love the way he takes the **** out of the glaringly obvious plot holes and rubbish writing.
Smudboy's Bookends of Destruction.
Débuté par
Costin_Razvan
, avril 26 2012 06:03
Retour en haut
#77
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 10:55
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Good lord the crucible plot was beyond horrid. I've seen games with far simpler stories like Zelda or the Ys series pull off plots where they have to gather magical items to deal with whatever problem far better. Those games had better foreshadowing and buildup of their plot devices unlike the crucible which shows up out of nowhere in the third game of a trilogy and nobody even has a freaking clue what it does but still they pour all these critical resources into it anyway.
#78
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 01:09
bwaha54
-
- Members
- 29 messages
It was odd that a cain can destroy a destroyer reaper with one shoot.
#79
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 01:22
Avissel
-
- Members
- 2 132 messages
Yeah...I watched some of this...
I like his entire chain of logic that "if it's from ME2 it's dumb, because ME2 is dumb."
I expect if he posted a review of Titanic his points would be "Why didn't they just go around the Iceberg?" and "But where EXACTLY did the iceberg form?"
I like his entire chain of logic that "if it's from ME2 it's dumb, because ME2 is dumb."
I expect if he posted a review of Titanic his points would be "Why didn't they just go around the Iceberg?" and "But where EXACTLY did the iceberg form?"
Modifié par Avissel, 27 avril 2012 - 01:26 .
#80
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 01:39
Avalon Aurora
-
- Members
- 350 messages
Smudboy goes off on some things that don't deserve it, but he has plenty of relevant points as well, and I like the way he presents them clearly and calmly. I also like that he notices a lot of things others don't that are relevant points, or at least brings up things others neglect to when focusing on more obvious issues. He sometimes gets things wrong or overreacts to some things that aren't actually that bad or are more of an opinion, but I think most of the time (maybe 75%) he is right, and overall I like his videos.
#81
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:08
Jonathan Shepard
-
- Members
- 2 056 messages
Lizardviking wrote...
While I find some parts a bit nickpicky. I liked his part 2 where he basicly explains why Cerberus as the primary opposing force is silly.
I think a LOT of people found Shepard fighting Cerberus to be ridiculous since we were first told we would be fighting them. It never made sense to me anyway, and the tiny throw-away explanations that are given in the game do not do it for me...
I was kinda hoping you would be able to reconcile with TIM/Cerberus earlier, or at least kill TIM and take over.
#82
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:12
Siegdrifa
-
- Members
- 1 884 messages
I like his video, but his problem IMO is, he is ****ing too much between each strong point, and it's poluting a little his credibility.
#83
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:17
TheTrueObelus
-
- Members
- 229 messages
Nitpicky but some good observations.
#84
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:23
TookYoCookies
-
- Members
- 615 messages
Seboist wrote...
Smudboy hits the nail on the head when it comes to how horrid ME3's story was and makes me LOL at the fanboys who think it was all peachy until the last 10 minutes.
This completely, if your going to make a product and sell it as "art", this is the kind of analysis that acompanies said 'art': thorough, detailed examination from start to finish.
#85
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:25
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
These videos are way too long. Who seriously takes this amount of time to rage about the ending of the third game in a trilogy? Especially since smudboy already raged enough about ME2. I can't f**king stand that loser. He has a lot of legit criticisms, but honestly...this is unecessary. If the ending of ME3 had been brilliant he still would have made multiple 40 minute videos raging about the dumbest s**t.
#86
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:26
sp0ck 06
-
- Members
- 1 318 messages
lol this. if you want to you can poke holes in EVERY PIECE OF FICTION EVER MADE. what a waste of time and energyAvissel wrote...
Yeah...I watched some of this...
I like his entire chain of logic that "if it's from ME2 it's dumb, because ME2 is dumb."
I expect if he posted a review of Titanic his points would be "Why didn't they just go around the Iceberg?" and "But where EXACTLY did the iceberg form?"
#87
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 02:36
The Protheans
-
- Members
- 1 212 messages
bwaha54 wrote...
It was odd that a cain can destroy a destroyer reaper with one shoot.
It was an AA gun shooting into orbit.
#88
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:02
Aeowyn
-
- Members
- 1 988 messages
sp0ck 06 wrote...
