6494 réponses à ce sujet

[111987]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

She also knew about the Collectors first hand and witnessed Shepard fight them off.

She didn't know the Reapers were working with the Collectors though.

Plus technically Shepard by working with Cerberus is a traitor.

And think if you were in her place. You fall deeply in love with a person, who is then killed. You mourn his loss for two years. Then out of the blue that person returns, but is now working with an organization you truly despise, especially after witnessing their sick experiments.

Yes her reasoning was flawed; obviously Cerberus wasn't working for the Collectors. But in a highly emotional scene like that, does reason really come into play?

Given the actual mandate of the Spectres, it always seemed silly to me that the Council calls Shep a "traitor" for working with Cerberus, and has no time to stop and listen to Shep explain what's going on.  It's almost comical how many times the Council has refused to give Shep much if any benefit of the doubt so far. 

True, but the Spectres still answer to the Council. And Cerberus is an avowed enemy of the Council. So technically, it is treason.

[Killjoy Cutter]

111987 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Now imagine that the Collector base where located near relay alpha instead and you used the base to smash into the relay effectively stopping the construction of the human larvae and the emergence of the reapers in the galaxy in one stroke.. that would have been something.

How could you possibly do that? I think the Collectors would notice if we starting building huge thrusters on their base...

What if the base is generating the mass effect field keeping both itself and mass relay from "falling" into the nearest black hole?  That might work.

[Anacronian Stryx]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

111987 wrote...

Anacronian Stryx wrote...

Now imagine that the Collector base where located near relay alpha instead and you used the base to smash into the relay effectively stopping the construction of the human larvae and the emergence of the reapers in the galaxy in one stroke.. that would have been something.

How could you possibly do that? I think the Collectors would notice if we starting building huge thrusters on their base...

What if the base is generating the mass effect field keeping both itself and mass relay from "falling" into the nearest black hole?  That might work.

Or a wild fire fight to take over the bridge of the still docked collector vessel - upload EDI into the systems while frantically fighting of collectors left and right and when EDI is ready fire the engines moving the base towards the relay then the usual shep jump to the normandy and a frantic flight to get out of the system before the collision.

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But ithey do state one thing...they want to make us reapers...Harginger says "They will be as we are." Blutly. Meaning they want to make people into reapers. As to why. Nothing has been stated why and will be told in ME3

[*]2. You not understanding the point of the human reaper. I'm awnsering you question to explain that your question has no point. Put reaper tech on a ship is not making a reaper, which is their goal.In short, they never do what you stated because it's not in their goal. They want to make thing into reapers, not make reapers to destroy them.

[*]3. The normady was almost shut down and it was from the out side. That 's hacking. The hole point was to disable the ship, which the point is lost on you. Shepard just plugged EDI in to the platform they were on to let them down. My point is that if EDI was not there, Shepard would of been caught in the trap.

[*]4.If they need the citdel to get in from dark space, why are they here already from arrival? Face it....they're here already and they did not need the citidel. They were in the galecy from Arrival.

[*]5.And that is what Ashliy and Kadien felt. They don't have to help you.That's the consept of free will.

• If they intend to make a giant terminator, then the narrative must explain the rationality. It cannot simply state, "because" as a definitive response. ME2 should not be entirely reliant on ME3 to make a lick of sense. ME1 was able to conclude on a logical note devoid of ME2.
• You are not understanding the point, period. If they do not intend to fling the Reaper at the Citadel, then what the hell was the point? What was the plot? This makes ME2 fundamentally useless in the trilogy because it explains nothing and the reapers do not develop.
• ... so shooting something down equates to hacking? What game are you playing? The Normandy was never disabled. There was no hacking. You are making up stuff. If you are referencing to why the Collectors disabled their own ship, that is completely asinine. You do not allow your enemy to data mine you for information. My example was of a good ambush but you chose to ignore that. Alternatively, if Harbinger had blown up the Normandy later on, then this would have been one impressive twist.
• Arrival is DLC, and thus irrelevant from the argument. They do not need the Citadel, it was merely the most efficient route to begin purging the galaxy. All Arrival accomplished is completely subverting ME2's plot. Why stop the collectors over the Reapers?
• They also have the free will not to act like morons. No one said they have to help, just their dialogue is horrendous. They make leaps of logic no mentally competent human would, irrational or otherwise. This is all for the sake of BioWare wanting drama.

111987 wrote...

