6494 réponses à ce sujet

[Killjoy Cutter]

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

It appears that the Collectors are purpose-modified to be remotely controlled in that manner, according to conversations with Mordin.  Perhaps that makes a difference.  And I wouldn't completely dismiss the extra layer of removal that the Collector General represents as a possible explanation. 

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

Wait, are you serious? It makes perfect sense plot-wise, and is supported in-game.

Read these two Codex entries:

Collectors: Collector General
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Collector_General

Collectors: Harbinger
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Harbinger

We also see that Harbinger makes a point of releasing control of the Collector General right before it dies; why else would it do this if not to avoid what happened to Sovereign?

Modifié par 111987, 27 septembre 2011 - 03:27 .

[Arkitekt]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

It appears that the Collectors are purpose-modified to be remotely controlled in that manner, according to conversations with Mordin.  Perhaps that makes a difference.  And I wouldn't completely dismiss the extra layer of removal that the Collector General represents as a possible explanation. 

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

It's possible once you accept the quantum entanglement idiocy.

[Grim Intent]

hmm, well that's an interesting tweet. so i guess killing the avatar while the reaper is controlling it made it's shields more vulnerable long enough to finish it off.. well, i suppose that makes sense. still, i don't like where this mac walters guy is taking the story so far, based on what i've read of me:evolution... i really hope he doesn't screw up me3...

Modifié par Grim Intent, 27 septembre 2011 - 03:32 .

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

Wait, are you serious? It makes perfect sense plot-wise, and is supported in-game.

Read these two Codex entries:

Collectors: Collector General
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Collector_General

Collectors: Harbinger
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Harbinger

This has *nothing to do* with the claimed weakness that you suggest. It's a total strawman. The codex entries are 100% uncontroversial in our conversation.

We also see that Harbinger makes a point of releasing control of the Collector General right before it dies; why else would it do this if not to avoid what happened to Sovereign?

Because if your Collector General is going to die, there's no further use you can make of him?!? I mean, wow hello?

[Grim Intent]

^^ yeah, that's what i got too. it seems to me that mac walters was trying to cover bioware's ass with that random tweet seeing as he wasn't even a lead writer in mass effect 1. it was drew if i'm not mistaken...

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

Wait, are you serious? It makes perfect sense plot-wise, and is supported in-game.

Read these two Codex entries:

Collectors: Collector General
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Collector_General

Collectors: Harbinger
masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Codex/Aliens:_Non-Council_Races#Collectors:_Harbinger

This has *nothing to do* with the claimed weakness that you suggest. It's a total strawman. The codex entries are 100% uncontroversial in our conversation.

We also see that Harbinger makes a point of releasing control of the Collector General right before it dies; why else would it do this if not to avoid what happened to Sovereign?

Because if your Collector General is going to die, there's no further use you can make of him?!? I mean, wow hello?

Has nothing to do with it? Did you not read the entries?

"This indicates that the Collector General, previously thought of as a
puppeteer-like figure, was essentially a mere conduit through which
Harbinger mobilized the Collectors’ mission to protect and nurture an
embryonic Reaper by providing it a steady supply of humans."

"New evidence suggests the Collectors have a singular commander, a
so-called "Collector General" that has never been seen on the
battlefield. Instead, it selects its minions as remote platforms for its
consciousness in a process that has been likened to a biological hack
or a cybernetic version of demonic possession.
The Collector General can send a secure signal to any one of its
minions, smoothly take control of their motor functions, and awaken
their previously dormant biotic potential."

What aren't you understanding here? Harbinger controls Collector General who controls individual Collector. Killing a possessed Collector doesn't hurt Harbinger because his avatar, the Collector General, isn't being killed each time a possessed Collector is killed.

Come on, if you try real hard you can get this one It's pretty simple

[onelifecrisis]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I get what you're saying there, and I think I could get onboard with it if ME2 were a standalone game/story, but it's not; it's a sequel.As a standalone story, taking on the collectors to stop abductions would be okay (it would still have holes of course). But as the middle part of a trilogy in which we're supposed to be stopping the reapers, AND as a continuation of Shepard's story from ME1, I consider it an epic fail on both counts.

