119 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

My primary complaint with Arrival is how horrendous the level design is if you use Charge nigh exclusively. The skill is bugged already but it becomes to widely apparent through Arrival that are times you could deem the DLC unplayable, at least on Insanity.

From a narrative perspective, the writing is relatively poor and rehashes a plethora of existing content or is reliant entirely upon the sake of convenience. While it may be partial nitpicking, Shepard comes across as a complete moron so frequently, it is comical. You have Kenson instructing him/her to proceed along to the back room, strangely reminiscent of our recruitment of Jack. How did that turn out? Oh right, the entire station turned against us and we were forced to blast our way out guns blazes. I'm certain that will not happen again.

We are in complete disagreement in regards to tying down Shepard. The (wo)man has prove capable of overcoming [i]death]/i] and Harbinger cannot spare a few credits for some plastic zip ties? You profuse rather adamantly their goal is to capture him/her and when they finally accomplish the task, they fail spectacularly at making certain (s)he cannot escape. This is a (wo)man whose merc slaughter list would be teetering close to exceeding a thousand by now. They have blown out space stations, raided Rachni, put a big enough hole in a planet the blast stretched out into space and potentially destroyed the Collectors, and Harby did not consider for a moment three mooks a couple mechs might not suffice? I mean you can only push the "we are underestimating our enemies due to our superiority complex!" so far before the audience begins to giggle.

The logic used for excluding our squad was asinine.

Hackett: "This is a stealth mission."
Shepard: "Good thing I have a master assassin, thief and robot."
Hackett: "If you go in with an army the Batarians will kill Kenson."
Shepard: "Right, which is why I'd send them in. This is their type of mission."
Hackett: "You must go in alone."
Shepard: "Because I have a grand record of going in quiet."
Hackett: "I can only trust this mission to you."
Shepard: "Fine, you don't mind if I bring the Cain right?"

Yes, I know gameplay, however this is why I am against the narrative attempting to explain the mechanics. It always ends up hilariously nonsensical.

At the end of the day with amount of hype BioWare put forth with bridging DLC. They frankly failed to deliver in my opinion. We had only two DLCs that met that criteria and Arrival was underwhelming to say the least. Not a whole loss nor a disaster by any stretch. Just not what was to b expected. I am not going to lobby too much against DLC.

[TheAzureVanguard]

This was hands down THE WORST DLC that Bioware has released for Mass Effect 2.

The writing was atrocious. The reasons given for being sent alone. The little twists. The whole convo with Hackett at the end.

Just inane. Kinda shocking coming from a company such as Bioware....

[squee913]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

My primary complaint with Arrival is how horrendous the level design is if you use Charge nigh exclusively. The skill is bugged already but it becomes to widely apparent through Arrival that are times you could deem the DLC unplayable, at least on Insanity.

I suppose that is a completly valid complaint. Never played vanguard. I did my blind run on Insainty with an engineer and only died once at the end (And I am not the best player), but engineer is a very diffrent play style.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
From a narrative perspective, the writing is relatively poor and rehashes a plethora of existing content or is reliant entirely upon the sake of convenience. While it may be partial nitpicking, Shepard comes across as a complete moron so frequently, it is comical. You have Kenson instructing him/her to proceed along to the back room, strangely reminiscent of our recruitment of Jack. How did that turn out? Oh right, the entire station turned against us and we were forced to blast our way out guns blazes. I'm certain that will not happen again.

I understand your point of view, but at the time Shep had no reason to think they were in any danger. They were in an alliance facility. If he/she went to earth and someone told them to " proceed along to the back room" should they immediately raise alarms? We feel this way, because it is a game and we expect bad things to happen. Letting your guard down is not the same as being a moron.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
We are in complete disagreement in regards to tying down Shepard. The (wo)man has prove capable of overcoming [i]death]/i] and Harbinger cannot spare a few credits for some plastic zip ties? You profuse rather adamantly their goal is to capture him/her and when they finally accomplish the task, they fail spectacularly at making certain (s)he cannot escape. This is a (wo)man whose merc slaughter list would be teetering close to exceeding a thousand by now. They have blown out space stations, raided Rachni, put a big enough hole in a planet the blast stretched out into space and potentially destroyed the Collectors, and Harby did not consider for a moment three mooks a couple mechs might not suffice? I mean you can only push the "we are underestimating our enemies due to our superiority complex!" so far before the audience begins to giggle.

