SandTrout wrote...
The fact that he needed to get rid of Shepard right then is what makes the idea that Sovereign could not have been taken down by the fleet ludicrous, especially when there was an entire fleet of Geth outside that could have dealt with Shepard. The rest of the Reapers have waited 50,000 years. They can wait another half-hour.
Persona RED wrote...
I'm really hoping that Shepard disappears in the end or the like, where he doesn't have to put up with problems anymore. If he defeats the Reapers, I can imagine everyone wanting to kill him, idolize him or give him missions and such.
ThePwener wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
was going to be destroyed by the fleet anyways. Exposing yourself in any way that is not necessary during a life and death struggle is stupid. I don't want the Reapers to be relegated to the status villains that fail because of facepalm-worthy stupidity.
Sovereign's shields (the Reaper fleet's true power) were never going to be penetrated. If Shepard hadn't taken down zombie-robot-Saren then 5th fleet would have been toast.
Modifié par Reptillius, 19 août 2011 - 09:12 .
ThePwener wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
The fact that he needed to get rid of Shepard right then is what makes the idea that Sovereign could not have been taken down by the fleet ludicrous, especially when there was an entire fleet of Geth outside that could have dealt with Shepard. The rest of the Reapers have waited 50,000 years. They can wait another half-hour.
Do you want to be able to beat ME1 or not? By that logic, the reapers could have waited 100 years for everyone knowing about them to die and then go.
Reptillius wrote...
The is actually unprovable. there is much of the fight we don't see and there is certain things that had to happen to make the ending appropriate in Shepards story... There are too many factors we don't actually know to make statements like this. For all we know there was coincidental timing that about the same time that Shepard takes out the Saren Avatar the combined fleet forces manage to actually overload and disable Soveriegns shields.
There is just too much about that fight that either gets in the way of making any sound calls on a true outcome and to little information in certain respects to make accurate calls about the strength of certain units in the ME universe...
in Short... Plot armour is never a fair assessment of defensive capability or incapability.
SandTrout wrote...
ThePwener wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
The fact that he needed to get rid of Shepard right then is what makes the idea that Sovereign could not have been taken down by the fleet ludicrous, especially when there was an entire fleet of Geth outside that could have dealt with Shepard. The rest of the Reapers have waited 50,000 years. They can wait another half-hour.
Do you want to be able to beat ME1 or not? By that logic, the reapers could have waited 100 years for everyone knowing about them to die and then go.
*snip*
They could have, but why? Sovereign had all the advantages. A Geth fleet, an inside man, and back-door access. Its chances were not going to get much better than that, and hell, it should have succeeded, except that Vigil gave Shepard the override program and Shepard actually followed Saren through the conduit.
By the time Sovereign resurected robo-Saren, it was already a do or die situation for Sovereign. It couldn't just run, because people would remember and prepare for its brothers, if not hunt it down.
You are willfully blind, aren't you? We are not complicating anything. YOU are.Oh please....
You don't really believe all that do you? "Overload" it's shields? Shepard killed it, plain and simple. ME isn't the bible. If it's obvious, that's how it happened. Why complicate it? ME isn't a damn quantum algebra book.
SandTrout wrote...
You're claiming that the destruction of Robo-Saren caused enough feedback that it, and it alone, caused all of Sovereigns systems to suddenly overload and leave it vulnerable to the fleet. You refuse to address why Sovereign would expose itself in such a manner if it were, in fact. invulnerable.
ThePwener wrote...
Games are meant to be beatable. If it's too realistic, then it become unbeatable.
This is an idiotic statement.
SandTrout wrote...
ThePwener wrote...
Games are meant to be beatable. If it's too realistic, then it become unbeatable.
You are claiming that in order for the narrative to be told so that the protagonist wins, writers must write villains into acts of monumental stupidity.
And you are making this claim because you don't want to believe that a fleets' worth of sustained fire is capable of bringing down a Reaper.
I honestly don't even think I need to explain to anyone why this is stupid, and you won't listen anyways.
Bull****. If it is stated anywhere, it is stated because Shepard is the one that reopened the Relays and Ward Arms to allow the 5th fleet to strike Soveriegn. Your convoluted feedback theory has never been stated by anyone except fans.That's because it is what happened. It is stated over and over that Shepard killed Sovereign.
Guns taking down shields is convoluted, but robo-saren's death causing feedback enough to shut down a 2Km AI dreadnaught is not?Bw aren't going to make something as convoluted and inverted like that. No good writer would. It's either one or the other and it's obvious which one it is.
You know how the writing in those movies is described, don't you?ThePwener wrote...
Well you obviously have never seen a James Bond/Batman/Superman/ect. movie. The villains ALWAYS do something stupid so the good guys win. ALWAYS!
Idiotic? No, I just see it for what it really is. And the insult was unnecessary,
SandTrout wrote...
Guns taking down shields is convoluted, but robo-saren's death causing feedback enough to shut down a 2Km AI dreadnaught is not?
What the hell does that have to do with anything?ThePwener wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
Guns taking down shields is convoluted, but robo-saren's death causing feedback enough to shut down a 2Km AI dreadnaught is not?
Yeah, well too bad it's a damn video game and not real life.
SandTrout wrote...
It is BAD WRITING, and it irritates the ****** out of a lot of people. There is good writing out there, such as the Novels that Drew K. has written where complete idiocy of your opponent is not a prerequisite for victory.
SandTrout wrote...
What the hell does that have to do with anything?ThePwener wrote...
SandTrout wrote...
Guns taking down shields is convoluted, but robo-saren's death causing feedback enough to shut down a 2Km AI dreadnaught is not?
Yeah, well too bad it's a damn video game and not real life.
Fix'dThePwener wrote...
You are using rationality and logic. Two things that do not carry off in the same way from reality to [crappy] fiction.
SandTrout wrote...
I retract calling your statement idiotic.
You, however, are clearly an idiot. You are purposefully pushing for bad, convoluted writing in place of good, realistic writing that requires less injected implausibilities.
No, it isn't with good fiction.Pushing? That's how it is pal
SandTrout wrote...
Good fiction makes sense and is reasonable and logical,unless it is parody.
Modifié par ThePwener, 19 août 2011 - 09:48 .
Modifié par SandTrout, 19 août 2011 - 09:56 .
SandTrout wrote...
Tom Clancy
Frank Herbert
Isaac Asimov
Robert A. Heinlein
E. E. Knight
Retour en haut