I'm a little confused.

Sure the events of ME2 didn't stop the reapers, but neither did ME1. In both cases we found out some things about them and won a symbolic victory. In the meantime ME2 set up things for Me3 by putting in sideplots on species politics, greatly expanding the main cast and gave these additions a solid relationship with shepard, moving around the former main cast (VS now being a spectre) expanded the universe (Omega, Tuchanka, etc), possibly got an important resource (collector base) and had a revelation about the nature of the reapers (albiet incomplete, but still enough to make sense).

As for a continuation of the ME1 story, what do you mean? The reaper plot? That's continued-indirectly, but still continued. I hope you aren't talking about the citadel and soverign, because that was resolved. And while the transition between the two is a bit abrupt, there's still a decent amount of flow between the two. Major elements in ME2 -cerberus, the terminus systems, the reaper's motivations, council indifference-were set up or forshadowed in ME1. The collectors weren't, but we had no reason to notice such an obscure race before, so I think that's excusable.

Besides, the plot of the trilogy has the second act being a "calm before the storm" kind of thing after the initial plot rush but before the finale as all the pieces move into place. This often happens in trilogies I don't think ME2 failed in that regard. I can see how it could have been done better, but again, where's this "epic fail?" Epic is, well, epic. So far as I can see the plot functions on both it's own and a series level.

Shepard ends ME1 by vowing before the council to stop the reapers. ME2 comes along and we see Shepard hunting geth (huh?). After dying and being rebuilt (wtf?) he then hunts collectors (why?) for Cerberus (wtf?). We don't even find out that the collectors are working for the reapers until horizon. And by that time we've of course seen the "Ah yes, Reapers" bit. How is any of that a continuation of the plot of ME1?

The character "developments" are just as odd. Paragon Shepard goes from being a stand-straight, look-smart choir boy in ME1 to a swaggering, slouching douchebag who threatens to break someone's legs as a charm option in ME2. The VS suddenly loses all interest in stopping the reapers, and Liara's character does a complete u-turn. And let's not forget the sight of Tali (who fought her way through a geth army on the citadel while I sat in cover cheering her on) running away from a solitary mech on Freedom's Progress.

All of these things are only problems because of ME1. Take away ME1 and the whole reaper thing, and ME2's story is a little better because it no longer conflicts with things established in ME1.

Tali takes cover instead of getting ripped to pieces by a YMIR the way the rest of the Quarians did when caught in close combat with the thing.  Don't try to paint this like she's running from a LOKI...   

We're told that Liara went through hell to get Shep's body back, lost a friend doing it, and is engaged in a shadow war against the Shadow Broker... and you're surprised that she's changed? 

The VS becoming a plot-idiot in ME2 is an issue I won't argue, as I agree with those who say the VS was terribly borked by Bioware in ME2. 

The Council sends Shep to hunt for Geth in the Terminus Systems, the opening makes that clear.  If I recall correctly,  it's been a matter of weeks since the Battle of the Citadel, and you're making a federal case out of the Normandy and Shep being on what's supposed to be a "cake" assignment for a bit after what they went through in ME1?  LoL. 

"Swaggering, slouching d-bag"?  LoL, whatever.  

Re: Tali.
She could/would have taken cover and helped Shepard fight it, if it's so dangerous. And besides, in Jack's introductory cutscene she takes on four of them single-handed. Tali is a tech; she's supposed to be better at dealing with mechs than biotics. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Liara
Change is one thing, u-turn is another. Every aspect of her character does a complete 180.
"The world of intrigue isn't that much different from a dig site."
Riiiight. I'm sure that shut-in academic nerds who would rather read books than socialise would make great information brokers.

Re: Geth
And how is hunting geth supposed to stop the reapers?

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 27 septembre 2011 - 03:40 .

[Grim Intent]

does anyone else think mac walters just might ruin mass effect's story? or is it just me...

Modifié par Grim Intent, 27 septembre 2011 - 03:38 .