Again, I do understand your point. However, most people would agree that drugging someone into unconsiousness, and placeing 2 armed guards on them is adiquate security. They had no knowledge of Shep's ability to counter act sedatives. And, under normal circumstances, sedatives are far more effective than flexy cuffs. I did not say that it was the smartest move, but it is not unbelievable. Not to mention the fact that if they had strapped him down, there would have been no possibility for escape and you would have had a very short DLC. Now that I think about it, most cases where the hero is caught in any sci fi, they are not placed in adequate security for just that reason.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
The logic used for excluding our squad was asinine.

Hackett: "This is a stealth mission."
Shepard: "Good thing I have a master assassin, thief and robot."
Hackett: "If you go in with an army the Batarians will kill Kenson."
Shepard: "Right, which is why I'd send them in. This is their type of mission."
Hackett: "You must go in alone."
Shepard: "Because I have a grand record of going in quiet."
Hackett: "I can only trust this mission to you."
Shepard: "Fine, you don't mind if I bring the Cain right?"

Yes, I know gameplay, however this is why I am against the narrative attempting to explain the mechanics. It always ends up hilariously nonsensical.

No argument here.

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
At the end of the day with amount of hype BioWare put forth with bridging DLC. They frankly failed to deliver in my opinion. We had only two DLCs that met that criteria and Arrival was underwhelming to say the least. Not a whole loss nor a disaster by any stretch. Just not what was to b expected. I am not going to lobby too much against DLC.

As above, I understand. I was expecting more myself, but I still enjoyed it and felt it set up 3 nicely. My argument was more that the story does make sense, and less that the writing and way it was presented was fantatstic.

Modifié par squee913, 17 avril 2011 - 12:53 .

[Ye Olde Gamer]

Savber100 wrote...

aimlessgun wrote...

Frankly Saruman was a much more credible threat than the Collectors. He had a substantial army, was going to be a huge problem if left alone, and needed some serious help to take care of.

Number don't equal credible threat. But if you want numbers, the Collectors were a little force than manages to kidnap ten of thousands and wiping out entire colonies. Saruman had 10,000+ army, invaded the outerlying areas of Rohan (small villages etc) before his defeat at Helms Deep. I don't know about you but a smaller force that can match or even surpass the devestation caused by Saruman's 'greater force' is not a threat to cough at.

The Collector "threat" can be blown up by one damaged, un-upgraded frigate.  The Collectors are dangerous to a bunch of undefended colonies, but they're zero threat to the Systems Alliance.  By contrast, it took more than the remaining Fellowship to stop Saruman, it took an actual military force (two, really, counting the Ents).  I'm going to have to agree with aimlessgun on this one.

But the bigger problem with the comparison, IMHO, is that the actions in tTT mattered going forward.  We spend most of Book II rallying the forces of Rohan and re-assembling the Fellowship.  This climaxes with the defeat of Isengard, but those forces then go on to play vital roles in Books V and VI.  Imagine how RotK would feel if any of Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippin, Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn or the armies of Rohan could be dead at the end of Book III (I'm giving Gandalf the Shepard role, and assuming he MUST survive in order to continue).  If all the key events in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields had to be performed solely by Gandalf and some minor characters, would tTT feel anywhere near as relevant?

Given the development schedule of ME3, I very much doubt any of our ME2 squadmates will be plot-crucial; the time and money it would take to cover all the bases is considerable.  I do think they'll be present as more than cameos (*crosses fingers*), but I think they'll be strictly supplimental to the main story.   That's what bothers me about ME2.  I certainly hope I'm wrong, though.


While I'm here, I wanted to comment on the OP, too.  Specifically, one point that I haven't seen mentioned yet.

BLOW UP A MASS RELAY? RETCON!! RETCON!!!!

I hear this one a lot; a
super nova could not blow one up, how could an asteroid. It's all about
distance me hardies. Someone on youtube put it perfectly. It is the
same reason why a nuclear blast that is far enough away only knocks you
on your bum, while a rock to the face can crack your skull. Energy
dissipates with distance. All we know is that a "Near by" star went
super nova and knocked the relay out of it's position. In space terms,
near by can be a very long distance. 

