Ce sujet est fermé
Guest_Runescapeguy9_*
Yes. I include personality in my 'sexy' category. Tali is the only quarian I am remotely attracted to.Someone With Mass wrote...
But is there any quarian female who isn't sexy? I think not.
Modifié par Runescapeguy9, 05 juillet 2010 - 10:51 .
The several posts that said that they wanted to stop debating and instead just talk about Tali inanely. That's what I mean.Phil725 wrote...
Collider wrote...
The relunctance to have intelligent conversations in this thread will be why Tali threads and the Tali fandom will forever be known as people drooling, obsessing and perversing over a video game character. Unless you begin changing.
Who says the thread is opposed to intelligent discussion?
I get a little annoyed that the other threads aren't like this. Literally every other character thread is fine with these types of discussions, and encourage them. Considering Tali is a favorite of mine, I get disappointed that the thread is generally held as substandard to the other ones. Sometimes it feels like I need to apologize for being a tali fan.Obviously some people don't want to do it, but plenty do.
Yeah, what was going on last night between Rip and yourself? You were both very moody, uncharacteristically so.Lividity Jones wrote...
NuclearBuddha wrote...
Man, LJ. Living up to the name today...
I'm in a less-than-cordial mood.
Collider wrote...
What are you talking about?huntrrz wrote...
Counter-argument:
They don't "die being on most worlds that other races can live on fine", they actually adapt to new environments which might even make them more of a 'threat' for widespread expansion.
To "probably stuck to their little slice of the galaxy" I again offer "They had mapped more relays than anyone else".
So? If they can't expand, it doesn't matter.
Guest_SenHai_*
Azint wrote...
A fine example.SenHai wrote...
Collider wrote...
The relunctance to have intelligent conversations in this thread will be why Tali threads and the Tali fandom will forever be known as people drooling, obsessing and perversing over a video game character. Unless you begin changing.
Can you see me not caring? Cause I am.
I can see where he's coming from, but this method of approaching it will probably not achieve desired results. Ironic, really, considering the topic.SenHai wrote...
This is what makes me not like Collider. I swear I said some where that he needs to drop it.
Why don't you initiate the new phase?NuclearBuddha wrote...
If this thread obsessed half as much about Shala'Raan, the world would be a better place.
Azint wrote...
Regardless of personal views, the Council is still an important asset. They rule over a galactic civilization, and have done so for a long time. Like Udina, you dislike them and how they operate, but they actually do their jobs and for the most part, you do benefit from what they provide. The arguement being thrown around is how much they care for the quarians. I already stated that they likely do have the quarians on their agenda, but they have not actually treated the problem yet.Lividity Jones wrote...
Just asking Collider's opinion, since apparently incompetent and negligent leaders of a galaxy-spanning governmental body are acceptable.
True, disposing them is unrealistic considering the Reapers, but does that mean we have to content with the fact that the Council has not ruled as it should?
That the galaxy deserves better than the Council's policies of non-involvement?
Azint wrote...
Yeah, what was going on last night between Rip and yourself? You were both very moody, uncharacteristically so.Lividity Jones wrote...
NuclearBuddha wrote...
Man, LJ. Living up to the name today...
I'm in a less-than-cordial mood.
Guest_SenHai_*
hamtyl07 wrote...
HA........ Obsession it never gets old
I would suggest that's not a matter of unwillingness to discuss, but rather a symptom of fatigue, or even the feeling that the discussion is getting to heated. Different people have different tolerance levels for discussion.Collider wrote...
The several posts that said that they wanted to stop debating and instead just talk about Tali inanely. That's what I mean.
HA! Too busy with other stuff. Maybe some day.Azint wrote...
Why don't you initiate the new phase?NuclearBuddha wrote...
If this thread obsessed half as much about Shala'Raan, the world would be a better place.
You are aware that there is nothing wrong with taking breaks from any given project?Lividity Jones wrote...
Short version? Paranoia.
Long version? Reckoning is a very stressful project, for both of us. We're putting alot of ourselves into it and we're paranoid about just about every little detail. I'm a little on edge, to say the least.
Do you want some commentary about the latest chapter?Lividity Jones wrote...
Long version? Reckoning is a very stressful project, for both of us. We're putting alot of ourselves into it and we're paranoid about just about every little detail. I'm a little on edge, to say the least.