@Bourne Endeavor

You posted a while back about why the Human-Reaper was stupid, as a machine would be much more efficient. But we do not know what the Reaper's purpose and ultimate goal is, why they repeat this cycle of extinction. It could be that their entire existence is based upon preserving the genetic material of species deemed 'worthy'. We simply don't know enough about the Reapers.

As to your point about the Human-Reaper walking around in space and punching ships....you realize that what we saw was just the Reaper Core right? It would have put in a shell just like all the other Reapers.

Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

[Iakus]

[quote]dreman9999 wrote...

They don't trust cerberus with good reason. You may not like it but they have apoint. You may not like it, and you did argue that your not a trator but in the end you and they know cerberuses history ...they can't be trusted. It a case of agreeing to dissagree .[/quote][/quote]

And how do they know Cerberus' history?  Because Shepard killed dozens of their agents, trashed several of their facilities, and disrupted a bunch of their schemes.  Now Shep is working with them against the Collectors and, he claims, the Reapers.

If the VS thinks Cerberus is controlling Shepard somehow, through coercsion or some kind of mind control, that's one thing.  But that's not being a traitor.  You need free will to be a traitor.  What the VS suggests is a complete reworking of Shepard's brain from "Die! Cerberus!  Die!" to "You know what?  You guys are okay in my book!"
It doesn't help that Shep's possible responses were so poor as well.  I'm left to wonder if Miranda did sneak a control chip into Shepard's brain when TIM wasn't looking.  

[Notlikeyoucare]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But ithey do state one thing...they want to make us reapers...Harginger says "They will be as we are." Blutly. Meaning they want to make people into reapers. As to why. Nothing has been stated why and will be told in ME3

[*]2. You not understanding the point of the human reaper. I'm awnsering you question to explain that your question has no point. Put reaper tech on a ship is not making a reaper, which is their goal.In short, they never do what you stated because it's not in their goal. They want to make thing into reapers, not make reapers to destroy them.

[*]3. The normady was almost shut down and it was from the out side. That 's hacking. The hole point was to disable the ship, which the point is lost on you. Shepard just plugged EDI in to the platform they were on to let them down. My point is that if EDI was not there, Shepard would of been caught in the trap.

[*]4.If they need the citdel to get in from dark space, why are they here already from arrival? Face it....they're here already and they did not need the citidel. They were in the galecy from Arrival.

[*]5.And that is what Ashliy and Kadien felt. They don't have to help you.That's the consept of free will.

• If they intend to make a giant terminator, then the narrative must explain the rationality. It cannot simply state, "because" as a definitive response. ME2 should not be entirely reliant on ME3 to make a lick of sense. ME1 was able to conclude on a logical note devoid of ME2.
• You are not understanding the point, period. If they do not intend to fling the Reaper at the Citadel, then what the hell was the point? What was the plot? This makes ME2 fundamentally useless in the trilogy because it explains nothing and the reapers do not develop.
• ... so shooting something down equates to hacking? What game are you playing? The Normandy was never disabled. There was no hacking. You are making up stuff. If you are referencing to why the Collectors disabled their own ship, that is completely asinine. You do not allow your enemy to data mine you for information. My example was of a good ambush but you chose to ignore that. Alternatively, if Harbinger had blown up the Normandy later on, then this would have been one impressive twist.
• Arrival is DLC, and thus irrelevant from the argument. They do not need the Citadel, it was merely the most efficient route to begin purging the galaxy. All Arrival accomplished is completely subverting ME2's plot. Why stop the collectors over the Reapers?
• They also have the free will not to act like morons. No one said they have to help, just their dialogue is horrendous. They make leaps of logic no mentally competent human would, irrational or otherwise. This is all for the sake of BioWare wanting drama.

111987 wrote...

@Bourne Endeavor

You posted a while back about why the Human-Reaper was stupid, as a machine would be much more efficient. But we do not know what the Reaper's purpose and ultimate goal is, why they repeat this cycle of extinction. It could be that their entire existence is based upon preserving the genetic material of species deemed 'worthy'. We simply don't know enough about the Reapers.

As to your point about the Human-Reaper walking around in space and punching ships....you realize that what we saw was just the Reaper Core right? It would have put in a shell just like all the other Reapers.

Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

See, I believe that if there had been a legitimate build up to the Reaper info dump it would have made alot more sense, that is, after all, how plot twists work.

Anderson would mention how oragnic substances were found in the wreakage of Sovereign.