These videos are way too long. Who seriously takes this amount of time to rage about the ending of the third game in a trilogy? Especially since smudboy already raged enough about ME2. I can't f**king stand that loser. He has a lot of legit criticisms, but honestly...this is unecessary. If the ending of ME3 had been brilliant he still would have made multiple 40 minute videos raging about the dumbest s**t.
It's an analysis. An in-depth analysis of a finale usually isn't going to be 10 minutes. And calling him a loser because you don't agree with his very valid points isn't really going to make those very valid points disappear. Denial is a lovely thing I hear.
#89
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:09
obtuse4ngle
-
- Members
- 106 messages
[quote]humes spork wrote...
There is a cutscene that explicitly says what's going on. It's right there in the prologue text, complete with context from the preceding cutscene that occurs between character creation and the first time you see Shepard on Earth.
The assumption the writers make is that gamers can read, think for themselves, and assess circumstances based upon context. Apparently not.[/quote]
I must have slept through that scene because before Shepard shows up on screen is this:-
Anderson or Hackett: Is this what Shepard warned us about?
Anderson or Hackett: I bet my life on it.
Anderson: God help us all.
The gamer: Who's Shepard? What'd s/he warn you about?
Prologue text: The Reapers, a race of sentient machines, come to cleanse the galaxy.
(Excerpt from me: My bad. They did "explain" what the Reapers are before they attack Earth so my point is invalid. Continúa, por favor.)
Prologue text: One soldier has seen the legend of the Reapers come to live.
The gamer: Who? Shepard?
Prologue text: And the fate of the GALAXY rest on his shoulders.
Excerpt from me: I highlighted "galaxy" here because the entire story of ME3 seems to replace "galaxy" with "Earth."
[quote]humes spork wrote...
A plan that is guaranteed to fail is inherently worse than a plan that merely has the chance to fail.[/quote]
*headdesk*
Shepard doesn't know what the Crucible DOES.
Alliance military doesn't KNOW what the Crucible does.
THE PROTHEAN doesn't know what the Crucible does.
Intelligient scientists from all around the galaxy do not know what the Crucible does.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Build better equipment? Better-train and -equip your militaries? That's what Shepard was trying to get people to do since ME1. They didn't.[/quote]
They didn't because they didn't believe him/her. You think they still don't believe Shepard now?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, come up with a plan like hitting the Reaper Destroyer's "eye" with thanix missiles? That information didn't just poof straight from the ether. In fact, there was a dialogue in the game wherein EDI was analyzing combat data for Reaper weaknesses, informs Shepard it is doing so, and Shepard tells it that anything it figures out gets forwarded straight to the Alliance. There's a dialogue in which Traynor mentions the turians are analyzing combat data for Reaper weaknesses and Shepard informs her to disseminate any yielded intelligence. There's one with Garrus about that exact topic, too.
Just because there's no cutscene that shows Shepard telling Hackett personally Reapers have weaknesses, does not mean that transfer of information does not occur and it is supported explicitly later in the game that transfer occurred. Again, the assumption writers make is that gamers have stuff between their ears and use it, and again apparently not.[/quote]
This is exactly what I'm saying. I don't need a cutscene for every detail. But Shepard has all this information, knows these Reapers' weaknesses, and all the Alliance can come up with is "Let's all run for the Conduit?" How is that a good plan? Why do we not see any of the analysis of the Reapers' weaknesses from the turians come into play in the last battle?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
What is Arcturus Station? Where is Arcturus Station? [/quote]
These two questions are never answered by the narrative itself in either ME1 and ME2. I know that Arcturus Station is the Alliance's base from the Codex. The gamer can find that out as well, or, since it would be the first scene of the game, the narrative can directly address that.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Why are we here?[/quote]
Again, a well-done narrative can addressed. The question isn't answered in the final game as is. I still don't know why Shepard is on Earth at the beginning of ME3.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Why am I not on Earth?[/quote]
What. Why would the gamer want to be on Earth in a game marketed as a space opera? Both ME1 and ME2 both do not start out on Earth.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Where is Earth?[/quote]
In the Milky Way galaxy.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Do these Reaper guys attack Earth too? What happens to Earth?[/quote]
Again, narrative can address as it did with questions like "What happens to Thessia? Or Palaven?" The Reapers are attacking the entire galaxy, not just Earth. I don't understand why Shepard suddenly wants to save Earth, not the entire galaxy. (And please don't argue here that Shepard wants to save the entire galaxy; it's clear in game that s/he is only doing it because it's convenient in order to save Earth.)