[Arkitekt]

Stop the patronizing bull****. This is all uncontroversial and understood by the moment you go through the first playthrough of ME2. What you fail to understand is that this description of what the Collector General is and Harby's connection with him (controlling him, etc.) is nowhere stating that if you kill Harby's "avatar" you will harm Harby directly, just like what happened to Soverreign.

The only clue you could claim about this is the word "secure", which can mean anything really, like saying that this signal is protected from external hacking, which I am 99% sure it is what it really means.

Now it's your time to "try real hard" rather than telling me.

[onelifecrisis]

Grim Intent wrote...

does anyone else think mac walters just might ruin mass effect's story? or is it just me...

I was very surprised to learn that Mac Walters was involved in ME1. After first playing ME2 I was honestly convinced that it had been written by people who had never actually played ME1.

Modifié par onelifecrisis, 27 septembre 2011 - 03:51 .

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

Stop the patronizing bull****. This is all uncontroversial and understood by the moment you go through the first playthrough of ME2. What you fail to understand is that this description of what the Collector General is and Harby's connection with him (controlling him, etc.) is nowhere stating that if you kill Harby's "avatar" you will harm Harby directly, just like what happened to Soverreign.

The only clue you could claim about this is the word "secure", which can mean anything really, like saying that this signal is protected from external hacking, which I am 99% sure it is what it really means.

Now it's your time to "try real hard" rather than telling me.

So, what you're saying is this;

Sovereign assumes direct control of its avatar (Saren), and when that avatar is destroyed, Sovereign 'shuts down' and becomes vulnerable.

However, when Harbinger assumes direct control of its avatar (the Collector General), destroying its avatar wouldn't have the same effect?

Yeah... that makes a lot of sense...

[Arkitekt]

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Stop the patronizing bull****. This is all uncontroversial and understood by the moment you go through the first playthrough of ME2. What you fail to understand is that this description of what the Collector General is and Harby's connection with him (controlling him, etc.) is nowhere stating that if you kill Harby's "avatar" you will harm Harby directly, just like what happened to Soverreign.

The only clue you could claim about this is the word "secure", which can mean anything really, like saying that this signal is protected from external hacking, which I am 99% sure it is what it really means.

Now it's your time to "try real hard" rather than telling me.

So, what you're saying is this;

Sovereign assumes direct control of its avatar (Saren), and when that avatar is destroyed, Sovereign 'shuts down' and becomes vulnerable.

However, when Harbinger assumes direct control of its avatar (the Collector General), destroying its avatar wouldn't have the same effect?

Yeah... that makes a lot of sense...

It doesn't because it was never meant to. It's a goddamned gameplay mechanic.

Talk about being difficult, for christ' sakes!

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

It appears that the Collectors are purpose-modified to be remotely controlled in that manner, according to conversations with Mordin.  Perhaps that makes a difference.  And I wouldn't completely dismiss the extra layer of removal that the Collector General represents as a possible explanation. 

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

This has been explianed.....It's called quantum entanglement. The reapers us it and the sr-2 use it.

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

111987 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

Stop the patronizing bull****. This is all uncontroversial and understood by the moment you go through the first playthrough of ME2. What you fail to understand is that this description of what the Collector General is and Harby's connection with him (controlling him, etc.) is nowhere stating that if you kill Harby's "avatar" you will harm Harby directly, just like what happened to Soverreign.

The only clue you could claim about this is the word "secure", which can mean anything really, like saying that this signal is protected from external hacking, which I am 99% sure it is what it really means.

Now it's your time to "try real hard" rather than telling me.

So, what you're saying is this;

Sovereign assumes direct control of its avatar (Saren), and when that avatar is destroyed, Sovereign 'shuts down' and becomes vulnerable.

However, when Harbinger assumes direct control of its avatar (the Collector General), destroying its avatar wouldn't have the same effect?

Yeah... that makes a lot of sense...

It doesn't because it was never meant to. It's a goddamned gameplay mechanic.

Talk about being difficult, for christ' sakes!

