131 réponses à ce sujet

[Jonathan Shepard]

Eternz wrote...

Q&A with Mac Walters

Why do most of the Reapers we’ve seen so far have similar insect-like
appearances? The human Reaper looked different, but otherwise it seems
like the Reapers mainly build themselves out of bugs. Is that correct?
The exterior of the Reapers does follow a similar pattern, an efficient
design for the purpose they were created for. However each Reaper is
created from a unique species, and as we saw at the end of Mass Effect
2, the core of each Reaper is designed in the likeness of that species.

We can finally put the argument to rest!

This is what I've been saying since the day I saw the human Reaper and people started asking questions about it. Thank God to know I've been right all along. My sleep hasn't been the same for the last 16 months because of this! /sarcasm

But in all seriousness, this is good to have confirmed.

[88mphSlayer]

mrsph wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

the derelict reaper itself is a plot hole anyways - need proof of the reapers Shepard? also why is Cerberus using humans and not robots?

Because robots are clumsy and near useless unless they are a geth platform.

Big galaxy. It would be like finding a needle in a haystack.

One puppy dead.

so build remote controlled robots

even the Soviets were smarter than Cerberus at working in hazardous environments

[88mphSlayer]

NoUserNameHere wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

the derelict reaper itself is a plot hole anyways - need proof of the reapers Shepard? also why is Cerberus using humans and not robots?

Any team sent to verify it would've just been indoctrinated or eaten by husks.  

so use a drone to take pictures/gather evidence

i find it difficult that we can land remote controlled probes on mars today but in 3 centuries we have to throw people into meat grinders to gather data

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 22 avril 2011 - 12:44 .

[Rovay]

Spinotech wrote...

 
How would kill Harbinger if this was in the core?

Yes. With an exrta dose of fire, just to be sure.

[IntrepidProdigy]

didymos1120 wrote...
Yeah, and what I'm saying is that thing is still tiny compared to the derelict,  and that the amount of the derelict we saw was tiny compared to the rest of the derelict.  Plus, the thing was heavily damaged and even within the small amount we did see, there was a lot of broken and missing stuff. I mean, just look at it:



It was messed up.  And huge.

Yep, it's big n bad, I already know. I could still argue that it was viable to assume that some remnant of the reaper's true core could have been inside, considering that the reaper still had a fully intact mass effect core and was still able to indoctrinate those that board it.

Mainly, to get the IFF, as far as the main plot goes.  Secondarily, to have a nice little mini-horror-flick set-piece to showcase how freaky indoctrination is and to play up the whole Lovecraftian aspect of the Reapers.  Lastly... to give us the chance to have Legion in the squad.

Yep, I don't disagree that it was a wise choice for the intrigue and opportunity, I just think it could have been handled better some way.

[Reapinger]

I think they are waiting to reveal cores of reapers. We were sent to find the IFF which could be lord knows how far away from the core. The mass effect drive is also just to power the ship, nothing says the core has to be where the mass effect drive is (I don't think)

[kalpain]

thurmanator692 wrote...

kalpain wrote...

thurmanator692 wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

There's also the relevant factoid from the GI article that 'Mature Reapers' range from 2K to .5K meters long. Size changes between them, apparently.

One of the article pics depicts a lil reaper, looks like its hunting people through the streets
It also tells how a thresher maw grabs one and drags it underground, and that sounds like it has to be kinda small.

Actually it's probably a Collossal Thresher Maw.  It was mentioned in one of the Cerberus news reports that some Krogans took a picture of it on Tuchunka.  It apparently puts the normal ones to shame...

http://masseffect.wi...-_November_2010
It's the entry from 11/12/2010

Oh cool, thanks

No problem.  I've seen this come up a few times over the last few weeks.  Someone posted that news report.  I had completely forgotten about it.  I can't wait to see the footage from the demo Game Informer got to play.  Hell I hope we get an ME3 demo before it comes out.  Are you listening Bioware?  Make it happen.

[Sapienti]

IntrepidProdigy wrote...

didymos1120 wrote...

Why? Simply because of the word "core"?  Would the ME core (which is just a bit of in-universe jargon) of the Reaper necessarily be right next to the, shall we say, "consciousness core" ?  Or even relatively close to it?  As an analogy: the SR-2.  EDI isn't housed on the same deck as the ME core, and in terms of the Normandy's scale, she's not even particularly near it.

Analogies are pointless at this point really since we have no information on specifics of the core of a reaper except for the giant t-800 we fought at the end of the game. I was basing my assumption on what we already know.

