1106 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Alan, a while back, didn't you make a great comparison about how the cycles were basically the Reapers' way of herding livestock? I always thought that made more sense than the "they need to surprise us" approach, even back in ME1.

Yeah, that was me. I figured that since the timing of the cycles is at the Reapers' option, they've got no reason to let the targets get to a point where they're anything like a serious military threat. Of course, ME1 implies that the current harvest is happening centuries late, and yet the current cycle hasn't caught up to the Prothean cycle yet. Maybe the current cycle is uniquely stupid?

[KaiserShep]

Yeah, that was me. I figured that since the timing of the cycles is at the Reapers' option, they've got no reason to let the targets get to a point where they're anything like a serious military threat. Of course, ME1 implies that the current harvest is happening centuries late, and yet the current cycle hasn't caught up to the Prothean cycle yet. Maybe the current cycle is uniquely stupid?

 

I like to think that the Protheans were on par with the humans in terms of rate of advancement, and the humans' only failing is bad timing. If they were around sooner and discovered the Charon relay and the Citadel at the point the asari did, they'd probably have consumed a sizable portion of the galaxy by 2180-something. 

 

#humanityisnumber1

[Eryri]

The geth developed a self-repairing Colossus in a few hundred years.

Point taken, although said Colossus was destroyed off-camera before ME3 started by the Quarians, via a combination of their familiarity with Geth technology and authorial fiat.

You'll have to excuse me from thinking of the idea of permanently weakened, billion-year-old Reapers rolling into the knowing galaxy and getting conventionally defeated as being less believable than a super-weapon.

They don't have to be permanently weakened. A fleet of, say, a few hundred perfectly functional capital Reapers that got here by cannibalising fuel and/or discharge capacity from their comrades would still be a formidable threat to the Council species despite being a 'weaker' force than the crushing armada of thousands of ships that were presented in ME3.
Similarly a force of Reapers suffering engine damage would still presumably require time and resources to self repair. In fact that would add a nice sense of urgency to the game - stop the reapers before they regain their full power and become unbeatable again.

As to whether that is more or less believable than a super weapon... Well, that's a matter of personal taste. For me, the above would certainly win out. Particularly when the super weapon we're comparing it to has a couple of inexplicable additional functions including the ability to 'upgrade' every living thing in the galaxy with 'new DNA'.

[Eryri]

Yeah, that was me. I figured that since the timing of the cycles is at the Reapers' option, they've got no reason to let the targets get to a point where they're anything like a serious military threat.

That's always bothered me too. I used to be able to head canon that the Reapers wanted to assimilate novel technology or materials that they could only get from sufficiently advanced civilisations, but that doesn't really mesh with the Catalyst's stated plan.

[AlanC9]

Similarly a force of Reapers suffering engine damage would still presumably require time and resources to self repair. In fact that would add a nice sense of urgency to the game - stop the reapers before they regain their full power and become unbeatable again.
.

This can't work. The Reapers don't have to arrive in a part of the galaxy that the organics know anything about. They can find time and resources in perfect safety behind the inactive relays.

[Il Divo]

This can't work. The Reapers don't have to arrive in a part of the galaxy that the organics know anything about. They can find time and resources in perfect safety behind the inactive relays.

 

This could've been solvable in a different way though: to get back to the Milky Way galaxy, the Reapers have to start cannibalizing their own numbers just to reach us, which brings their numbers down to more manageable sizes, from a conventional victory stand point. ​

[themikefest]

 At the moment,  the reapers win by numbers alone. When talking about the number of capital ships, destroyers have to added to that number and also the troop transport ships and processing ships.

​

If they only have, oh I don't know, 300, they still win. Those 300 go to a system, shutoff the relay and destroy the military in that system. They do that for each system then go back and harvest each system without any interference.

[Ahglock]

So the races develop more advanced weaponry.

You mean like in ME2 with the thanix cannon that popped collector shields and hulls like nothing when put on a tiny ass ship? Oh wait defunct reapers might give them some kind of tech edge in this cycle.

[Ahglock]

This can't work. The Reapers don't have to arrive in a part of the galaxy that the organics know anything about. They can find time and resources in perfect safety behind the inactive relays.

They could do that. But they are malfunctioning AI who think its a good idea to sit in dark space for 50,000 years at a time, who knows what they would do. They also think they can't be beat, so maybe they don't bother.

[KaiserShep]

You mean like in ME2 with the thanix cannon that popped collector shields and hulls like nothing when put on a tiny ass ship? Oh wait defunct reapers might give them some kind of tech edge in this cycle.

 

 

I was always curious about what it would be like if the reapers tried to invade Omega after all the upgrades Petrovsky added to it. He'd be in there like James Franco in This Is The End.

 

This place is a f****n' fortress! 

[Sylvius the Mad]

Destroying reapers, though ending gave two other options in the end.

Well to me that sounds like you haven't finished DA2 then, you have simply tried it and you didn't like it.

You continue to adhere to your rigid (and arbitrary) definition.

I don't really get your point since although you can control your character in the game and make some choices majority of games have linear story line, start and end.

You're not going to see my point as long as you keep rejecting my core premise.

The story isn't written by BioWare. They create the world, but it's you who creates the story, and you create a different one with each playthrough.

[Mummy22kids]

I don't care what the ending is like as long as people aren't constantly bringing it up, and rehashing all the old arguments. 3,4,5 years later.

[Puddi III]

I think he's a pretty cool sniper with photosynthesizing skin who doesn't need to wear a bikini to breathe, for some reason.

