas, but I'm staying very sane in this post.

 

1 p*ssed away with ME2 and "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'"

 

2 You say planning, I say retconning.  A "small data cache" that's been studied for decades suddenly poops out a superweapon to stop the Reapers?

 

3) Javik's cycle had an entire species (several by the end) dedicated to the "evolutionary imperative" They also had the Crucible, and even knew, on some level, what the Catalyst was.

 

Of course, their cycle had their government decapitated and the relays shut down, just like every other cycle.

[SwobyJ]

1 p*ssed away with ME2 and "Ah, yes, 'Reapers'"

 

2 You say planning, I say retconning.  A "small data cache" that's been studied for decades suddenly poops out a superweapon to stop the Reapers?

 

3) Javik's cycle had an entire species (several by the end) dedicated to the "evolutionary imperative" They also had the Crucible, and even knew, on some level, what the Catalyst was.

 

Of course, their cycle had their government decapitated and the relays shut down, just like every other cycle.

 

Ok look, I'm talking from perspective of in-universe here, explaining how things went from the game. Calm down with the reaction please. I'm not saying I approve of this stuff outright, only explaining how it happens in the story from my perspective.

 

IMO at least from a literal perspective (sorry I keep bringing that up ugh), ME2 jumped too far and ME3 just made up stuff to have its ending happen. ME2 was Rule of Cool, ME3 was Its Magic. 

 

And really, whatever. I don't care about that in itself. I'm up for cool things. I'm up for gradually learning about concepts beyond us. I just think that the pacing and implementation of it for a trilogy was poor. Don't call it a trilogy then. Don't continuously change things up with each game and expect us to like that. Shepard's Journey as we saw it, was a hugely bizarre turn of things back and forth until it seemed like nothing made sense.

 

Maybe that's (at least by ME3's production) the intent. Okay. Let's get mindeffed in 'ME4'. But as things stand, I get what you're saying Iakus. I find your constantly hurt tone about the ME3 ending to be strange by this point, but I get where you're coming from. ME3 seems just so full of asspulls, and it didn't need to be. At least not necessarily.

 

 

EDIT: I want to address the Prothians. They were directly depicted as the closest-to-stopping-Reapers as ever before this Cycle. That was their point. This has been since ME1. Its been since ME1 that their success proved to us/Shepard/Normandy/Cycle that victory may be possible. Without the Prothians, in this story, this Cycle and Shepard would not have had hope. Shepard would not have had interaction with the Beacon, would not have 'thought like a Prothian' (as vaguely as that is), and would not have seen that the Reapers are not utterly unstoppable, just nearly so.

 

I feel they've been consistent in all of this. I only think that they've been hamfisted into stuff more and more is all. I get their premise in the story, but things just got silly by ME3. Would have been even worse if Javik was all like 'HEY YEAH I KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS AND IM PART OF THE PLAN', as it seems the older script may have had him as (the Catalyst 0_0).

[Valmar]

I prefer action to words and when the game show us and what dev tells don't match up I go with what the game showed.

 

What is it with people like this? I mean, you have the devs themselves clarifying a point in their story and still it gets handwaved away. "Nah, I'm not satisfied with that, I prefer to think my headcanon is true."

 

You see it with IT. You see it with the whole "Shepard breath scene is on London!" You see it with the reapers. You see it with Shepard breathing oxygen in the catalyst chamber. So many times you see people who reject and refuse the dev's clarification just because it doesn't "sit well" with their own personal headcanon interpretation of how things went down.

 

I will never understand it. They're not looking for answers. They're looking for people to just nod their head and go "oh, you're so right, yes yes." They act like "oh Im confused someone answer why this is so" and when they get answers from the game and from the devs themselves they still go "no, no, that cant be it, I don't like it, it must be this instead!"

 

Just because you're not personally satisfied with the answer doesn't mean that your questions have no answers. Why act like you care at all about the answers, why pretend to want clarification if the moment you get direct confirmation from the community reciting lore or the DEVS THEMSELVES you'll just throw it out the window anyway. You don't want answers, you want people to agree with your headcanon.