EDI could say something to the effect of getting organic and non organic readings from the Derilect Reaper.

Give us something so that this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon.

[Arkitekt]

I believe that the main reasons there are 136 pages so far on the theme of Smudboy's videos here in BSN are because of the incredible span between amazingly bad and petty arguments that he uses against ME2 and actually pretty good intelligent and spot on criticisms he is able to produce. All conveyed in the same smug, all knowing demigod arrogant and incapable of humour style of his.

Personally speaking I completely understand why people dislike ME2 plot. Myself entered the game with the pressuposition that the plot was terrible because a friend of mine warned me about it (although still pressing me to play it), and thus my low expectations may have created a good experience in that regard, in the sense that I didn't find the plot as bad as I was expecting and was pleasantly surprised in some parts.

And don't get me wrong, I love a good burning of material when it is done well. If you never saw Plinkett's reviews of Star Trek or Star Wars you simply don't know what I'm talking about. They are brilliant. Smudboy's videos about the plot of ME2 are anything of the kind. However I try to be fair, and so I have to say that his videos about the characters of ME2 are much much better spot on.

We could discuss the details of why I disagree with most points that Smudboy raises on ME2 plot, although it would be sufficient to say that when I later saw Squees (?) videos, I thought he counter-pointed pretty much most of the things I had to say.

Petty arguments, such as the one about Shepard's fall to the planet being utterly impossible physically are just arrogant blustering, since we have little idea of the "flying" conditions of Shepard when he descends to the atmosphere of the planet, and many "impossible" things happen everyday really. For instance, there have been instances where people survive falls of ten kilometers. If such an event was the starting point of a game, Smudboy would crawl on every wall of his own town over it, shouting how amazingly impossible it was. Yet, it has happened. Shepard doesn't survive the fall, instead he is shredded to pieces that are painstakingly collected and preserved. The biggest physical "flaw" of Shepard's ressurection is the quick degeneration of the brain even if it "survived" the fall, would not stand too much lack of oxygen for too much time before disintegrating itself (and destroying any possibility of bringing back the same Shepard with the same experiences and memories, etc.).

Still this is such a small point, while we know that so many sci-fi movies or games are filled with "impossibilities" of this kind, that to take this part and cry out "BAD WRITING" is just petty. And then he adds that it "should!" have some kind of a metaphysical epiphany with the death, that the lack of it is utterly inexcusable and reeks of BAD WRITING. From that moment on, I knew I couldn't agree with most of his ridiculous "pedagogical" rants on how plots ought to be, etc.

We can discuss this further if you want.

[The Spamming Troll]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Given the actual mandate of the Spectres, it always seemed silly to me that the Council calls Shep a "traitor" for working with Cerberus, and has no time to stop and listen to Shep explain what's going on.  It's almost comical how many times the Council has refused to give Shep much if any benefit of the doubt so far. 

this has always plagued me. the council seems to be very naive to everything in the games, so its hard for me to think "save the council" just because of my impression of what the council should be. i saved them in ME1 because im a paragon and it makes sense keeping the head honchos in charge. but i havent seen anything to warrant me saving them. i think the galaxy, or shepard, is better off without them.

so do i kill them, becaseu they arent doin their jobs, or save them becasue of what my impression of what i think "the council" is or should be?

[Sgt Stryker]

 

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

See, I believe that if there had been a legitimate build up to the Reaper info dump it would have made alot more sense, that is, after all, how plot twists work.

Anderson would mention how oragnic substances were found in the wreakage of Sovereign.

EDI could say something to the effect of getting organic and non organic readings from the Derilect Reaper.

Give us something so that this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon. 

Now that you mention the "organic and non-organic energy signatures"...

What the hell was EDI talking about, exactly? When did the Normandy borrow the USS Enterprise's "life signs" detector? How does this thing work, and how does it differentiate between an organic and a non-organic "energy signature"? This whole thing sounds about as pseudoscientific as that "essence of the species" line. Maybe someone should have run a virus scan on EDI, after all.

