Dave of Canada wrote...
nexworks wrote...
Yeah, good point, I had forgotten about that.
Wow, what could they possibly do with Shepard that makes him so important to capture?
"I am Reaper Shepard. I assimilate lifeforms like you on my way to real civilizations."
Their ability to seduce their entire crew! The Reapers are feeling lonely.
Though honestly, all I'm thinking right now is the Cipher.
Reapers: "With Shepard, we can now simply recruit each lifeform through dialogue magic and instruct them to wait for destruction."
But yeah, the Cipher! Hot damn! I had forgotten about that! I don't even think they mentioned it in ME2, or at least very limited references.
They've certainly implied that the Protheans had greater plans than just the 'time-capsule' on Ilos, and with the various artifacts we've discovered in both ME1 and ME2, I wouldn't be surprised if the last Prothean scientists, or Protheans from another 'hidden' Prothean colony, created some sort of super-weapon for the destruction of the Reapers. Thanks to the Cipher and the beacon, Shepard may be the only one who knows how to find, use, or understand this super weapon.
I could also see TIM deciding that he wants exclusive control to that super weapon, first to destroy the Reapers, then to establish control over the rest of the galaxy with Cerberus and humanity as defacto savior and ruler. Although some of my Renegade Shepards would be okay with it from a conceptual level, they probably wouldn't leave TIM in charge if they knew about it first (My hardest core Renegades would most likely use it to place themselves as the savior of humanity). And, of course, my Paragon Shepards wouldn't trust TIM with it at all.
Hah Yes Reapers wrote...
So crying about the game (over a weak argument) is less childish than told-you-so comments?
Interesting standards.
There are significant contextual and technical differences between the following statements:
1. "I don't really have all the answers yet, but I really do not like this aspect of the story."
2. "You're are a childish idiot."
Yes, the first statement can occassionally lead to ranty tirades, unconstructive circular arguments, and threads that spiral into wallowing pity, but can also lead to fantastically constructive and insightful posts. You don't have to agree with a statement for something constructive to come out of it.
The second statement has no redeeming qualities, and always leads to unconstructive hate spirals that result in people getting banned or threads getting locked. It adds no value to the conversation, and is ultimately self distructive to both the conversation and to the poster.
So please, pretty please, stop with the name calling. Please?
Modifié par nexworks, 07 juin 2011 - 06:34 .