 

Wait, maybe that isn't fair. I'm sure the moment a dev says ANYTHING that can even slightly be interpreted to support their desired headcanon then suddenly it gets touted as proof. It seems like the only time these people are willing to accept the devs word rather than just saying "well Twitter doesn't count" or "well it wasnt in the game so it doesn't count!" is when it actually benefits their headcanon. Throw out anything that counters their preferred  headcanon fantasy but happily and eagerly embrace anything that supports it.

 

Will the denial ever end?

[Iakus]

Ok look, I'm talking from perspective of in-universe here, explaining how things went from the game. Calm down with the reaction please. I'm not saying I approve of this stuff outright, only explaining how it happens in the story from my perspective.

 

IMO at least from a literal perspective (sorry I keep bringing that up ugh), ME2 jumped too far and ME3 just made up stuff to have its ending happen. ME2 was Rule of Cool, ME3 was Its Magic. 

 

And really, whatever. I don't care about that in itself. I'm up for cool things. I'm up for gradually learning about concepts beyond us. I just think that the pacing and implementation of it for a trilogy was poor. Don't call it a trilogy then. Don't continuously change things up with each game and expect us to like that. Shepard's Journey as we saw it, was a hugely bizarre turn of things back and forth until it seemed like nothing made sense.

 

Maybe that's (at least by ME3's production) the intent. Okay. Let's get mindeffed in 'ME4'. But as things stand, I get what you're saying Iakus. I find your constantly hurt tone about the ME3 ending to be strange by this point, but I get where you're coming from. ME3 seems just so full of asspulls, and it didn't need to be. At least not necessarily.

 

 

EDIT: I want to address the Prothians. They were directly depicted as the closest-to-stopping-Reapers as ever before this Cycle. That was their point. This has been since ME1. Its been since ME1 that their success proved to us/Shepard/Normandy/Cycle that victory may be possible. Without the Prothians, in this story, this Cycle and Shepard would not have had hope. Shepard would not have had interaction with the Beacon, would not have 'thought like a Prothian' (as vaguely as that is), and would not have seen that the Reapers are not utterly unstoppable, just nearly so.

 

I feel they've been consistent in all of this. I only think that they've been hamfisted into stuff more and more is all. I get their premise in the story, but things just got silly by ME3. Would have been even worse if Javik was all like 'HEY YEAH I KNOW ALL ABOUT THIS AND IM PART OF THE PLAN', as it seems the older script may have had him as (the Catalyst 0_0).

I'm sorry I flew off the handle.  Yes even after three years, I'm still p*ssed at how Mass Effect has been handled.  

 

Though I disagree about the Protheans always being portrayed as the closest to defeating the Reapers.   In ME1, they were described as being throughly stomped by the Reapers.  What gave this cycle hope was a few of them managed to hide until the Reapers left.  They were nowhere near stopping the Reapers or even slowing them down.  A few were overlooked is all.

[SwobyJ]

I'm sorry I flew off the handle.  Yes even after three years, I'm still p*ssed at how Mass Effect has been handled.  

 

Though I disagree about the Protheans always being portrayed as the closest to defeating the Reapers.   In ME1, they were described as being throughly stomped by the Reapers.  What gave this cycle hope was a few of them managed to hide until the Reapers left.  They were nowhere near stopping the Reapers or even slowing them down.  A few were overlooked is all.

 

Sorry, by 'closest' I mean 'set up hope for later' and 'learned some about the Reapers'. Which would still be closest.

 

ME3 is consistent with that tone of things. It just pushed that same-tone rather hard at times, to the point its like "Okay okay!" They had an incomplete Crucible and learned of the existence of the Catalyst being the Citadel. Still consistent with the tone, but functionally in the story they just got wrapped up into the Macguffin. "Oh, of COURSE its the Prothians" instead of "Ah, thank you Prothians for trying".

 

The Crucible could have been handled much better and still been a big weapon/tool. But that probably would have required more involvement of it in ME2, not almost all info on it being only in ME3. Too much, too fast, was ME3. (Whereas ME2 was Lets Be Cool And Explain Stuff Later).

 

I guess what I mean is that I don't have a problem with the Prothain involvement in things, or at least not as much of a problem with it as I do of the pacing. Mass Effect doesn't feel like a trilogy, yet it supposes itself as one. Things just 'come up' and 'matter'. There isn't flow. Its a lot of cheap looking setups for things to be used shortly after.