[Arkitekt]

The council is obviously merely playing a political game with Shepard. Cerberus is a terrorist organization and the Council cannot be seen to be reconciled with this issue, so they aren't, even if the person in question is Shepard. They also deny the Reapers mostly because of political expediency. There is little evidence for it, and acknowledging their existence would probably only provoke a reaction of hysteria amongst the galactic populations. The council could be working behind the scenes, trying to come up with answers to the danger of the Reapers. Or at least some of the elements of it. Albeit they vehemently deny the Reapers in front of Shepard, we should also remember that Shepard was now a member of an outlier organization and should not be trusted with secret intel (such as the existence of a secret political decision to organize a strategy against the Reapers), and the little but important detail that is spoiled by Kasumi when you enter the Citadel with her and try to speak to the VI about the Reapers. She dismisses the denyings as political expediency to deal with the panic and doesn't seem to believe that the Council actually denies their existence.

[Arkitekt]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

What the hell was EDI talking about, exactly? When did the Normandy borrow the USS Enterprise's "life signs" detector? How does this thing work, and how does it differentiate between an organic and a non-organic "energy signature"? This whole thing sounds about as pseudoscientific as that "essence of the species" line. Maybe someone should have run a virus scan on EDI, after all.

It's always pseudo scientific, since it's about a speculation over a technology that isn't available for the next two hundred years. Please try to explain the atom bomb to Isaac Newton using terminology of his time without sounding stupid. The only way to do so would be to actually explain exactly what is going on. But no one on Bioware has access to 23rd century technology. So they are left with pseudo-explanations. We should always remind ourselves that sufficiently advanced technology will always appear like magic to the ignorant.


EDIT: BTW this was a point that also irritated me in Smudboy's rant, always crying for Bioware to EXPLAIN the various technologies that were used, or events, or etc. Dumb Smudboy is incapable of understanding that if anyone was actually able to provide a good explanation of how this technology worked, then it would already exist today. Every scifi explanations have a degree of handwaving or just bull****ting. We can discuss if some are more subtle than others, but this is always the case.

Modifié par Arkitekt, 07 septembre 2011 - 11:37 .

[Sgt Stryker]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Given the actual mandate of the Spectres, it always seemed silly to me that the Council calls Shep a "traitor" for working with Cerberus, and has no time to stop and listen to Shep explain what's going on.  It's almost comical how many times the Council has refused to give Shep much if any benefit of the doubt so far. 

this has always plagued me. the council seems to be very naive to everything in the games, so its hard for me to think "save the council" just because of my impression of what the council should be. i saved them in ME1 because im a paragon and it makes sense keeping the head honchos in charge. but i havent seen anything to warrant me saving them. i think the galaxy, or shepard, is better off without them.

so do i kill them, becaseu they arent doin their jobs, or save them becasue of what my impression of what i think "the council" is or should be?

Neither. One of my Shepards didn't care for the Council, but saved the Destiny Ascension, because he saw it as a valuable strategic asset in the future. The fact that the Council happened to be on board at the time was just a matter of convenience.

[111987]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

[*]
Give us something so that
this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my
belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon.

[*]You are of course entitiled to your beliefs. However in this case, in the technical definition of the word 'retcon', you are wrong.
[*]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

[*]
Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

[*]I'm afraid I can't agree with you. Just because you think it's bad writing if the Human-Reaper isn't explained doesn't mean it is. There are no rules saying that it has to be explained in ME2. I've read many novels where there is a big reveal at the end that just makes you go WTF, but when you get the explanation in the final part, it makes sense as to why it was done that way. We are told that the Human-Reaper is part of the Reaper's reproductive methods; there is your explanation. There's no reason the rest can't come from ME3.
[*]We know it was merely a core because of a developer interview and concept art. And also common sense, as the Human-Reaper was WAYYYY smaller than any other Reaper we've seen.

[Notlikeyoucare]

111987 wrote...

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

[*]
Give us something so that
this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my
belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon.

[*]You are of course entitiled to your beliefs. However in this case, in the technical definition of the word 'retcon', you are wrong.
[*]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

[*]
Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

[*]I'm afraid I can't agree with you. Just because you think it's bad writing if the Human-Reaper isn't explained doesn't mean it is. There are no rules saying that it has to be explained in ME2. I've read many novels where there is a big reveal at the end that just makes you go WTF, but when you get the explanation in the final part, it makes sense as to why it was done that way. We are told that the Human-Reaper is part of the Reaper's reproductive methods; there is your explanation. There's no reason the rest can't come from ME3.
[*]We know it was merely a core because of a developer interview and concept art. And also common sense, as the Human-Reaper was WAYYYY smaller than any other Reaper we've seen.

There isn't enough exposition on it to subvert properly. And no, you telling me all characters didn't know or they never said Reapers didn't have organic parts in them, doesn't subvert it. Its a retcon, deal with it.