You have still failed to explain how it doesn't make sense in the context of the ME-verse. Obviously you have difficulties admitting when you are wrong, so if you'd rather just drop the issue, i'm fine with that.

[Someone With Mass]

111987 wrote...

So, what you're saying is this;

Sovereign assumes direct control of its avatar (Saren), and when that avatar is destroyed, Sovereign 'shuts down' and becomes vulnerable.

However, when Harbinger assumes direct control of its avatar (the Collector General), destroying its avatar wouldn't have the same effect?

Yeah... that makes a lot of sense...

Harbinger is taking control over them through the Collector general, though, and that guy is safe (for the moment) behind the walls of the Collector base.

[dreman9999]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

onelifecrisis wrote...

I get what you're saying there, and I think I could get onboard with it if ME2 were a standalone game/story, but it's not; it's a sequel.As a standalone story, taking on the collectors to stop abductions would be okay (it would still have holes of course). But as the middle part of a trilogy in which we're supposed to be stopping the reapers, AND as a continuation of Shepard's story from ME1, I consider it an epic fail on both counts.

I'm a little confused.

Sure the events of ME2 didn't stop the reapers, but neither did ME1. In both cases we found out some things about them and won a symbolic victory. In the meantime ME2 set up things for Me3 by putting in sideplots on species politics, greatly expanding the main cast and gave these additions a solid relationship with shepard, moving around the former main cast (VS now being a spectre) expanded the universe (Omega, Tuchanka, etc), possibly got an important resource (collector base) and had a revelation about the nature of the reapers (albiet incomplete, but still enough to make sense).

As for a continuation of the ME1 story, what do you mean? The reaper plot? That's continued-indirectly, but still continued. I hope you aren't talking about the citadel and soverign, because that was resolved. And while the transition between the two is a bit abrupt, there's still a decent amount of flow between the two. Major elements in ME2 -cerberus, the terminus systems, the reaper's motivations, council indifference-were set up or forshadowed in ME1. The collectors weren't, but we had no reason to notice such an obscure race before, so I think that's excusable.

Besides, the plot of the trilogy has the second act being a "calm before the storm" kind of thing after the initial plot rush but before the finale as all the pieces move into place. This often happens in trilogies I don't think ME2 failed in that regard. I can see how it could have been done better, but again, where's this "epic fail?" Epic is, well, epic. So far as I can see the plot functions on both it's own and a series level.

Shepard ends ME1 by vowing before the council to stop the reapers. ME2 comes along and we see Shepard hunting geth (huh?). After dying and being rebuilt (wtf?) he then hunts collectors (why?) for Cerberus (wtf?). We don't even find out that the collectors are working for the reapers until horizon. And by that time we've of course seen the "Ah yes, Reapers" bit. How is any of that a continuation of the plot of ME1?

The character "developments" are just as odd. Paragon Shepard goes from being a stand-straight, look-smart choir boy in ME1 to a swaggering, slouching douchebag who threatens to break someone's legs as a charm option in ME2. The VS suddenly loses all interest in stopping the reapers, and Liara's character does a complete u-turn. And let's not forget the sight of Tali (who fought her way through a geth army on the citadel while I sat in cover cheering her on) running away from a solitary mech on Freedom's Progress.

All of these things are only problems because of ME1. Take away ME1 and the whole reaper thing, and ME2's story is a little better because it no longer conflicts with things established in ME1.

Tali takes cover instead of getting ripped to pieces by a YMIR the way the rest of the Quarians did when caught in close combat with the thing.  Don't try to paint this like she's running from a LOKI...   

We're told that Liara went through hell to get Shep's body back, lost a friend doing it, and is engaged in a shadow war against the Shadow Broker... and you're surprised that she's changed? 

The VS becoming a plot-idiot in ME2 is an issue I won't argue, as I agree with those who say the VS was terribly borked by Bioware in ME2. 

The Council sends Shep to hunt for Geth in the Terminus Systems, the opening makes that clear.  If I recall correctly,  it's been a matter of weeks since the Battle of the Citadel, and you're making a federal case out of the Normandy and Shep being on what's supposed to be a "cake" assignment for a bit after what they went through in ME1?  LoL. 