If the writers removed all Earth-centricism:-
* We would still hear the reports of the Reapers attacking various homeworlds (including Earth)
* We would still get the opportunity to visit Earth (as we did Thessia and Tuchanka)
[quote]humes spork wrote...
You're, well he, is arguing that for the sake of lore the beginning should occur in a setting that evokes more questions of the scene about which his chief complaint is that it evokes too many questions already.[/quote]
Yes. Why establish lore at all if you can't stick to it? That's why fans hate Mass Effect: Deception. That's why "Han shot first" t-shirt sells.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Moreover, it fails to convey the threat, either in scope or to Earth in particular.[/quote]
From what we see on the Citadel and the homeworlds we visit, we can get this "scope."
Again, where does this Earth-centricism come from? Why does Shepard care about Earth in particular?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, Anderson? Try the QEC conversation later as well, when he says he's organizing and forming a resistance against the Reapers on Earth to buy time for Shepard.[/quote]
*sigh* Please see your quote on ad hoc strategies. At the beginning of the game, this "forming a resistance" strategy is not Anderson's strategy. He makes it up as he goes.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, it's above and beyond (very much so) picking apart the game and getting everything right. He's constructing a strawman of the game. His criticism of the opening scene alone speaks for itself: he takes the scene entirely out of context, uses things that only someone who's played the previous games and DLC and who already knows the score in the first place would recognize and identify, points out those things as something by which a new player (who wouldn't notice) would be confused, and all to argue it's not in the context in which it should be -- and is, but for his own imagination.[/quote]
That doesn't mean that there aren't lots of things wrong with the plot.
[quote]TookYoCookies wrote...
[quote]Seboist wrote...
Smudboy hits the nail on the head when it comes to how horrid ME3's story was and makes me LOL at the fanboys who think it was all peachy until the last 10 minutes.[/quote]
This completely, if your going to make a product and sell it as "art", this is the kind of analysis that acompanies said 'art': thorough, detailed examination from start to finish.
[/quote]
@ TakeMyCookies and Seboistm - Couldn't have said it better myself.
@ humes spork - Also, I like how you keep saying stuff like "apparently not," as if to gauge other people's intelligence. Statements like these are helping me understand you more.
There is a cutscene that explicitly says what's going on. It's right there in the prologue text, complete with context from the preceding cutscene that occurs between character creation and the first time you see Shepard on Earth.
The assumption the writers make is that gamers can read, think for themselves, and assess circumstances based upon context. Apparently not.[/quote]
I must have slept through that scene because before Shepard shows up on screen is this:-
Anderson or Hackett: Is this what Shepard warned us about?
Anderson or Hackett: I bet my life on it.
Anderson: God help us all.
The gamer: Who's Shepard? What'd s/he warn you about?
Prologue text: The Reapers, a race of sentient machines, come to cleanse the galaxy.
(Excerpt from me: My bad. They did "explain" what the Reapers are before they attack Earth so my point is invalid. Continúa, por favor.)
Prologue text: One soldier has seen the legend of the Reapers come to live.
The gamer: Who? Shepard?
Prologue text: And the fate of the GALAXY rest on his shoulders.
Excerpt from me: I highlighted "galaxy" here because the entire story of ME3 seems to replace "galaxy" with "Earth."
[quote]humes spork wrote...
A plan that is guaranteed to fail is inherently worse than a plan that merely has the chance to fail.[/quote]
*headdesk*
Shepard doesn't know what the Crucible DOES.
Alliance military doesn't KNOW what the Crucible does.
THE PROTHEAN doesn't know what the Crucible does.
Intelligient scientists from all around the galaxy do not know what the Crucible does.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Build better equipment? Better-train and -equip your militaries? That's what Shepard was trying to get people to do since ME1. They didn't.[/quote]
They didn't because they didn't believe him/her. You think they still don't believe Shepard now?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, come up with a plan like hitting the Reaper Destroyer's "eye" with thanix missiles? That information didn't just poof straight from the ether. In fact, there was a dialogue in the game wherein EDI was analyzing combat data for Reaper weaknesses, informs Shepard it is doing so, and Shepard tells it that anything it figures out gets forwarded straight to the Alliance. There's a dialogue in which Traynor mentions the turians are analyzing combat data for Reaper weaknesses and Shepard informs her to disseminate any yielded intelligence. There's one with Garrus about that exact topic, too.