Some people said that if a
simply asteroid can destroy a relay, than a lot of relays should have
blown up over the millions of years they have been around. First of all,
the chances of a planet sized asteroid hitting a relay in the vastness
of space is pretty slim. Earth has been around for billions of years and
nothing even close to that size has hit us... this is proven by the
fact that I am even here to type this. Yes an asteroid that size would
tear this planet apart. (Now that I think about it, one might have hit
us. There are theories that the moon was made by a large impact knocking
off the enough parts to form into a moon. Still this was billions of
years ago, when our solar system was not nice and ordered as it is now.
Back then tons of flying derby was everywhere.) 

Secondly, the
asteroid was moving much faster than a normal asteroid would be. It was
being propelled towards the thing at great speed. This equals a much
greater transfer of energy upon impact than a normal asteroid would
have. 
And lastly, we have no idea that this hasn't happened to other
relays. All we know is that it has not happened in the past few
thousands years that the Asari have known about them. That is a very
small window for such a massive event to happen.

I don't want to argue over the relative destructive power of asteroids and supernovae, because I don't think we have enough evidence in game to support either side.  For the sake of this argument, I'll concede that The Project can successfully destroy a relay when "normal" wear and tear cannot.  My concern is entirely in how people treat the mass relays.

Kenson claims that no one was willing to test relays' indestructability because we were all afraid of the resulting explosion.  Fair enough, but that would require people to recognize the the consequences of destroying one of them.  If that were the case, wouldn't everyone make damn sure their relays were heavily garded at all times?  Think about it.  If a bunch of salvaged parts and a rock are all it takes to crack a relay, than the Charon relay isn't just a vital strategic link, it's also a bomb capable of utterly destroying Earth.  No one who knows enough about relays to use them would ever leave them unguarded, yet everyone does.  To me, this is a problem.

A related problem is attributing the massive explosion to the Relay's Element Zero core.  Given that we've been told Reapers have "massive" eezo cores, you'd think destroying them would have a similar effect; not enough to destroy a whole system, but certainly more than just the usual "boom" of exploding ordinance.  Yet that's not the case.  Sovereign's destruction at the end of ME1 left the 5th Fleet undamaged, and they were clearly within a few dozen kilometers at the furthest.  Worse, Shepard is within a douple dozen meters of the derelict Reaper's core in ME2, and that doesn't do so much as nudge him/her when it blows up.

In short, I find the notion that sufficient effort could destroy a Mess Relay credable, but I find the idea that they detonate with a supernova-like force implausible.  And I find the notion that a small covert operation could constitute "sufficient effort" utterly ridiculous.

In general, I found the storytelling in Arrival to be attrocious.  The basic idea was great (far better than ME2's, even), but stories take more than a premise.  BioWare put exactly zero effort into developing this one, to the point that the premise rests entirely on a massive info-dump by a character who then reveals herself utterly untrustworthy in the very next scene.  Yet we're still supposed to assume that everything she said up until the face-heel turn was gospel.  Ugh.

I really disliked Arrival.  But since plenty of other people have already detailed the usual objections, I'll leave it there.

Modifié par Ye Olde Gamer, 17 avril 2011 - 01:39 .

[Savber100]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

The Collector "threat" can be blown up by one damaged, un-upgraded frigate.  The Collectors are dangerous to a bunch of undefended colonies, but they're zero threat to the Systems Alliance.  By contrast, it took more than the remaining Fellowship to stop Saruman, it took an actual military force (two, really, counting the Ents).  I'm going to have to agree with aimlessgun on this one.

As I said the scope is smaller than TT's full-scale war but my point remains. The Collectors served as agents of a greater threat just like Saruman and we had a second act focusing on this 'secondary' threat like in TT. Are they as big and mighty as Saruman? Well, they sure did more than Saruman ever did in TT. Saruman attempted an invasion of Rohan and failed miserably. The Collectors managed to kill Shepard in a sudden surprise attack and abduct ten of thousands of humans before meeting their match in a resurrected Shepard and the most highly-advanced fighter in ME. So yeah.. The Collectors are considerably smaller but managed to achieve more as agents of the Reaper than Saruman as an agent of Sauron. Scale does not equal level of threat. It's what these villians do that makes them dangerous.
(Quick Point: You might say that the Collectors aren't a viable threat becuase they got chased away by puny colonial AA guns on Horizon. To me, this does not diminish the Collectors as a threat. They might not be as 'powerful' like where Saruman commands thousands but it shows the Collectors functioning as stealthy agents of the Reapers rather than the mailed fist of Sauron like Saruman was. They realize that they probably can't face a galactic fleet so they're subtle, working fast and effectively and avoiding a direct fight. To me, that's what made them a credible threat.)

