crazyrabbits said:
The problem with that argument is that ME3 tossed any sense of consistency out the window. The prior two games (especially 2), from both a narrative and technology-based standpoint, showed that the galaxy had made significant gains since the battle with Sovereign, to the point that they could mount Reaper-killing cannons on small fighters.
I don't recall the existence of "Reaper killing" technology being present until ME3, actually. The main guns on the Normandy that are possible in 2 (the result of the battle with Sovereign), a frigate, were not presented as being powerful enough to kill a dreadnought but rather simply something that gave a frigate the firepower of a cruiser.
crazyrabbits said:
Not only that, but 3 itself was incredibly inconsistent with how it portrayed the Earth forces' military potential - we suddenly learn in the final act (from Cortez, no less) that we can one-shot Spider-Reapers with Cains. The entire final battle could have been over in hours if a group of heavy weapons specialists pushed through to the beam with Cains. I'm not even going to get into everything that this broke in regards to lore or plot.
I agree with this point.
crazyrabbits said:
In addition, the Reapers were made to be artificially stupid. Instead of attacking the Citadel and immediately shutting off the relay network (which was done in 1 by the Geth), they spend an inordinate amount of time twiddling their thumbs until The Illusive Man hands them the keys to it. Then, they stupidly left the Charon Relay open, and let the galaxy amass and attack them head-on.
It does seem odd that they would not attempt to control the relay network since that is fundamental to their strategy. Having repeatedly cast down powerful empires in the past and having at least a few times experienced a loss of one or more of their own, it would seem that they understand the value of mobility superiority.
crazyrabbits said:
Any way you look at it, the Reaper invasion and the contrived nature of why the galaxy couldn't win on its own merits was handled incredibly poorly, both from a narrative and gameplay standpoint.
If you consider the simple fact that the galaxy simply couldn't win if the Reapers actually exercised control over the the Relay network then you find that there are two important things that allows victory. First, the fleet
was getting creamed even at max readiness. The best the galaxy could do is still not enough by a long shot to take out the reapers. Sufficient to hurt them, certainly but not to win. Thus the deus ex machina is still necessary even with the unreasonable advances. Second, to even allow the opportunity to reach this moment the reapers had to make grievous strategic errors that there is no evidence they have made in the past.
crazyrabbits said:
No, it wasn't the only solution, and yes, the Crucible was a stupid choice for it because there was already precedent in the series.
No, a deus ex machina was necessary. Sudden and magical advances in technology rapidly protyped and implemented across a wide number of ship types is up there with silly things that may happen. Yet in spite of this magical and inexplicable advance in technology, the fleet still is not sufficient. All the fleet provides is an opportunity to reveal or use the whatever the deus ex machina could be.
This could have been
anything from superweapons to the literal machine god we were given. As you've noted, some options are better than others.
crazyrabbits said:
And yet, the entire tone of the trilogy (prior to 2) led most people to believe that the galaxy not only could defeat the Reapers, but likely would.
That defines a single game, a game where we were presented with a single reaper and, by banding together, we apparently stopped the invasion. Until the end of 2, it wasn't obvious that the reapers had a way to get to the galaxy that did not involve the citadel. Moreover, any perception that we would eventually win is in no small part due to the fact that video games rarely make a habit of having the player lose as a necessary condition for completion. When it happens it's notable enough that we take note - Red Dead Redemption for example.
crazyrabbits said:
That's the whole point of the ending of the first game - "the galaxy will stand together and drive back the Reapers!" 3's ending is a betrayal of everything that came beforehand, and one of the worst endings to any video game I've seen in the last two decades.
Is it bad? Sure. Deus Ex Machina's tend to be bad. But to say that it is a betrayal of what came before is
silly.
In the first game we were given hope that an endless cycle could be broken. The Protheans combined with actions of the player and the intervention of various races halted the invasion of the galaxy. We were also shown the power of the reapers when a single ship proved almost impossible to stop. Even when cornered at close range Sovereign did terrible damage before being brought low. This showed us just how hard it was to kill a reaper.
The second game, up until the end, had the reapers acting through other agents which reinforces the notion that they needed a way to get to the milky way. Then you beat the game and find that they don't and also that there are countless
thousands of the things.
At the end of the second game
and all of the DLC to date the galaxy is still not united, they still don't widely believe in the reaper threat and while there have been advances, the galaxy is still wildly outgunned.
The hope of the galaxy was that the reapers could be contained. That hope failed in the second game. Staying true to the spirit and trajectory of the previous games requires we be defeated after a glorious stand in a final alliance. To end up with a less grim ending, it was necessary to find some magic solution to the problem.
Yes, there were other magic solutions that were less silly. I will not discount that. I didn't particularly
like the ending chosen. I'm simply more willing to accept it because the expectation set by the end of the second game was, quite frankly, that the solution
would have to be absurd.