Just because there's no cutscene that shows Shepard telling Hackett personally Reapers have weaknesses, does not mean that transfer of information does not occur and it is supported explicitly later in the game that transfer occurred. Again, the assumption writers make is that gamers have stuff between their ears and use it, and again apparently not.[/quote]
This is exactly what I'm saying. I don't need a cutscene for every detail. But Shepard has all this information, knows these Reapers' weaknesses, and all the Alliance can come up with is "Let's all run for the Conduit?" How is that a good plan? Why do we not see any of the analysis of the Reapers' weaknesses from the turians come into play in the last battle?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
What is Arcturus Station? Where is Arcturus Station? [/quote]
These two questions are never answered by the narrative itself in either ME1 and ME2. I know that Arcturus Station is the Alliance's base from the Codex. The gamer can find that out as well, or, since it would be the first scene of the game, the narrative can directly address that.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Why are we here?[/quote]
Again, a well-done narrative can addressed. The question isn't answered in the final game as is. I still don't know why Shepard is on Earth at the beginning of ME3.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Why am I not on Earth?[/quote]
What. Why would the gamer want to be on Earth in a game marketed as a space opera? Both ME1 and ME2 both do not start out on Earth.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Where is Earth?[/quote]
In the Milky Way galaxy.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Do these Reaper guys attack Earth too? What happens to Earth?[/quote]
Again, narrative can address as it did with questions like "What happens to Thessia? Or Palaven?" The Reapers are attacking the entire galaxy, not just Earth. I don't understand why Shepard suddenly wants to save Earth, not the entire galaxy. (And please don't argue here that Shepard wants to save the entire galaxy; it's clear in game that s/he is only doing it because it's convenient in order to save Earth.)
If the writers removed all Earth-centricism:-
* We would still hear the reports of the Reapers attacking various homeworlds (including Earth)
* We would still get the opportunity to visit Earth (as we did Thessia and Tuchanka)
[quote]humes spork wrote...
You're, well he, is arguing that for the sake of lore the beginning should occur in a setting that evokes more questions of the scene about which his chief complaint is that it evokes too many questions already.[/quote]
Yes. Why establish lore at all if you can't stick to it? That's why fans hate Mass Effect: Deception. That's why "Han shot first" t-shirt sells.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
Moreover, it fails to convey the threat, either in scope or to Earth in particular.[/quote]
From what we see on the Citadel and the homeworlds we visit, we can get this "scope."
Again, where does this Earth-centricism come from? Why does Shepard care about Earth in particular?
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, Anderson? Try the QEC conversation later as well, when he says he's organizing and forming a resistance against the Reapers on Earth to buy time for Shepard.[/quote]
*sigh* Please see your quote on ad hoc strategies. At the beginning of the game, this "forming a resistance" strategy is not Anderson's strategy. He makes it up as he goes.
[quote]humes spork wrote...
And, it's above and beyond (very much so) picking apart the game and getting everything right. He's constructing a strawman of the game. His criticism of the opening scene alone speaks for itself: he takes the scene entirely out of context, uses things that only someone who's played the previous games and DLC and who already knows the score in the first place would recognize and identify, points out those things as something by which a new player (who wouldn't notice) would be confused, and all to argue it's not in the context in which it should be -- and is, but for his own imagination.[/quote]
That doesn't mean that there aren't lots of things wrong with the plot.
[quote]TookYoCookies wrote...
[quote]Seboist wrote...
Smudboy hits the nail on the head when it comes to how horrid ME3's story was and makes me LOL at the fanboys who think it was all peachy until the last 10 minutes.[/quote]
This completely, if your going to make a product and sell it as "art", this is the kind of analysis that acompanies said 'art': thorough, detailed examination from start to finish.
[/quote]
@ TakeMyCookies and Seboistm - Couldn't have said it better myself.
@ humes spork - Also, I like how you keep saying stuff like "apparently not," as if to gauge other people's intelligence. Statements like these are helping me understand you more.
Modifié par obtuse4ngle, 27 avril 2012 - 03:14 .
#90
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:10
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
Jonathan Shepard wrote...
Lizardviking wrote...
While I find some parts a bit nickpicky. I liked his part 2 where he basicly explains why Cerberus as the primary opposing force is silly.
I think a LOT of people found Shepard fighting Cerberus to be ridiculous since we were first told we would be fighting them. It never made sense to me anyway, and the tiny throw-away explanations that are given in the game do not do it for me...