[Felps Cross]

Well one of the things that made me unlike the original trilogy's ending was the lack of perspective. I coudnt see in any way how all those war assets contributed to the final battle, or how were they doing through all London. I wasnt able to see the might of the krogan/turian alliance, or the quarian/geth's. Or all of them combined. Only those poor animations through the level and the cutscenes.

 

I really do hope to see an ending where I can really see that my choices mattered. No matter who dies, who lives, or who explodes. It just needs to matter.

[Panda]

You continue to adhere to your rigid (and arbitrary) definition.
You're not going to see my point as long as you keep rejecting my core premise.

The story isn't written by BioWare. They create the world, but it's you who creates the story, and you create a different one with each playthrough.

 

Story is written by Bioware's writers and although there is changes based your choices the story isn't still written by you..

 

Well I would say that my definition is bit.. normal one here and I can't really not reject your core premise cause it simply doesn't make sense to me. There is canonical ending to all Bioware's games and only DAI is one where you can play after ending. So they are all quite linear as games. I do not know many games that would fit to your core premise.

[themikefest]

Well one of the things that made me unlike the original trilogy's ending was the lack of perspective. I coudnt see in any way how all those war assets contributed to the final battle, or how were they doing through all London. I wasnt able to see the might of the krogan/turian alliance, or the quarian/geth's. Or all of them combined. Only those poor animations through the level and the cutscenes.

 

I really do hope to see an ending where I can really see that my choices mattered. No matter who dies, who lives, or who explodes. It just needs to matter.

If interested, here's a thread about what folks didn't like about Priority Earth

[Mathias]

You mean like in ME2 with the thanix cannon that popped collector shields and hulls like nothing when put on a tiny ass ship? Oh wait defunct reapers might give them some kind of tech edge in this cycle.

 

Basically. Mass Effect 2 should've established a way for us to actually fight against the Reapers. The Galaxy working together, advancing their weaponry, constructing more ships, setting traps, etc. In fact I would argue that the goals in Mass Effect 3, which is to play diplomat and solve each races problem to get them to work together, should've been the plot of Mass Effect 2.

 

The council races are already preparing for the Reapers, but curing the Genophage, brokering peace between the Quarians and the Geth, learning more about the enemy and what the past cycles did wrong, etc. That should've been ME2.

[Il Divo]

Making the more important loyalty missions optional probably didn't help matters either. Mordin, Tali, and Legion's come to mind. Likewise with all companions being able to die. It's my favorite of the trilogy, but ME2 dropped the ball in an overarching sense.

[Black Jimmy]

I don't really care HOW it ends, I just want it, and the basic storyline of the next two games, planned out from the beginning so when it comes it feels like a natural conclusion to the trilogy. 

 

 

EDIT: I don't NEED a big decision at the end either. I would much rather have it be a big final battle with the trilogy long Big Bad, which varies based on choices made across the trilogy. In fact, last minute choices seem to be detrimental to these kind of games in general.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Story is written by Bioware's writers and although there is changes based your choices the story isn't still written by you..

Well I would say that my definition is bit.. normal one here and I can't really not reject your core premise cause it simply doesn't make sense to me. There is canonical ending to all Bioware's games and only DAI is one where you can play after ending. So they are all quite linear as games. I do not know many games that would fit to your core premise.

I'm not disputing that there's one canonical ending. I'm disputing that it's at all relevant to any individual playthrough.

When you play a new character, you're initiating a new and unique instance of the game's universe. Nothing that doesn't actually appear on screen needs to happen in it. The minor NPCs could have completely different backstories - unless you actually learn of them in-game, why would they necessarily be consistent across playthroughs?

I'm taking advantage of the inherent ambiguity of unfinished narratives. A book you don't finish could end a variety of ways, and if you don't actually read to the end, who's to say it doesn't? Each playthrough works the same way.

You're letting your playthroughs be limited by your own metagame knowledge. Why?

[Iakus]

Well, except for the whole Reaper-shrugging-off-the-entire-fleet's-attack thing.

Mac Walters later said via twitter (how I hate Twitter-canon!) That 5th Fleet would have eventually brought down Sovereign even without Shepard's help.  But that losses would have been far higher.

[themikefest]

Mac Walters later said via twitter (how I hate Twitter-canon!) That 5th Fleet would have eventually brought down Sovereign even without Shepard's help.  But that losses would have been far higher.

Not if Hackett had the fleets firing at Sovereign from behind

[Iakus]

 At the moment,  the reapers win by numbers alone. When talking about the number of capital ships, destroyers have to added to that number and also the troop transport ships and processing ships.

​

If they only have, oh I don't know, 300, they still win. Those 300 go to a system, shutoff the relay and destroy the military in that system. They do that for each system then go back and harvest each system without any interference.

What you describe is pretty much exactly how they've handled every cycle previously.  It's slow, but it's certain, minimal losses on the part for the Reapers. But this cycle they did things differently.  Because REASONS!

 

ANd even so, given their numbers, they could have sent 300 to a hundred worlds simultaneously and probably have more to spare.

[themikefest]

What you describe is pretty much exactly how they've handled every cycle previously.  It's slow, but it's certain, minimal losses on the part for the Reapers. But this cycle they did things differently.  Because REASONS!

 

ANd even so, given their numbers, they could have sent 300 to a hundred worlds simultaneously and probably have more to spare.

The biggest reason why this cycle was more successful at destroying some reapers is that, thanks to the prothean scientists, there was no surprise attack. Had they entered through the citadel relay, we would fall just like all the civiixations before us without causing much damage to reapers.

[KaiserShep]

Not if Hackett had the fleets firing at Sovereign from behind

So if the reapers really wanted to win, they should've been built in the form of giant spheres. Imagine a fleet of Death Stars, only without the stupid vent.