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...
But the bigger problem with the comparison, IMHO, is that the actions in TT mattered going forward.  We spend most of Book II rallying the forces of Rohan and re-assembling the Fellowship.  This climaxes with the defeat of Isengard, but those forces then go on to play vital roles in Books V and VI.  Imagine how RotK would feel if any of Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas, Merry, Pippin, Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn or the armies of Rohan could be dead at the end of Book III (I'm giving Gandalf the Shepard role, and assuming he MUST survive in order to continue).  If all the key events in the Battle of the Pelennor Fields had to be performed solely by Gandalf and some minor characters, would TT feel anywhere near as relevant?

...But that's the beauty of C&C in video games. If TT was a RPG and the result has Aragon, Gimili, Legolas etc die then imagine the CONSEQUENCES of their death. ROTK will have been a bloodbath with evil triumphing and probably leading to another ending. TT will be relevant if ROTK ends badly because the choices from TT will affect the ending of the third installment. The story moves forward either way and reveals the results and consequences of the choices you made. Gandalf will probably NOT win and the plots in TT will be relevant in showing how the choices in TT led to the fall of Gondor and Rohan at the end. A good story will not ignore the choices made and act like nothing happened.

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

Given the development schedule of ME3, I very much doubt any of our ME2 squadmates will be plot-crucial; the time and money it would take to cover all the bases is considerable.  I do think they'll be present as more than cameos (*crosses fingers*), but I think they'll be strictly supplimental to the main story.   That's what bothers me about ME2.  I certainly hope I'm wrong, though.

...That's speculation at best and depcits the reason why I propose we wait for ME3 before reaching a conclusion of ME2's plot. Besides from what we heard, several key squadmates from ME2 are returning as either NPCs or SM like Legion and Mordin.

Modifié par Savber100, 17 avril 2011 - 02:26 .

[Empiro]

I definitely have to agree that if asteroid strikes could destroy mass relays (and solar systems), then the relays would indeed be heavily defended. Otherwise, it would be way too easy for terrorists to kill millions and millions. I think Arrival could have at least come up with some BS about how they think that the artifact has something to do with it.

I'll agree that you can generally explain away lots of the other inconsistencies and apparent plot holes, but it nonetheless leaves a sour taste in your mouth. Well written stories shouldn't need that kind of explaining. Still, I've just accepted that Arrival happened as it happened, and I'm looking forward to ME3.

[bald man in a boat]

I enjoyed it because I'm a Mass Effect fan. I was unimpressed because I'm a Mass Effect fan.

[Ye Olde Gamer]

[quote]Savber100 wrote...

[quote]Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

The Collector "threat" can be blown up by one damaged, un-upgraded frigate.  The Collectors are dangerous to a bunch of undefended colonies, but they're zero threat to the Systems Alliance.  By contrast, it took more than the remaining Fellowship to stop Saruman, it took an actual military force (two, really, counting the Ents).  I'm going to have to agree with aimlessgun on this one.

[/quote]

As I said the scope is smaller than TT's full-scale war but my point remains. The Collectors served as agents of a greater threat just like Saruman and we had a second act focusing on this 'secondary' threat like in TT. Are they as big and mighty as Saruman? Well, they sure did more than Saruman ever did in TT. Saruman attempted an invasion of Rohan and failed miserably. The Collectors managed to kill Shepard in a sudden surprise attack and abduct ten of thousands of humans before meeting their match in a resurrected Shepard and the most highly-advanced fighter in ME. So yeah.. The Collectors are considerably smaller but managed to achieve more as agents of the Reaper than Saruman as an agent of Sauron. Scale does not equal level of threat. It's what these villians do that makes them dangerous.
[/quote]

You can dismiss Saruman because his attempt to conquer Rohan failed, but he actually tried.  In fact, he was close to succeeding.  He'd already overrun much of the country prior to the Fellowship's arrival (killing Theoden's heir in the process), and it took a massive battle combined with the intervention of the Ents to stop him.  The Collectors never even attempted to attack Earth.  They just hit defenseless oponents.  Saruman did that too (you know, the Shire), but he also took on a real military at the same time.

Plus, you're selling Saruman a bit short.  He also managed to imprison Gandalf for several weeks, killed Boromir and broke the Fellowship.  Sure, none of that worked out in the end, but it's not the Collectors achievements set the bar very high.