NuclearBuddha wrote...
Do you want some commentary about the latest chapter?Lividity Jones wrote...
Long version? Reckoning is a very stressful project, for both of us. We're putting alot of ourselves into it and we're paranoid about just about every little detail. I'm a little on edge, to say the least.
I was Xenmancing before it became popular, and now I had two others do most of the work for me. How would you approach it?NuclearBuddha wrote...
HA! Too busy with other stuff. Maybe some day.
What it really boils down to is what was meant by ME3 being standalone. It's nebulous.Phil725 wrote...
I see ME2 as standalone because no matter what happened in ME1, how you play ME2 doesn't change. You still die, then recruit 4 people, go to Horizon, etc. The surrounding environment is all that changes. You expect two different games, one where you go off to broker peace between the geth/quarians, and one where you choose a side to help in war based on what happened before? Bioware just doesn't have that option. They need to keep the game at least manageable.
We'll end up seeing in ME3. They did express their wishes to "go all out" and make an entangled mass of branching plots. If nothing else, that makes me more hopeful that my choices in ME1 and ME2 will matter.The geth/quarian conflict needs resolved in ME3, pidgeonholing you into one solution is hardly being standalone. Maybe the actions you describe help facilitate or hinder you in ME3, but I can't see them crossing off the option completely. The actions have to show up in one form or another, but I don't see messing up the reclamation effort as where they pop up. The geth still don't need the planet at all, and the quarians still just need to know the geth are open to diplomacy.
The Geth took long enough to contact organics as it is. If they first and only time they even bothered talking to them ends in failure, do you really think they are going to try again, given how long it took them in the first place? No. Legion was one of a kind. If he's destroyed or given to Cerberus (an organization which is far from the best representation of organics)...The Geth aren't really about second chances. They are logical.
That is a good point. Although they could reasonably assume that if Legion did not send any data back to the Geth for a long time, that Legion was either destroyed or otherwise in danger. Legion is able to send data back to the Geth from the Normandy, that's for certain.One question I have, would the geth know whether or not Legion got killed by husks on the reaper or sent to Cerberus? That could be important, and I'm not sure what the answer is.
Geth are logical. If their first endeavor ends in failure, I really doubt they are going to bother again. It would be seen as a waste of resources, a waste of time.Assuming they know the fate, why would it be enough to stop them? Its not like its a ridiculous amount of resources to make a single geth. The only reason they didn't do it sooner was because of their isolationism, with that gone, the door is open to communication. From communication comes results.
Second chances or not, logically, getting a race to stop trying
to erradicate you is a good move, if you need to rebuild a geth to do
that, its hardly a problem.
This is one thing that is for certain: a happy ending will be possible with any Shepard. Meaning, the Reapers won't eat everyone invariably even if your Shepard made all of the "wrong" decisions in ME1 and ME2. I don't think retaking Rannoch has to be part of a "happy ending." Simply winning against the Reapers is basically happy enough.I go back to the multiple endings thing. Surely its easy to see how a peaceful ending is possible given that you didn't screw up. Are they going to make it impossible anyway because of the people who did screw up? I know people really want their decisions to matter, but it seems much more likely to me that if both options are available in ME3, then actions in ME3 can lead to both results.
Guest_Calinstel_*
It is a little critical, so I can take it to PM, if you want.Lividity Jones wrote...
Honestly, yes, but I'm absolutely terrified of what you'll say.
Go for it.
I personally think that some people are having the Council's treatment of the Quarians colors their arguments. The Council acted erroneously, but they are not as bad as Cerberus as some people claim.Azint wrote...
Regardless of personal views, the Council is still an important asset. They rule over a galactic civilization, and have done so for a long time. Like Udina, you dislike them and how they operate, but they actually do their jobs and for the most part, you do benefit from what they provide. The arguement being thrown around is how much they care for the quarians. I already stated that they likely do have the quarians on their agenda, but they have not actually treated the problem yet.Lividity Jones wrote...
Just asking Collider's opinion, since apparently incompetent and negligent leaders of a galaxy-spanning governmental body are acceptable.
True, disposing them is unrealistic considering the Reapers, but does that mean we have to content with the fact that the Council has not ruled as it should?
That the galaxy deserves better than the Council's policies of non-involvement?
Retour en haut
