332 réponses à ce sujet

[TexasToast712]

IsaacShep wrote...

nhsk wrote...

Human reaper, while not fully functional could also serve as a gateway for the Reapers to understand humanity and figure out likely contingency plans and how to best eradicate us.

The point is, the Reapers succeed if the timer runs out in Arrival no matter if the Human-Reaper is not finished yet, or already destroyed. So it doesn't seem they needed it to win after arriving already.

But you're technically supposed to do Arrival after the Suicide mission just like LotSB.

[SpiffySquee]

Saphra Deden wrote...

Memmahkth wrote...


I'm going to have to disagree with you here.  From your statement, you're saying that theories are fact until disproven. 

No, they are not fact, but they can be treated that way for all intents and purposes until contradicting evidence is produced.

No they cannot. A  fact can be used to disprove a theory, where as a theory cannot be used to disprove another theory (scientific or not) You cannot, for example use string theory to disprove the big bang theory. Both are accepted theories, but neither have been proven as fact. 
The difference that you are missing is that most scientist would not say, "We know what happened." They say, "We think we know what happened." Otherwise they would come off sounding arrogant know it alls. 

[didymos1120]

SpiffySquee wrote...

You cannot, for example use string theory to disprove the big bang theory. Both are accepted theories, but neither have been proven as fact.

Actually, string theory is anything but accepted.  It hasn't received any substantial experimental/observational support.  A better example would be General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: both accepted by basically everybody, both extremely well-supported by experiment and observation, but notoriously incompatible with one another in their current forms.  String theory is in fact one attempt at reconciling the two.

Modifié par didymos1120, 28 juillet 2011 - 07:31 .

[SpiffySquee]

didymos1120 wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

You cannot, for example use string theory to disprove the big bang theory. Both are accepted theories, but neither have been proven as fact.

Actually, string theory is anything but accepted.  It hasn't received any substantial experimental/observational support.  A better example would be General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics: both accepted by basically everybody, both extremely well-supported by experiment and observation, but notoriously incompatible with one another in their current forms.  String theory is actually one attempt at reconciling the two.

You are correct of course. I was simply making a point and used the first 2 things that came to mind, but your examples fit the argument much better. Thank you, sir 

[Missouri Tigers]

Incredible. Great read.

[SpiffySquee]

Saphra Deden wrote...

SpiffySquee wrote...

The difference that you are missing is that most scientist would not say, "We know what happened." They say, "We think we know what happened." Otherwise they would come off sounding arrogant know it alls. 

Alright I'll rephrase it just to shut you up.

****.

We are pretty goddamn sure Mars was not much different 50,000 years ago compared to how it is today. Evidence suggests the atmosphere was lost gradually over millions of years due to the solar wind, and that is caused much of the water to evaporate into the atmosphere and eventually find its way to the poles. This happened, we think, because the magnetic field was weak due to the planet's core cooling, ceasing its rotation.

There, happy?

for the most part. I suppose it is a small point, and you do make really good arguments a lot of the time, but you always have to treat people like they are stupid, and that tends to rub people the wrong way. 

[bboynexus]

lightsnow13 wrote...

when is he posting the other sections? I want to read more!

They will be posted by the end of the weekend.

SpiffySquee wrote...
for the most part. I suppose it is a small point, and you do make really good arguments a lot of the time, but you always have to treat people like they are stupid, and that tends to rub people the wrong way. 

I've lurked here long enough to know that despite Saphra's valuable reflections, he's terribly arrogant and obnoxious.

Modifié par bboynexus, 28 juillet 2011 - 08:33 .

[SkittlesKat96]

 The thing about the surviving scientists from Ilos always interested me too, deep down I could never really accept the 'they probably died from the lack of food and shelter' there could be more too it...

[bboynexus]

Yes, I'd like to think they all died.

[Ieldra]

Read the first two parts.

The logic behind the Arrival section is solid. I don't think Bioware thought that deeply about things but it would be an excellent retcon. The only thing I don't agree with is that the timing of Hackett's briefing was plot-relevant. IMO that we can play Arrival before the SM is purely a gameplay consideration.

The Prothean section is one gigantic conspiracy theory with all the usual evidence for it: none. It's an interesting story, and sure it *could* have happened that way, but there's absolutely nothing to suggest it actually did. Then there are the little flaws in the hypothesis - like water levels on Mars 50k years ago. The core of the hypothesis - that the Protheans influenced the development of other species in order to prepare them for the Reapers - is 100% pure invention. The arguments starting with "Why (else) would they (not)....." can have a hundred-thousand alternative explanations. There is always an infinite number of scenarios that fit any given set of evidence. I see no reason to prefer this version. I don't buy it.