Killing Shepard lasted all of two years, and at best stalled the galaxy's preparations.  At worst, it forced Shepard to team up with Cerberus when otherwise he wouldn't have, which is actively counterproductive.  As for abducting a couple hundred thousand colonists, so what?  Balak came within a few hours of killing ten times that number in Bring Down the Sky, and he hardly counts as a galactic threat. 

ME2 talks up the Collectors at every turn, but in the end their actual accomplishments are such small potatoes that the galactic powers never care.


[quote]
(Quick Point: You might say that the Collectors aren't a viable threat becuase they got chased away by puny colonial AA guns on Horizon. To me, this does not diminish the Collectors as a threat. They might not be as 'powerful' like where Saruman commands thousands but it shows the Collectors functioning as stealthy agents of the Reapers rather than the mailed fist of Sauron like Saruman was. They realize that they probably can't face a galactic fleet so they're subtle, working fast and effectively and avoiding a direct fight. To me, that's what made them a credible threat.)
[/quote]

Your argument seems to be that the Collectors are a bigger threat than Saruman because they're far too unimportant to need quashing.  That's a really tough case to make.

If the Colector's plan would have resulted in them eventually being able to oppose those galactic threats, I  could see your point.  But the fact is that even if their moronic Termi-Reaper had been finished, they'd still be no threat to the galaxy; Sovereign already proved that one Reaper can be stopped.  That's my biggest problem with ME2's overarching plot: it assures us the Collectors are a clear and present danger, but in the end it never explains, or even implies, just how that could be the case.

So yeah, I'm going to say that the Collectors really aren't a threat.  The Collectors don't stick to the shadows to bide their time, they do it becuase they're only a nuissance and they know it.  They have one ship, and the damaged Normandy 2 blows it up in roughly a minute.  Big deal.   Frankly, I wonder why we let them escape back at Horizon.


[quote]
Given the development schedule of ME3, I very much doubt any of our ME2 squadmates will be plot-crucial; the time and money it would take to cover all the bases is considerable.  I do think they'll be present as more than cameos (*crosses fingers*), but I think they'll be strictly supplimental to the main story.   That's what bothers me about ME2.  I certainly hope I'm wrong, though.

[/quote]

...That's speculation at best and depcits the reason why I propose we wait for ME3 before reaching a conclusion of ME2's plot. Besides from what we heard, several key squadmates from ME2 are returning as either NPCs or SM like Legion and Mordin.
[/quote]

I'm prepared to re-evaluate my feelings on ME2 following ME3, but I don't think it's unfair to judge a stand alone game on it's own merits in the meantime.  In those terms, ME2 sure feels like much ado about nothing to me. 

ME1 ends with you killing an actual Reaper and averting the apocalypse.  ME3 apparently begins with the first stage of said apocalypse hitting Earth.  Yet ME2 is about stopping some previously unmentioned minions from doing ... something.  For all the faults Arrival has, it was at least trying to bridge that gap.

I'll stop drawing us off topic now.

Modifié par Ye Olde Gamer, 17 avril 2011 - 04:57 .

[SalsaDMA]

Il Divo wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

One of the things I don't get with why people refuse to believe in inteligent machines (aka. reapers) are the fact that they know the Geth exists, yet somehow deem it impossible that any other living machine should exist in the entirity of the universe... While not even having explored our own galaxy fully.

The cases are not equal.

Geth: Intelligent machines.

Reapers: Intelligents machines which are responsible for exterminating all galactic life every 50k years for some reason which we cannot comprehend, and hide on the edges of dark space using the Citadel as a relay.

Intelligent machines are believable, as they've been proven to exist. Belief in Reapers, on the other hand, requires organic life to also accept that its entire existence has been manipulated from the start, which is much more difficult to prove for different reasons.

Reapers are just big versions of Geth, if you look at it basicly. Ignore the 'cycle of doom' and all that, and you end up with "like Geth, just bigger". Ofc, the problem in this case can be tied to the writers portrayal of Shepard as a freaking nutcase whenever he needs to discuss the reapers (which is really out of place with his mental and social capabilities practically everywhere else when he needs it).

The lockdown on unknown mass relays means there's ALOT of undiscovered space out there, and given the amount of different races there have already been encountered, believing roaiming AIs is only limited to the Geth in the entire universe is naive at best, and something a leadership responsible for as many people as the leaders in ME are shouldn't be..

What you are suggesting is the equivalent of saying that because Geth exists, then vampires exist. Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy. We do not believe that a new race has been discovered until it has been proven. Potential for existence is not evidence of existence.