[111987]

If you can't accept that you are wrong and that it is not a retcon, we've reached an impasse. I agree there wasn't enough exposition and that's why the big reveal fell flat. But it isn't a retcon, end of discussion. I have nothing more to say to you on the subject.

[Sgt Stryker]

The nature of Reapers was no more retconned than Cerberus or mass effect fields were retconned.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 08 septembre 2011 - 12:53 .

[Iakus]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The nature of Reapers was no more retconned than Cerberus or mass effect fields were retconned.

Wait are you arguing for or against retcons here?  

[Sgt Stryker]

iakus wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The nature of Reapers was no more retconned than Cerberus or mass effect fields were retconned.

Wait are you arguing for or against retcons here?  

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other." 


Actually, I do not believe that either of those three were retconned.

[100k]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...
Given the actual mandate of the Spectres, it always seemed silly to me that the Council calls Shep a "traitor" for working with Cerberus, and has no time to stop and listen to Shep explain what's going on.  It's almost comical how many times the Council has refused to give Shep much if any benefit of the doubt so far. 

this has always plagued me. the council seems to be very naive to everything in the games, so its hard for me to think "save the council" just because of my impression of what the council should be. i saved them in ME1 because im a paragon and it makes sense keeping the head honchos in charge. but i havent seen anything to warrant me saving them. i think the galaxy, or shepard, is better off without them.

so do i kill them, becaseu they arent doin their jobs, or save them becasue of what my impression of what i think "the council" is or should be?

Besides, what harm could come from looking at Shepard's evidence? I get the feeling that if Shepard said "there's an assassin on the Citadel and he's planning to kill you. I want to stop him..., they'd say "an assassin? We have dismissed that claim!"

But I digress...

ME2 could have easily had the council avoiding Shepard, thus explaining why he couldn't give them evidence. It could be something as simple as the turian council member being off on Palaven, the Asari coucilor on Thessia, and the Salarian councilor on Sur Kesh.

[dreman9999]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But ithey do state one thing...they want to make us reapers...Harginger says "They will be as we are." Blutly. Meaning they want to make people into reapers. As to why. Nothing has been stated why and will be told in ME3

[*]2. You not understanding the point of the human reaper. I'm awnsering you question to explain that your question has no point. Put reaper tech on a ship is not making a reaper, which is their goal.In short, they never do what you stated because it's not in their goal. They want to make thing into reapers, not make reapers to destroy them.

[*]3. The normady was almost shut down and it was from the out side. That 's hacking. The hole point was to disable the ship, which the point is lost on you. Shepard just plugged EDI in to the platform they were on to let them down. My point is that if EDI was not there, Shepard would of been caught in the trap.

[*]4.If they need the citdel to get in from dark space, why are they here already from arrival? Face it....they're here already and they did not need the citidel. They were in the galecy from Arrival.

[*]5.And that is what Ashliy and Kadien felt. They don't have to help you.That's the consept of free will.

• If they intend to make a giant terminator, then the narrative must explain the rationality. It cannot simply state, "because" as a definitive response. ME2 should not be entirely reliant on ME3 to make a lick of sense. ME1 was able to conclude on a logical note devoid of ME2.
• You are not understanding the point, period. If they do not intend to fling the Reaper at the Citadel, then what the hell was the point? What was the plot? This makes ME2 fundamentally useless in the trilogy because it explains nothing and the reapers do not develop.
• ... so shooting something down equates to hacking? What game are you playing? The Normandy was never disabled. There was no hacking. You are making up stuff. If you are referencing to why the Collectors disabled their own ship, that is completely asinine. You do not allow your enemy to data mine you for information. My example was of a good ambush but you chose to ignore that. Alternatively, if Harbinger had blown up the Normandy later on, then this would have been one impressive twist.
• Arrival is DLC, and thus irrelevant from the argument. They do not need the Citadel, it was merely the most efficient route to begin purging the galaxy. All Arrival accomplished is completely subverting ME2's plot. Why stop the collectors over the Reapers?
• They also have the free will not to act like morons. No one said they have to help, just their dialogue is horrendous. They make leaps of logic no mentally competent human would, irrational or otherwise. This is all for the sake of BioWare wanting drama.

111987 wrote...

@Bourne Endeavor

You posted a while back about why the Human-Reaper was stupid, as a machine would be much more efficient. But we do not know what the Reaper's purpose and ultimate goal is, why they repeat this cycle of extinction. It could be that their entire existence is based upon preserving the genetic material of species deemed 'worthy'. We simply don't know enough about the Reapers.