 

I have my ideas on possible good reasons for this, but as it stands, it looks sloppy in terms of storytelling. The Prothians did what? Oh, of course they did! There's plans for an awesome weapon? Of course there is! You can merge all synthetics and organics? Duh, you're Shepard!

[ImaginaryMatter]

It would be okay if the Reaper foot soldiers were defeated conventionally, but not the Reapers themselves. 

 

I feel like they kind of were. Only about a billion have been killed in multiplayer.

[bunch1]

What is it with people like this? I mean, you have the devs themselves clarifying a point in their story and still it gets handwaved away. "Nah, I'm not satisfied with that, I prefer to think my headcanon is true."

 

You see it with IT. You see it with the whole "Shepard breath scene is on London!" You see it with the reapers. You see it with Shepard breathing oxygen in the catalyst chamber. So many times you see people who reject and refuse the dev's clarification just because it doesn't "sit well" with their own personal headcanon interpretation of how things went down.

 

I will never understand it. They're not looking for answers. They're looking for people to just nod their head and go "oh, you're so right, yes yes." They act like "oh Im confused someone answer why this is so" and when they get answers from the game and from the devs themselves they still go "no, no, that cant be it, I don't like it, it must be this instead!"

 

Just because you're not personally satisfied with the answer doesn't mean that your questions have no answers. Why act like you care at all about the answers, why pretend to want clarification if the moment you get direct confirmation from the community reciting lore or the DEVS THEMSELVES you'll just throw it out the window anyway. You don't want answers, you want people to agree with your headcanon.

 

Wait, maybe that isn't fair. I'm sure the moment a dev says ANYTHING that can even slightly be interpreted to support their desired headcanon then suddenly it gets touted as proof. It seems like the only time these people are willing to accept the devs word rather than just saying "well Twitter doesn't count" or "well it wasnt in the game so it doesn't count!" is when it actually benefits their headcanon. Throw out anything that counters their preferred  headcanon fantasy but happily and eagerly embrace anything that supports it.

 

Will the denial ever end?

My problem with this is simple.  Mass Effect is a great fictinal world devolped by bioware but it has had many different writers and gone though a long devolopment and that means that not everything within it is exactly consistant.  I'm not really complaning, what they did was awsome and if they decided that something needed to change for a new naritive or gamplay design then so be it.  But don't act like it makes sense that all the galaxys guns changed suddenly you had to have disposable heat seaks to fight because they were such a huge improvment over the high level AR's of ME1 that you could litiraly fire forever without overheating.  How about how Haliat from ME1 was suppose to be a batarian but they didn't have model at the time so made him a human pirate behinde the batarian blitz.  The plot desgin that built up for Hastrom and the dark energy was completly abonded and were left with it being nothing but a one off.  I'm sure there are other examples and these are why we have retcons and like I said, I'm fine with that overall.  But don't act like I'm idot just because the reapers in ME3 don't live up to the hype that came before them.  There super storng, but not invincible, there many, but they don't swarm over dozens of worlds at a time, sure they'll win the war without comparitivly high losses but they aren't Sovergien tanking whole fleets without looseing his barriers like we saw in the first game. 

 

There are plenty of people on this forum who do belive they have those numbers and they all say the reapers are stupid for not just rushing the citidel or for allowing the crucible to make it to the citidel despite a head up from TIM that they were coming with the one thing in the galaxy that was capable of killing them all.  There answer to why is it's a game decision because if they do the smart thing then it will be game over before it begins.

 

The best part though is that if what you think helps you enjoy the game more then your right.  And if what I think helps me enjoy the game more then I'm right.  This is a game about choice after all, you can a guy or gal, stright or gay, selfless or an a**hole, and if I choose to reason out why the reapers aren't doing the smart thing so be it.  Because at the end of the day it's a game you are ment to enjoy, it dosen't really matter if you like every little detail that the dev's came up with as long as you enjoy the game.  So if all I have to do to imersse myself into the game and enjoy it is down size the reaper fleet from how large we are told they are is that so wrong?