No. Vampires and Geth are extremely different. Reapers and Geth, however, are related. Geth are humansized AI's. Reapers are shipsized AI's. Considering the citadel races are able to make AI's and tie them into a ship already (but usually don't dare, cause of the quarians experience with the Geth) why are they so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that some other race in the universe which they haven't met yet might have done this exact thing, and that it backfired on them, leaving a race of shipsized AI's to roam around?

[SalsaDMA]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Shepard: "Fine, you don't mind if I bring the Cain right?"

Now THAT made me giggle

[Moirai]

SalsaDMA wrote...
Reapers are just big versions of Geth, if you look at it basicly. Ignore the 'cycle of doom' and all that, and you end up with "like Geth, just bigger". Ofc, the problem in this case can be tied to the writers portrayal of Shepard as a freaking nutcase whenever he needs to discuss the reapers (which is really out of place with his mental and social capabilities practically everywhere else when he needs it).

Not sure I can agree with the Geth/Reaper comparison. From how I understand it:

The Geth AI are an electronic collective that interact with the physical world by downloading individual programs into 'mobile platforms'.

Reapers are not a collective but individual entities in there own right and, according to ME2, given life by the absorption of (sapient?) biological life during their 'construction'.

They may both appear mechanical from an outward perspective. But, personally, I think that's where the difference ends.

For me, the idea that Reapers are just bigger versions of Geth is, in many ways, similar to the idea that elephants are just bigger version of humans. Yes, they are both biological and both mammals, but they are still fundamentally very different in many other respects.

Modifié par Moirai, 17 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[CroGamer002]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Gravbh wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

Mesina2 wrote...

wulf3n wrote...

Even if that were true, just because it's better than crap doesn't make it good!
why are people so willing to accept mediocrity?

Because we don't think it's mediocre?

you have low standards then.

No, it's not meant as an insult, but if you think Arrival is good I can only asume that you are easy to please plotwise from games.

Gotta love the opinion-as-fact crowd.

Gotta love the "can't say anything relevant to the topic, so let's just flame a random guy" crowd.

Then how is "you have low standards then" relevant to topic?

[Moirai]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...
We are in complete disagreement in regards to tying down Shepard. The (wo)man has prove capable of overcoming [i]death]/i] and Harbinger cannot spare a few credits for some plastic zip ties? You profuse rather adamantly their goal is to capture him/her and when they finally accomplish the task, they fail spectacularly at making certain (s)he cannot escape. This is a (wo)man whose merc slaughter list would be teetering close to exceeding a thousand by now. They have blown out space stations, raided Rachni, put a big enough hole in a planet the blast stretched out into space and potentially destroyed the Collectors, and Harby did not consider for a moment three mooks a couple mechs might not suffice? I mean you can only push the "we are underestimating our enemies due to our superiority complex!" so far before the audience begins to giggle.

I don't disagree in essence. However, the Reapers do seem to have one very glaring weakness: Arrogance in their superiority.

Whereas properly restraining someone at violent odds with your viewpoint would make perfect sense from a human perspective, I think the Reapers have a problem in comprehending the potential threat that one of these insignificant lifeforms can actual pose. Even the destruction of the relay and the consequential delay of their arrival is perceived as just a minor annoyance.

They are so utterly assured of the outcome that it never seems to occur to them that these tiny little issues may potentially become a bigger problem.

[Il Divo]

SalsaDMA wrote...

Reapers are just big versions of Geth, if you look at it basicly. Ignore the 'cycle of doom' and all that, and you end up with "like Geth, just bigger". Ofc, the problem in this case can be tied to the writers portrayal of Shepard as a freaking nutcase whenever he needs to discuss the reapers (which is really out of place with his mental and social capabilities practically everywhere else when he needs it).

Except your comparison only works if all the details are completely ignored. All the questions the Turian Councilor raised at the start of Mass Effect pretty much explains why they don't believe in Reapers.

Where did they go? Why didn't we find any trace of their existence? Remember, there are actual myths of the Reapers' existence, which makes Shepard's theory much more difficult to swallow. Any 'truth' must have the ability to be validated, which is pretty much impossible in the case of the Reapers.

No. Vampires and Geth are extremely different. Reapers and Geth, however, are related. Geth are humansized AI's. Reapers are shipsized AI's. Considering the citadel races are able to make AI's and tie them into a ship already (but usually don't dare, cause of the quarians experience with the Geth) why are they so adamant to refuse to acknowledge that some other race in the universe which they haven't met yet might have done this exact thing, and that it backfired on them, leaving a race of shipsized AI's to roam around?