As to your point about the Human-Reaper walking around in space and punching ships....you realize that what we saw was just the Reaper Core right? It would have put in a shell just like all the other Reapers.

Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

[*]1. Bu they do have a reponse, the want to turn humans into a reaper. As to why humans....being that it's a trilogy and it will be explain later....It's going to br fully explained in ME3.
[*]2.Their first plan fail, so they tried something eles. The Alpha relay....but that was soon destoryed. Their desire is always a surpise attack and wanted to use the fastest way to do so. Only now using the citdel relay is not an opinion because the races are watching for that.....So they try a bad the back door, but it destoryed.
[*]3.Yes, if its done from a distance to a computer system by accessing it, that's hacking. But that not the point, they wanted to take the ship out to give shepard no way out. And it never was shut down because EDI stoped it from happening. What I been trying to say and you not getting is the fact that EDI was the only reason why Shepard got off that Ship. If EDI was not there, the ship would be shut down and no one would be able to hack the collector system to get Shepard out.
[*]4.No, it not irrelivent, why? Because it part of the over arching plot. It happen wheather you played it or not. The trial at the start of ME3 is all about what you did in the arrival dlc. It part of the plot so it's relivent.
[*]5.Again, if that what they feel, it's what they feel.  If you don't like it, tuff luck. People don't agree on thing they think is logiclly right all the time. Politics, freedom of speech, game forums.... If they don't agree with you, get over it. That how life is.

[Thompson family]

This thread's still alive? Carry on, then.

[dreman9999]

Notlikeyoucare wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But ithey do state one thing...they want to make us reapers...Harginger says "They will be as we are." Blutly. Meaning they want to make people into reapers. As to why. Nothing has been stated why and will be told in ME3

[*]2. You not understanding the point of the human reaper. I'm awnsering you question to explain that your question has no point. Put reaper tech on a ship is not making a reaper, which is their goal.In short, they never do what you stated because it's not in their goal. They want to make thing into reapers, not make reapers to destroy them.

[*]3. The normady was almost shut down and it was from the out side. That 's hacking. The hole point was to disable the ship, which the point is lost on you. Shepard just plugged EDI in to the platform they were on to let them down. My point is that if EDI was not there, Shepard would of been caught in the trap.

[*]4.If they need the citdel to get in from dark space, why are they here already from arrival? Face it....they're here already and they did not need the citidel. They were in the galecy from Arrival.

[*]5.And that is what Ashliy and Kadien felt. They don't have to help you.That's the consept of free will.

• If they intend to make a giant terminator, then the narrative must explain the rationality. It cannot simply state, "because" as a definitive response. ME2 should not be entirely reliant on ME3 to make a lick of sense. ME1 was able to conclude on a logical note devoid of ME2.
• You are not understanding the point, period. If they do not intend to fling the Reaper at the Citadel, then what the hell was the point? What was the plot? This makes ME2 fundamentally useless in the trilogy because it explains nothing and the reapers do not develop.
• ... so shooting something down equates to hacking? What game are you playing? The Normandy was never disabled. There was no hacking. You are making up stuff. If you are referencing to why the Collectors disabled their own ship, that is completely asinine. You do not allow your enemy to data mine you for information. My example was of a good ambush but you chose to ignore that. Alternatively, if Harbinger had blown up the Normandy later on, then this would have been one impressive twist.
• Arrival is DLC, and thus irrelevant from the argument. They do not need the Citadel, it was merely the most efficient route to begin purging the galaxy. All Arrival accomplished is completely subverting ME2's plot. Why stop the collectors over the Reapers?
• They also have the free will not to act like morons. No one said they have to help, just their dialogue is horrendous. They make leaps of logic no mentally competent human would, irrational or otherwise. This is all for the sake of BioWare wanting drama.

111987 wrote...

@Bourne Endeavor

You posted a while back about why the Human-Reaper was stupid, as a machine would be much more efficient. But we do not know what the Reaper's purpose and ultimate goal is, why they repeat this cycle of extinction. It could be that their entire existence is based upon preserving the genetic material of species deemed 'worthy'. We simply don't know enough about the Reapers.

As to your point about the Human-Reaper walking around in space and punching ships....you realize that what we saw was just the Reaper Core right? It would have put in a shell just like all the other Reapers.