[AlanC9]

What you see and what you're told are two different things. While the actual number of Reapers (the big ones) is down to a more comparable level of 20,000, the effect is the same. You can't portray every Reaper at once on screen. You don't see 50,000 Quarian ships over Rannoch, but you know that they're there. It's explicitly stated in the universe. And the reason they can't all be shown? Technical limitation of the game's engine. The game states that at least 1 billion years have passed since the Reapers began their cycles. And if we extrapolate a time of 50,000 years average between each cycle, there are at least 20,000 large Reapers. Even if they're not all shown, we know that they're there. There is more than meets the eye.

This is only true if every 50,000 year cycle produces a race that's capable of becoming a capital-class Reaper. Do we know this to be the case?

I don't see how a force of 20,000 large Reapers is consistent with the course of the war we see. That's what, 250 times the combat power of the combined organic fleets?

[Undead Han]

Maybe the Reapers do rebuild most of their destroyed ships.

 

It is implied that all of the Reapers (including the Catalyst) are linked into some form of hive mind. So like individual Geth platforms, maybe when individual Reapers are destroyed in doesn't always result in a total loss of that Reaper's mind, and most lost ships are rebuilt in the post war. Maybe Reapers like the Derelict Reaper or the Leviathan of Dis, which were never recovered or rebuilt, are the exception rather than the rule.

[Valmar]

@Bunch

 

Seems we both can have tirades.

 

But don't act like it makes sense that all the galaxys guns changed suddenly you had to have disposable heat seaks to fight because they were such a huge improvment over the high level AR's of ME1 that you could litiraly fire forever without overheating. 

 

I never said it made sense nor defended it. Also has nothing to do with the topic about the reaper cycles. You're branching off into a completely off-topic rant to complain about things you don't like about the story, despite your defense of "not really complaining". You're randomly complaining about something the topic wasn't even about. That isn't "really" complaining? Criticism and complaints are fine but why veil it as anything else?

 

Beyond that, the heatsink thing was more a gameplay shift than it was anything else. Be impressed that they even bothered to come up with an in-game response. They technically even have a in-game reason why omnitool melee attacks are only a thing in ME3. At least they try to explain these new features without just saying "go with it, thats why!" It's purely a gameplay thing too so, imo, even expecting explanations falls on the lines of nitpicking.

 

Why don't headshots instantly kill unshielded enemies? Why does medi gel work on synthetics? One could make a list a mile long full of minor nitpicks over this and that when it concerns the gameplay mechanics.

 

 

How about how Haliat from ME1 was suppose to be a batarian but they didn't have model at the time so made him a human pirate behinde the batarian blitz.

 

Actually he was meant to be a turian. Also, didn't have a model? They had models. From my understanding they intended him to be a turian but it was fudged. Not because "meh, lets use a human" but because it was a genuine mistake. Whatever their reason lack of a model certainly wasn't one.

 

 

The plot desgin that built up for Hastrom and the dark energy was completly abonded and were left with it being nothing but a one off. 

 

Fortunately there was never a real need to finish those. They were there as foreshadowing in the future if they decided to ever use it. They never had much significance other than that. For all people talk like dark energy had this huge build up in the plot and was scrapped it actually only gets vague references here and there in ME2. No more no less than the "protheans studying man" story arc from the prothean artifact vision you experienced in the first game.

 

 

But don't act like I'm idot just because the reapers in ME3 don't live up to the hype that came before them. 

 

I never called anyone an idiot. I was making an observation. You're the one who dismisses the dev's comments because they counter your personal interpretation. They made clear their intent by clarifying it. You're not happy with it and thus don't accept it. My judgement had absolutely nothing to do with ME3 not living up the hype.

 

There super storng, but not invincible, there many, but they don't swarm over dozens of worlds at a time, sure they'll win the war without comparitivly high losses but they aren't Sovergien tanking whole fleets without looseing his barriers like we saw in the first game. 

 

It's almost as if theres plot inconsistencies or something.

 

In all seriousness though we do "see" quite a bit of the reapers just wiping the floor with us. Just not all of it is done with flashy visuals with great cinematic (30FPS?) cutscenes and the like. We see it through the codex. They decimated the Alliance fleets. Also, Sovereign was a Capital ship. As in, one of the strongest and most powerful reaper ships. They don't ALL have the same level of capability. Bioware had to nerf them somehow I guess.