Because they have never seen any evidence of this machine race; that's the point of the Vampire comparison. I will not believe in Vampires until I'm shown evidence of their existence. The same goes for Reapers.

The comparison to the Geth only works if we ignore the Reapers'

1) history
2) motivations
3) technology

In all these things, Reapers have a much higher burden of proof than proving another race exists; you're also proving that the existence of every organic species in the galaxy is a lie. You're pretty much telling someone that they're inserted into the Matrix.

Modifié par Il Divo, 17 avril 2011 - 02:19 .

[midnightaggie1]

I dislike the fact that that the relay is destroyed before the reapers arrive in the system.  I would have timed the destruction of the relay closer to their arrival in order to use the resulting energy release as a weapon against them (hopefully causing severe damage to some of them).

[ZenJestr]

they knew it was happening, so they probably sat tight until the explosion subsided...at which point they kept going

[Almostfaceman]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...


Kenson claims that no one was willing to test relays' indestructability because we were all afraid of the resulting explosion.  Fair enough, but that would require people to recognize the the consequences of destroying one of them.  If that were the case, wouldn't everyone make damn sure their relays were heavily garded at all times?  Think about it.  If a bunch of salvaged parts and a rock are all it takes to crack a relay, than the Charon relay isn't just a vital strategic link, it's also a bomb capable of utterly destroying Earth.  No one who knows enough about relays to use them would ever leave them unguarded, yet everyone does.  To me, this is a problem.

One point about "guarding" relays - it's problematic at best.  According to the codex:

Any long distance and/or high mass jump will see "drift". That is, a ship may be hundreds or millions of kilometers from its intended drop point, in any direction from the relay.

This means anyone can be zooming in at just about any point around the relay, making collisions with "guard ships" a possiblity.

[Ye Olde Gamer]

Almostfaceman wrote...

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...


Kenson claims that no one was willing to test relays' indestructability because we were all afraid of the resulting explosion.  Fair enough, but that would require people to recognize the the consequences of destroying one of them.  If that were the case, wouldn't everyone make damn sure their relays were heavily garded at all times?  Think about it.  If a bunch of salvaged parts and a rock are all it takes to crack a relay, than the Charon relay isn't just a vital strategic link, it's also a bomb capable of utterly destroying Earth.  No one who knows enough about relays to use them would ever leave them unguarded, yet everyone does.  To me, this is a problem.

One point about "guarding" relays - it's problematic at best.  According to the codex:

Any long distance and/or high mass jump will see "drift". That is, a ship may be hundreds or millions of kilometers from its intended drop point, in any direction from the relay.

This means anyone can be zooming in at just about any point around the relay, making collisions with "guard ships" a possiblity.

ME1 implies that it is possible to guard Relays (granted, the guards seem to be AWOL when Sovereign actually shows up), so presumably drift isn't that big a deal on a strategic scale.

Besides, I'm not worried about defending against FTL fleets, just STL asteroids on a kamikaze run.  As long as you have a few pickets in each direction, you should be able to intercept them in time.  When the consequences of not stopping them are the destruction of an entire solar system, there's no way people wouldn't figure out some why to defend them.  It would be like not having guards and concrete barriers around a nuclear missile silo.

[aimlessgun]

Guarding relays against big 'ol asteroid collisions shouldn't be that hard if you are accelerating the rock from in-system. You'd just need a sensor net that could pick up the absolutely gigantic thrust signature from accelerating a massive boulder, and then some means of deflecting it (in space-scales, a Relay is absolutely tiny, so it wouldn't take much deflection to miss it).

I don't expect a picket of warships, just a basic sensor array that can warn your local warships in time. Really not that hard, at all, and should be a basic precaution.

This also raises the question of why the Relay itself doesn't have sensors and thrusters, since it would have been easy for it to dodge the rock, a rock that should be incredibly easy to see coming considering those blazing engines.

Modifié par aimlessgun, 17 avril 2011 - 06:34 .

[Almostfaceman]

aimlessgun wrote...

Guarding relays against big 'ol asteroid collisions shouldn't be that hard if you are accelerating the rock from in-system. You'd just need a sensor net that could pick up the absolutely gigantic thrust signature from accelerating a massive boulder, and then some means of deflecting it (in space-scales, a Relay is absolutely tiny, so it wouldn't take much deflection to miss it).