"Swaggering, slouching d-bag"?  LoL, whatever.  

Re: Tali.
She could/would have taken cover and helped Shepard fight it, if it's so dangerous. And besides, in Jack's introductory cutscene she takes on four of them single-handed. Tali is a tech; she's supposed to be better at dealing with mechs than biotics. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Liara
Change is one thing, u-turn is another. Every aspect of her character does a complete 180.
"The world of intrigue isn't that much different from a dig site."
Riiiight. I'm sure that shut-in academic nerds who would rather read books than socialise would make great information brokers.

Re: Geth
And how is hunting geth supposed to stop the reapers?

1. Yes, she is a tech but she does not have the power to get thought a Ymir's defence. It has a heavy kinetic field and Armor.......We all know Tali can go throw that at all easilly.

2.I think you havn't met Liara from ME1.....


.....
Here's the thing about Liara....She always had a little crazy in her, it just her passiveness has a way of covering it up. But push her enough and It comes out. Nothing could push her more that the death of Shepard and the loss of Feron. She's harden up....This is her true face, this is her dark worst side that she has keep in control. I don't see how people are not able to see it from ME1.

3. So Shepard is to disobay orders given to him... Also, being the ones that worked with a reaper, would be the only ones left to question and most likely have all the most info on the reapers.

Modifié par dreman9999, 27 septembre 2011 - 04:27 .

[Arkitekt]

It fails to make sense because it is stupid to have a million-beings-civilization-in-one sentient ship destroyed because one single remote controlled being is now dead. It's beyond stupid. The only possible explanation is that it was a gameplay mechanic: You have to defeat Saren huskified in order to see Soverreign destroyed by the fleet. It was then "explained" that this avatar link actually caused this disruption.

It's beyond stupid, it's as if you'd be killed every time a hacked mech (by you as an engineer) was destroyed. And arguably, the reapers are better hackers.

[dreman9999]

Arkitekt wrote...

It fails to make sense because it is stupid to have a million-beings-civilization-in-one sentient ship destroyed because one single remote controlled being is now dead. It's beyond stupid. The only possible explanation is that it was a gameplay mechanic: You have to defeat Saren huskified in order to see Soverreign destroyed by the fleet. It was then "explained" that this avatar link actually caused this disruption.

It's beyond stupid, it's as if you'd be killed every time a hacked mech (by you as an engineer) was destroyed. And arguably, the reapers are better hackers.

You forget that the  billions in one setient ship was directly controling that single being...Like a person controls their body. In short, you were shooting Soverigns consciousness that was in Seran's reaperfied body.

Modifié par dreman9999, 27 septembre 2011 - 04:24 .

[Killjoy Cutter]

onelifecrisis wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Tali takes cover instead of getting ripped to pieces by a YMIR the way the rest of the Quarians did when caught in close combat with the thing.  Don't try to paint this like she's running from a LOKI...   

We're told that Liara went through hell to get Shep's body back, lost a friend doing it, and is engaged in a shadow war against the Shadow Broker... and you're surprised that she's changed? 

The VS becoming a plot-idiot in ME2 is an issue I won't argue, as I agree with those who say the VS was terribly borked by Bioware in ME2. 

The Council sends Shep to hunt for Geth in the Terminus Systems, the opening makes that clear.  If I recall correctly,  it's been a matter of weeks since the Battle of the Citadel, and you're making a federal case out of the Normandy and Shep being on what's supposed to be a "cake" assignment for a bit after what they went through in ME1?  LoL. 

"Swaggering, slouching d-bag"?  LoL, whatever.  

Re: Tali.
She could/would have taken cover and helped Shepard fight it, if it's so dangerous. And besides, in Jack's introductory cutscene she takes on four of them single-handed. Tali is a tech; she's supposed to be better at dealing with mechs than biotics. You can't have it both ways.