Their main objective was to pour in from Dark Space, we can therefore deduce the Citadel would be among their primary focus as it serves the most efficient way to enter the galaxy. I argue the Human-Reaper is ridiculous due to the complete lack of exposition. The narrative cannot rely on the sequel to explain everything, it must handle a portion, which ME2 does not. We are not required to know if the Reapers of a secondary goal or what have you. It is necessary we know what purpose this human-reaper served to ME2's plot. What they were going to do with it, why was it massive, and so forth.

I never made this point, although I have thought it. How do we know this was merely a core? Why do we never see some misshapen creature in the derelict Reaper? Why is this thing needed to 'pilot' a Reaper?

See, I believe that if there had been a legitimate build up to the Reaper info dump it would have made alot more sense, that is, after all, how plot twists work.

Anderson would mention how oragnic substances were found in the wreakage of Sovereign.

EDI could say something to the effect of getting organic and non organic readings from the Derilect Reaper.

Give us something so that this doesn't come off as a contrived ass pull. I still hold firm to my belief that the Reapers being Cybernetic is a retcon.

1.Organic supstace is destroyed in cold space and firy explotions.
2.The derilect reaper is brain dead. The organic part has to be gone to be brain dead.

The fact is their is not part in ME2 this could be told with the way the collectors alienated themselves.

[dreman9999]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

iakus wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...

The nature of Reapers was no more retconned than Cerberus or mass effect fields were retconned.

Wait are you arguing for or against retcons here?  

"I have no strong feelings one way or the other." 


Actually, I do not believe that either of those three were retconned.

Nothing about cerberus out side of it being a rogue shadow ops team who want to improve humanity has ever been stapled in ME1...So what's stated in ME2 is not a retcon. Also, everything that causes mass effect field to work the way they do in ME2 is based in ME1...So, it's not a retcon.

[Sgt Stryker]

Thanks for agreeing with me.

[Iakus]

         

dreman9999 wrote..[*]1. Bu they do have a reponse, the want to turn humans into a reaper. As to why humans....being that it's a trilogy and it will be explain later....It's going to br fully explained in ME3.
[*]2.Their first plan fail, so they tried something eles. The Alpha relay....but that was soon destoryed. Their desire is always a surpise attack and wanted to use the fastest way to do so. Only now using the citdel relay is not an opinion because the races are watching for that.....So they try a bad the back door, but it destoryed.
[*]3.Yes, if its done from a distance to a computer system by accessing it, that's hacking. But that not the point, they wanted to take the ship out to give shepard no way out. And it never was shut down because EDI stoped it from happening. What I been trying to say and you not getting is the fact that EDI was the only reason why Shepard got off that Ship. If EDI was not there, the ship would be shut down and no one would be able to hack the collector system to get Shepard out.
[*]4.No, it not irrelivent, why? Because it part of the over arching plot. It happen wheather you played it or not. The trial at the start of ME3 is all about what you did in the arrival dlc. It part of the plot so it's relivent.
[*]5.Again, if that what they feel, it's what they feel.  If you don't like it, tuff luck. People don't agree on thing they think is logiclly right all the time. Politics, freedom of speech, game forums.... If they don't agree with you, get over it. That how life is.

 

First, bulleted lists need to die. 

Second:

1) So would it have been better if Shepard never learned that the Citadel was a dark space relay?  It could always be explained further in ME3, right?

2) How was building the human Reaper anything but an opportunity for humanity to catch on to the Collectors?  What was so important it couldn't wait?  

3) They didn't need to take out the Normandy to trap Shepard.  All they needed was to take out the Kodiak.  Then ust hold off the Normandy while they head for the nearest relay. ...

4) It's irrelevent from the perspective of ME2's main plot.  Not everyone bought Arrival.  Not all playthroughs include Arrival.  The events themselves may be relevant to the overall story, just as the First Contact War or Krogan Rebellions are relevant.  But the DLC itself is not, at least for the purposes of ME2.

5) Nothing happens in a story for no reason.  Writers have absolute control over the universe they create.  People say and do what they do not because of emotions or logic, but because they dance to the writer's tune.  Ash and Kaidan don't "feel" anything.  If the writer has them act irrationally, they act irrationally.  It is the responibility of the writers to maintain thier "character" and keep them consistent to thier natures.

On Horizon this either A) did not happen or Did happen, but we were given no context to understand how this is thier nature, as it is contrary to how they acted in ME1.  Either way, it was very poorly done.