I don't expect a picket of warships, just a basic sensor array that can warn your local warships in time. Really not that hard, at all, and should be a basic precaution.

This also raises the question of why the Relay itself doesn't have sensors and thrusters, since it would have been easy for it to dodge the rock, a rock that should be incredibly easy to see coming considering those blazing engines.

My guess would be the reason they don't have sensors and thrusters is that the Reapers don't consider the issue important enough to put them on them.

The success of Reaping is a foregone conclusion to them.  They have a trap set up.  If we break parts of the trap they just implement their exercise in another fashion then fix the trap.  No sweat off their brow.

[didymos1120]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

ME1 implies that it is possible to guard Relays (granted, the guards seem to be AWOL when Sovereign actually shows up), so presumably drift isn't that big a deal on a strategic scale.

Or, they were just guarding the relays they knew about.  Sovereign was a Reaper, and didn't have to rely on known relays. There's no telling how many relays are out there in range in of any given known relay.

[Ye Olde Gamer]

didymos1120 wrote...

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

ME1 implies that it is possible to guard Relays (granted, the guards seem to be AWOL when Sovereign actually shows up), so presumably drift isn't that big a deal on a strategic scale.

Or, they were just guarding the relays they knew about.  Sovereign was a Reaper, and didn't have to rely on known relays. There's no telling how many relays are out there in range in of any given known relay.

I know the Council is held in very low regard these days, but surely even they would have noticed another functional mass relay within the Citadel's system.  Objects in space are supposed to be easy to spot (in the ME universe, at least).

[Admoniter]

I have several problems with Arrival but one that particularly bugs me is why don't relays have a defense mechanism for asteroids being hurtled at them? and I'm not even talking about asteroids hurtled at Relays by species that are having a bad day, I'm just talking about rogue asteroids smacking into Relays during the course of their orbit. And while it probably isn't that common, its still something that should be a concern to the Reapers, if a secondary Relay gets hit then suddenly not only is that system blow'd up but potentially several other systems are cut of from the rest of the galaxy as well. I Would think that alone would be important enough for the Reapers to install some sort of self preservation code, that either makes the relay move out of the way or deflect it with kinetic barriers or something like that as soon as something with sufficient mass and velocity are detected to be a trajectory towards the relay.

Also I'm assuming that "The Project" was in the asteroid field for the duration of its construction + the period before it was activated. How did it get to the Relay in two days?

[Dean_the_Young]

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Ye Olde Gamer wrote...

ME1 implies that it is possible to guard Relays (granted, the guards seem to be AWOL when Sovereign actually shows up), so presumably drift isn't that big a deal on a strategic scale.

Or, they were just guarding the relays they knew about.  Sovereign was a Reaper, and didn't have to rely on known relays. There's no telling how many relays are out there in range in of any given known relay.

I know the Council is held in very low regard these days, but surely even they would have noticed another functional mass relay within the Citadel's system.  Objects in space are supposed to be easy to spot (in the ME universe, at least).

It's still effectively impossible to see something half a galaxy away, however.

In this case, the most plausible explanation of Didy's sort is that there are more one-way Relays (as opposed to a Relay Pair) that lead to the Citadel than the Council knows about. Which, given their own lock-down of finding out where new relays lead, isn't at all impossible. Without using such a relay, though wouldn't know that they could aim to it, and so they'd be blind to the possibility.

[Dean_the_Young]

Admoniter wrote...

I have several problems with Arrival but one that particularly bugs me is why don't relays have a defense mechanism for asteroids being hurtled at them? and I'm not even talking about asteroids hurtled at Relays by species that are having a bad day, I'm just talking about rogue asteroids smacking into Relays during the course of their orbit. And while it probably isn't that common, its still something that should be a concern to the Reapers, if a secondary Relay gets hit then suddenly not only is that system blow'd up but potentially several other systems are cut of from the rest of the galaxy as well. I Would think that alone would be important enough for the Reapers to install some sort of self preservation code, that either makes the relay move out of the way or deflect it with kinetic barriers or something like that as soon as something with sufficient mass and velocity are detected to be a trajectory towards the relay.

Also I'm assuming that "The Project" was in the asteroid field for the duration of its construction + the period before it was activated. How did it get to the Relay in two days?

Why would it matter? Species in space would eventually find other relays regardless, and they can always build more Relays between the next cycles anyway.