Re: Liara
Change is one thing, u-turn is another. Every aspect of her character does a complete 180.
"The world of intrigue isn't that much different from a dig site."
Riiiight. I'm sure that shut-in academic nerds who would rather read books than socialise would make great information brokers.

Re: Geth
And how is hunting geth supposed to stop the reapers?

Can you name an instance where anyone not on the immediate in-play team helps Shep fight outside of cutscenes?  I don't recall any.  That's not a Tali issue, that's an overall game issue, even if you only noticed it with Tali. 

Liara had to learn those skills in the period between games, big deal, people can change, grow, and learn.  Sorry Liara isn't static enough for you. 

The Council sent Shepard and the Normandy to go track down Geth in the Terminus Systems.   Spectres take orders from the Council.   What is so hard to grasp about Shepard going out to do what the Council ordered Shepard to go out and do? 

[onelifecrisis]

IMHO, one should not worry too much about scientific plausibility in a space opera. FTL, quantum entanglement... as long as it doesn't violate what's intuitive and/or whatever "internal rules" the story has, then it's all good. Long distance travel/communication are intuitive; they're things we know and do. The exact science is irrelevant to the narrative.

IMHO, what the ME games do wrong is to try to explain the "science" at all. But I guess some people would rather have bad sci-fi than good space opera.

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitek wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

It appears that the Collectors are purpose-modified to be remotely controlled in that manner, according to conversations with Mordin.  Perhaps that makes a difference.  And I wouldn't completely dismiss the extra layer of removal that the Collector General represents as a possible explanation. 

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

This has been explianed.....It's called quantum entanglement. The reapers us it and the sr-2 use it.

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

[Killjoy Cutter]

dreman9999 wrote...

Arkitekt wrote...

It fails to make sense because it is stupid to have a million-beings-civilization-in-one sentient ship destroyed because one single remote controlled being is now dead. It's beyond stupid. The only possible explanation is that it was a gameplay mechanic: You have to defeat Saren huskified in order to see Soverreign destroyed by the fleet. It was then "explained" that this avatar link actually caused this disruption.

It's beyond stupid, it's as if you'd be killed every time a hacked mech (by you as an engineer) was destroyed. And arguably, the reapers are better hackers.

You forget that the  billions in one setient ship was directly controling that single being...Like a person controls their body. In short, you were shooting Soverigns consciousness that was in Seran's reaperfied body.

"His consciousness". 

LoL.

[dreman9999]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

Arkitek wrote...

Sajuro wrote...

No, Harbinger isn't affected because he's doing it through the collector general ...

Utterly speculative and unsupported. I'm right and you are wrong: it was a gameplay decision, and it is broken plotwise. Nothing that worries me though, this kind of shenanigan happens in most games and I'm fine with it.

It appears that the Collectors are purpose-modified to be remotely controlled in that manner, according to conversations with Mordin.  Perhaps that makes a difference.  And I wouldn't completely dismiss the extra layer of removal that the Collector General represents as a possible explanation. 

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

This has been explianed.....It's called quantum entanglement. The reapers us it and the sr-2 use it.

On the other hand, the entire "unblockable real-time remote control across the vast distances of space" thing seen in ME2 is goofy to begin with... 

That just how quantum physics works in general, look it up. The reapers just used it to it's full advantge due to being a super advanced alien race.

[111987]

Arkitekt wrote...

It fails to make sense because it is stupid to have a million-beings-civilization-in-one sentient ship destroyed because one single remote controlled being is now dead. It's beyond stupid. The only possible explanation is that it was a gameplay mechanic: You have to defeat Saren huskified in order to see Soverreign destroyed by the fleet. It was then "explained" that this avatar link actually caused this disruption.

It's beyond stupid, it's as if you'd be killed every time a hacked mech (by you as an engineer) was destroyed. And arguably, the reapers are better hackers.

That's not how it works though; it's not a traditional hack. Like the tweet said, Sovereign was investing massive amounts of energy in controlling Saren; Sovereign had to both reanimate Saren and then manipulate him from afar, also giving Saren all of his super-abilities in that final battle. The loss of that energy could very well explain what happened to Sovereign.