111987 wrote...
I'm afraid I don't see the issue here; why does it matter where the Collectors sprang their attack? They lured them to the location they wanted them to be in, and attacked. Were it not for EDI hacking into the ship Shepard and the crew would never have gotten off those platforms, or they would have been trapped in the Praetorian room. The trap they set was realistic, even if you yourself would have planned it differently.
And of course the writers wrote it in a way that allowed data on the Collectors to be gathered; how stupid would the game be if as soon as you step into the Collector Ship you're imprisoned?
As for the seeker swarms; as mentioned, there were Mordin's counter measures that are effective at blocking out a hell of a lot of seekers, as we see on Horizon. The Collectors didn't know exactly how the countermeasures worked, only that they did. It would thus be reasonable for them to simply not bother with the idea as from their knowledge, it would be ineffective anyways.
Harbinger did not 'take it easy on Shepard'. Were it not for EDI, Shepard would have had to kill everyone on the Collector Ship to escape, assuming he could even get the doors open somehow.
It matters because a trap's purpose is to lure prey in and not necessarily give said prey what they want. From what I can remember the objective of that mission wasn't to find anything specific. We could have gone in and found information we already knew or junk info that wouldn't amount to anything. When at the mercy of an antagonist it's incredibly foolish to think that you can go into his home and rifle through his property and think you'll come out clean or come out at all.
In this case, this is an antagonist that has considerable numbers against us, we're on its turf which allows for as much reinforcements that the ship can allow on their side, and we don't know what we're there to find.
Also of note is that EDI didn't hack the ship. She was given a way in by Shepard. The trap could have been sprung before that, as I said earlier, when they got to the top of the incline. They were deep in the ship already. The only time EDI recognizes that it was a trap was after Shepard set the link up and not before. The idea that Shepard could fight their way out is flawed because they needed EDI to guide and open doors for them. During the initial battle on the platform EDI was having trouble because, as she says, "someone else" was in the system.
Yes, the game would be stupid if you were imprisoned as soon as you stepped onto the ship. In such a case you don't write the scenario out as they did. You change it to be something meaningful that is to be obtained at all cost if you're going to go with the same structure or you change the mission entirely and give both the antagonist and protagonist about an equal chance to succeed in accomplishing their respective goals(Collectors/Harbinger = acquiring Shepard and Shepard = acquiring meaningful data) at a place where neither party has the upper hand from the outset.
In the case of the seekers, if they are smart enough to know that there's a high chance that the seeker swarms will be unable to do their job, then the Collectors/Harbinger should do their best to lock Shepard and their team in. What does that entail? Being ready to block escape routes. Fixing locks so it has a failsafe analog operation that thwarts a possible tech hack. Harbinger should be thinking: Obviously they've found a way to thwart our tech. So I have to assume that they might have something else up their sleeve. Why do the opposite? Even arrogance doesn't get that bad unless it's a children's tale. And at that point you're looking at your antagonist being your antagonist for the lulz and not because they actually have a thought out reason. An antagonist that's supposed to be of the same caliber of Sovereign should have a well thought out reason for doing what they're doing even if we, the audience, might not ever know that reason.
dreman9999 wrote...
Your not understanding. Not letting Shepard get to the data would allow him/her to escape. One may not be able to hack a ship like EDI can, but Shepard can easily hack a door. Shepard would get out. The Idea would be to cut of the safe point and that's the ship. As long as the ship is functioning, Shepard can escape.
My above reply answers this to some extent, but I wanted to point out that there's nothing that says Shepard would be allowed to escape at all. If the shuttle were destroyed there's no way Shepard would be able to get off the ship. Shepard, more than likely, would be done for.
Modifié par Xeranx, 29 août 2011 - 11:47 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
. because assuming there were