 

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. I've played the game many times and I never got the impression of "meh, reapers are weak" if that's what you're suggesting. Arrogant and a little stupid, yes, but not weak. Just because God Shepard can perform impossible insane feats of badassery doesn't mean the reapers are weak. It just means Shepard just drips with the Rule of Cool. It's almost as if he's the heroic badass of the story or something. Next thing you know he'll be the one leading the entire galaxy against the reapers and be the one who single-handily defeats them and saves the galaxy.

 

Maybe he'll even become a real God and rule over everything with supreme power or change all life in the galaxy in his image. Lol now I'm just talking crazy talk.

 

 

There are plenty of people on this forum who do belive they have those numbers and they all say the reapers are stupid for not just rushing the citidel or for allowing the crucible to make it to the citidel despite a head up from TIM that they were coming with the one thing in the galaxy that was capable of killing them all.  There answer to why is it's a game decision because if they do the smart thing then it will be game over before it begins.

 

Point? I'm one of those people. I think it was stupid but accept that its just a video game and some suspension of belief is required to enjoy it - not even something new for ME3. The entire series has been a large suspension of belief for me - it has since the moment they decided the enemy were sentient starships that have no beginning and no end. If anything ME3 tried too hard to make the story "real" in some areas while being too ridiculous in others. I felt the first two games had a good balance between the two, a nice middleground. There was a consistency where as ME3, imo, is all over the place and doesn't know which one it wants to stick with.

 

I also fail to see the connection between this and someone outright rejecting the clarifications of devs just because the dev's intended story doesn't suit the individuals personal interpretation of how they feel it should have went.

 

 

The best part though is that if what you think helps you enjoy the game more then your right.  And if what I think helps me enjoy the game more then I'm right.

 

Wrong. Personal enjoyment has NOTHING to do with facts. If you want to headcanon something thats fine. Headcanon is awesome. I headcanon lots of things. Hell I've even headcanoned IT. No one, let alone me, has said anything against people using headcanon. I was very specific in what I was targeting in my post, I'm not sure why you're stretching it out to cover those who use headcanon. One can have headcanon without acting as if everything else is wrong and only theirs is true.

 

 

 Because at the end of the day it's a game you are ment to enjoy, it dosen't really matter if you like every little detail that the dev's came up with as long as you enjoy the game.

 

I agree, never said anything otherwise really.

 

 

So if all I have to do to imersse myself into the game and enjoy it is down size the reaper fleet from how large we are told they are is that so wrong?

 

Long as you acknowledge that it is headcanon and not the "real" and intended story by Bioware, that's fine. You can pretend Shepard's secretly an advanced space hamster piloting a human suit for all I care. Yet you certainly haven't given, at least for me, the impression that you're satisfied with it just being your headcanon fanfiction. You're in here arguing your headcanon against the lore as if your vision, your fanfic is the REAL intent, the way its meant to be seen. If you weren't, then why is it you've spent the last page and half arguing with people who point out that some of the claims you make aren't factually true in the lore.

 

No one is saying "stop headcanoning! stop it!"

 

 

[bunch1]

Valmar my only point in this thread was that just going by the codex in ME3 on the Battle of Palaven where the Reapers launch a suprise attack on the turian homeworld, just like they do at Earth, the Turians despite not knowing what was coming through the relay before they showed up are still able to destroy several captial ships, also know as Soverign class dreadnaughts.  Needless to say the only ships in the system at the time would be thoses fleet normaly station at the homeworld in peace time at that was still enough to destroy several ships.  The point of that little fact on the OP statment was that it is silly to just assume that no other species in all the cycles that came before were capable of such action or the follow up action of suicide bombing reaper ship that have touched down and inductronate their people.  This is all in refrence to the OP wondering about the size of the reaper population and why it may not be at it's theoretical maximum.  Now if the devs have said otherwise then ok, word of god dosen't have to make sense after all and does superced theroy, it's there story and they get to set the rules I just never saw the stament you refer to before but I guess I'll just take your word that the devs said the reapers never ever sustained more then a couple of losses in thousands of cycles.