And what should the hints have even been?  I'm really not getting a clear notion of what it is you think should have been there, especially given that they wouldn't have wanted to give much (if anything) away at that point in the game. 

All I'm saying is that when Walters said the reapers have a "consciousness core" as you call it, wrapped in a reaper shell, I immediately thought about that little brat baby reaper at the end of the game, how big it was, and how we didn't come across a trace of something in similar size while in the DR, given we were heading to a fairly important part of its structure. I understand it from a story telling point of view, being cautious as to not spoil anything for the end, but why have us board the DR in the first place (I mean besides it just being generally interesting)? There could have been other means implemented to access the IFF, if anything.  

Anyways, what's done is done, it's seriously not that big of a deal. I'm going to bed, way too late for me to explain why I was genuinely concerned about this.

Are you really just so mad at Bioware you're intent on holding your hands over your ears and shouting "blahblahblah" whenever someone shows your points and opinions to be invalid? I thinky you're failing to grasp just how large Reapers really are. Sure we run through the Reaper quite a bit, but only a small fraction compared to the full size of the thing. Why would we come across something of similar size just because its big? It could have been in a completely different location. Its not like there was a diagram charting exactly where we were running inside the derilect Reaper so we could say "well we covered every square inch of this thing and didn't find a core!". Reapers are enormous and no doubt the core, if it was still intact after being shot at, was located elsewhere inside. How hard is that to accept? 

We go to what we humans conceive as an important part of the ship while to the Reapers their "core" is probably situated elsewhere, might even be like a pilot inside a big ass mech or something and you don't put pilots inside the engine rooms. Its completely valid to say "hey why didn't we see it?" but to turn a blind eye to the possible reasons and even ignorantly call it a plot hole just seems childish. 

[N7Infernox]

No offense, but I'm surprised that people think that this is news. We knew this for a while from looking at the concept art. (at least I did anyways...)

[Sapienti]

N7Infernox wrote...

No offense, but I'm surprised that people think that this is news. We knew this for a while from looking at the concept art. (at least I did anyways...)

There were a lot of people who wanted to turn a blind eye to the concept art so they could perpetuate an excuse to hate on ME2/Bioware. I'm still surprised there are people who haven't said "Oh okay, that explains a lot", instead. 

[Dark_Caduceus]

My weiner stings.

[100k]

Sapienti wrote...

N7Infernox wrote...

No offense, but I'm surprised that people think that this is news. We knew this for a while from looking at the concept art. (at least I did anyways...)

There were a lot of people who wanted to turn a blind eye to the concept art so they could perpetuate an excuse to hate on ME2/Bioware. I'm still surprised there are people who haven't said "Oh okay, that explains a lot", instead. 

How about this: there were a lot of people who didn't see the concept art. 

[IntrepidProdigy]

Sapienti wrote...
Are you really just so mad at Bioware you're intent on holding your hands over your ears and shouting "blahblahblah" whenever someone shows your points and opinions to be invalid? I thinky you're failing to grasp just how large Reapers really are. Sure we run through the Reaper quite a bit, but only a small fraction compared to the full size of the thing. Why would we come across something of similar size just because its big? It could have been in a completely different location. Its not like there was a diagram charting exactly where we were running inside the derilect Reaper so we could say "well we covered every square inch of this thing and didn't find a core!". Reapers are enormous and no doubt the core, if it was still intact after being shot at, was located elsewhere inside. How hard is that to accept? 

We go to what we humans conceive as an important part of the ship while to the Reapers their "core" is probably situated elsewhere, might even be like a pilot inside a big ass mech or something and you don't put pilots inside the engine rooms. Its completely valid to say "hey why didn't we see it?" but to turn a blind eye to the possible reasons and even ignorantly call it a plot hole just seems childish. 

Hmm lets see, did I strike a nerve, or do you have your head where a dark sun doesn't shine? Basically what I was doing in my last post was agreeing with his rationale, but reiterating that it was still valid with the information we currently have to think that perhaps while walking to the structure of the derelict reaper that makes it necessary for it to function, that we would have bumped into somewhat of a clue to it having a core similar to that of the human-reaper larva. Is that not rational, or are you just angry because I questioned Bioware? Seriously, I've been around on the old forums since 2008, if I hated Bioware as you seem to assume, I would've been gone by now. Next time instead of knee-jerking onto your pompous high-horse you could actually read in context.

[MACharlie1]

88mphSlayer wrote...

NoUserNameHere wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

the derelict reaper itself is a plot hole anyways - need proof of the reapers Shepard? also why is Cerberus using humans and not robots?