Now, onward to the next sections.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 juillet 2011 - 09:58 .

[efrgfhnm_]

I didn't know people ever thought that the Collectors were making the new vanguard, but some of the Arrival stuff is interesting, and the Prothean stuff is really thought-provoking. I disagree with the Cerberus Alliance stuff though, it just seems much more patchy, and the fact he credits Zulu at the beginning doesn't help haha.. Will definitely read the rest when it's up

[bboynexus]

The only thing I don't agree with is that the timing of Hackett's briefing was plot-relevant.

It's not exactly plot-relevant. There's a choice and there's no canon way to determine when Arrival should be played. It is up the player's discretion of course. That said, I still don't think you can deny the way BioWare goads players into playing it immediately.

I disagree with the Cerberus Alliance stuff though, it just seems much more patchy.

There's more to it than that. Stay tuned.

Modifié par bboynexus, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:09 .

[Ieldra]

bboynexus wrote...

The only thing I don't agree with is that the timing of Hackett's briefing was plot-relevant.

It's not exactly plot-relevant. There's a choice and there's no canon way to determine when Arrival should be played. It is up the player's discretion of course. That said, I still don't think you can deny the way BioWare goads players into playing it immediately.

Immediately after what? After the SM (and other DLC content played after that), for an overwhelming majority of players.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Yup, Arrival was literally the last thing I did in ME2 for all of my Shepards (and I'm a completionist).

[xSTONEYx187x]

bboynexus wrote...

The only thing I don't agree with is that the timing of Hackett's briefing was plot-relevant.

It's not exactly plot-relevant. There's a choice and there's no canon way to determine when Arrival should be played. It is up the player's discretion of course. That said, I still don't think you can deny the way BioWare goads players into playing it immediately.

I disagree with the Cerberus Alliance stuff though, it just seems much more patchy.

There's more to it than that. Stay tuned.

Are you MImaz? 

If so, when will the rest be up. Great read I might add. 

[Fiery Phoenix]

Great thread indeed. Good job, Nex. Looking forward to the next entries!

[bboynexus]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Yup, Arrival was literally the last thing I did in ME2 for all of my Shepards (and I'm a completionist).

So did I.

xSTONEYx187x wrote...


Are you MImaz? 

If so, when will the rest be up. Great read I might add. 

I am.

They'll be up by the end of the weekend.

[Pulletlamer]

Ieldra2 wrote...

bboynexus wrote...

The only thing I don't agree with is that the timing of Hackett's briefing was plot-relevant.

It's not exactly plot-relevant. There's a choice and there's no canon way to determine when Arrival should be played. It is up the player's discretion of course. That said, I still don't think you can deny the way BioWare goads players into playing it immediately.

Immediately after what? After the SM (and other DLC content played after that), for an overwhelming majority of players.

He makes a fine point though. What he means (I think) is that after Horizon you can play the Arrival part when you want, without it meaning anything or having any impact on the SM or the Collectors.

What does that mean? That the arrival of the Reapers wasn't focused on building the Human Reaper to attack the Citadel, since the Reapers could (and probably will) have arrived at the Alpha Relay before the Human Reaper could have been finished, which still it couldn't have been finished since they weren't enough humans, so unless they (the Reapers & Collectors) attacked the earth, they couldn't have finished the project.

So that means that the Reapers were probably planning to attack the earth (trough the Alpha Relay) and get the humans needed to finish the Reaper.

bboynexus wrote...

There's more to it than that. Stay tuned.

Looking forward to it. Keep up the good work.

Modifié par Pulletlamer, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:46 .

[Ieldra]

@Pulletlamer:
I agree with the conclusion that the human Reaper was not intended for an attack on the Citadel. That part is convincing. What I don't agree with is his hypothesis that Arrival was intentionally set to trigger after Horizon in order to bring that fact home to the players.

It's the opposite in fact: IMO, plotwise, Arrival is intended to be played after the SM, only that would make the nice upgrades you can find there useless. That you can play it before the SM has nothing to do with plot considerations. It's for gameplay.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 28 juillet 2011 - 10:56 .

[bboynexus]

I'm not saying it was intentionally set to trigger after Horizon. I'm saying that if you're playing through the game from the start with Arrival installed you're goaded into playing as soon as you finish Horizon because you can't do with anything with the private terminal until you do.