Any team sent to verify it would've just been indoctrinated or eaten by husks.  

so use a drone to take pictures/gather evidence

i find it difficult that we can land remote controlled probes on mars today but in 3 centuries we have to throw people into meat grinders to gather data

I can see why they sent an actual team of scientists and not robots. I would imagine it would be efficient to send the team to study the Reaper up close and personal. And, unlike sending a man to Mars, the trip to there isn't six months to a year and very costly. On top of the fact that they believed the Reaper was dead - no longer indoctrinating victims. But even a dead god can dream. 

[xCirdanx]

Ha, perfect, that was my theory after finishing ME2 the first time, glad i was right.

[atheelogos]

IntrepidProdigy wrote...

Doesn't make sense considering we went inside a reaper (granted it was dead/unconscious) that was thoroughly studied by Cerberus. Thanks for the added plot holes, Mac.

You didn't go inside of the Reaper. You traveled along its outer hull

[atheelogos]

xCirdanx wrote...

Ha, perfect, that was my theory after finishing ME2 the first time, glad i was right.

same here:)

[Sapienti]

IntrepidProdigy wrote...

Sapienti wrote...
Are you really just so mad at Bioware you're intent on holding your hands over your ears and shouting "blahblahblah" whenever someone shows your points and opinions to be invalid? I thinky you're failing to grasp just how large Reapers really are. Sure we run through the Reaper quite a bit, but only a small fraction compared to the full size of the thing. Why would we come across something of similar size just because its big? It could have been in a completely different location. Its not like there was a diagram charting exactly where we were running inside the derilect Reaper so we could say "well we covered every square inch of this thing and didn't find a core!". Reapers are enormous and no doubt the core, if it was still intact after being shot at, was located elsewhere inside. How hard is that to accept? 

We go to what we humans conceive as an important part of the ship while to the Reapers their "core" is probably situated elsewhere, might even be like a pilot inside a big ass mech or something and you don't put pilots inside the engine rooms. Its completely valid to say "hey why didn't we see it?" but to turn a blind eye to the possible reasons and even ignorantly call it a plot hole just seems childish. 

Hmm lets see, did I strike a nerve, or do you have your head where a dark sun doesn't shine? Basically what I was doing in my last post was agreeing with his rationale, but reiterating that it was still valid with the information we currently have to think that perhaps while walking to the structure of the derelict reaper that makes it necessary for it to function, that we would have bumped into somewhat of a clue to it having a core similar to that of the human-reaper larva. Is that not rational, or are you just angry because I questioned Bioware? Seriously, I've been around on the old forums since 2008, if I hated Bioware as you seem to assume, I would've been gone by now. Next time instead of knee-jerking onto your pompous high-horse you could actually read in context.

Strike a nerve? Nah pimp suit, a block of text on the internet only has as much emotion as the reader puts into it. Apparently you wanted me to be ragin but that isn't the case. Anyway, my post was addressing that your rationale in the first place. The way you posted it beforehand was simply flawed, (even going so far as to call it a plothole, which implies you don't know the definition of the term). 

I'll put it this way; you go outside because you want to see if the sun exists, you don't see the sun. The sun must be an urban legend - - Or maybe it was night time?

The whole "where is it then?" thought process just seems stupid to me if a person has the presence of mind to question his own logic. Anyway, I'm not on a high horse I'm afraid of high places. And if I jerk my knee my arthur-itis acts up. 

[didymos1120]

atheelogos wrote...
You didn't go inside of the Reaper. You traveled along its outer hull

No, you did go inside.  You were simply somewhat near to the outer hull, and eventually in an area where the hull had been massively breached.

[Stinkface27]

Well, that's nice to know. Although I think a lot of people kinda figured as much. Terminator-Reaper didn't seem exactly aerodynamic.

[CptAwesomePhD]

Calling it now: Harbinger is made of Protheans.

Modifié par CptAwesomePhD, 24 avril 2011 - 02:51 .

[Dave666]

CptAwesomePhD wrote...

Calling it now: Harbinger is made of Protheans.

Erm...nope. Pretty sure its said in the game that for whatever reason the Protheans were unsuitable for creating reapers with.

[Ulicus]

The next time I see a Reaper, I'm gonna have only one question on my mind.

"Does it have griffons in it?"

[atheelogos]

didymos1120 wrote...

atheelogos wrote...
You didn't go inside of the Reaper. You traveled along its outer hull

No, you did go inside.  You were simply somewhat near to the outer hull, and eventually in an area where the hull had been massively breached.

Yeah your right, what I should have said was we didn't see all of it. To do so would have taken hours if not more.