I was kinda hoping you would be able to reconcile with TIM/Cerberus earlier, or at least kill TIM and take over.
Well, you had a number of fanboys on here going "lol CERBERUS R EVUL I NU IT!!!" and "LOL Y U Cerb fans mad?" over the whole ridiculous retcon of Cerberus turning into a Reaper supporting Galactic Sith Empire despite people like me pointing out that it completely contradicts established lore from ME2 and the Retribution novel.
#91
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:14
mauro2222
-
- Members
- 4 236 messages
But it doesn't contradict ME1 
Though I must admire TIM's ability to crap fleets and armies... crappy plot, is crappy.
Though I must admire TIM's ability to crap fleets and armies... crappy plot, is crappy.
Modifié par mauro2222, 27 avril 2012 - 03:15 .
#92
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:14
Costin_Razvan
-
- Members
- 7 010 messages
mauro2222 wrote...
But it doesn't contradict ME1
The entire ending contradicts ME1.
#93
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:16
mauro2222
-
- Members
- 4 236 messages
Costin_Razvan wrote...
mauro2222 wrote...
But it doesn't contradict ME1
The entire ending contradicts ME1.
Pff, even the Migrant Fleet contradicts ME1.
Edit: The Migrant "War" Fleet 2.0
Modifié par mauro2222, 27 avril 2012 - 03:16 .
#94
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:24
obtuse4ngle
-
- Members
- 106 messages
If you look at the trilogy as a whole (ME1=exposition,ME2=climax, ME3= resolution), then the Crucible is a Deux Ex Machina. Shepard's been trying to find a way to defeat--or stop--the Reapers since the beginning and then in ME3, suddenly it's "oh the Protheans had this device that just might be what you need..." But solely based on ME3, it's a plot device/MacGuffin.IanPolaris wrote...
Fixers0 wrote...
Bill Casey wrote...
And the Crucible isn't Deus Ex Machina; it's a Lost Superweapon...
Actually it's more of Macguffin ,and a pretty bad one i must say, of course it does end up serving the role of a Deus Ex Machina device.
Yes, the crucible is a McGuffin. However, the catalyst IS the very definition of a Deus Ex Machina. It is a new and contrived plot device designed to bring about a specific ending that only shows up at the very end of the narrative.
-Polaris
Seboist wrote...
Jonathan Shepard wrote...
Lizardviking wrote...
While I find some parts a bit nickpicky. I liked his part 2 where he basicly explains why Cerberus as the primary opposing force is silly.
I think a LOT of people found Shepard fighting Cerberus to be ridiculous since we were first told we would be fighting them. It never made sense to me anyway, and the tiny throw-away explanations that are given in the game do not do it for me...
I was kinda hoping you would be able to reconcile with TIM/Cerberus earlier, or at least kill TIM and take over.
Well, you had a number of fanboys on here going "lol CERBERUS R EVUL I NU IT!!!" and "LOL Y U Cerb fans mad?" over the whole ridiculous retcon of Cerberus turning into a Reaper supporting Galactic Sith Empire despite people like me pointing out that it completely contradicts established lore from ME2 and the Retribution novel.
Yeah, and Cerberus is suddenly handwaved by saying "oh, yah. TIM's indoctrinated." Instead of relying on VentBrat dream sequences, they could've had an actual moral dilemma in the game (Cerberus v. Alliance, i.e. Do we save the galaxy or sacrifice it for the preservation of our species?)
Modifié par obtuse4ngle, 27 avril 2012 - 03:26 .
#95
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:32
Woodstock-TC
-
- Members
- 346 messages
Costin_Razvan wrote...
Watching the last one was depressing.
+1
#96
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:35
Avissel
-
- Members
- 2 132 messages
mauro2222 wrote...
Pff, even the Migrant Fleet contradicts ME1.
Edit: The Migrant "War" Fleet 2.0
How do you figure? Did you miss the part where it was explained that they had been retrofitting all the ships with guns for awhile?
#97
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:38
mauro2222
-
- Members
- 4 236 messages
Avissel wrote...
mauro2222 wrote...
Pff, even the Migrant Fleet contradicts ME1.
Edit: The Migrant "War" Fleet 2.0
How do you figure? Did you miss the part where it was explained that they had been retrofitting all the ships with guns for awhile?
And you forget that those are ships maintained with duct tape? Put all the guns you want, one shot and it explodes.
And for a while are 6 months. And even Raan says "The Turians have more dreadnoughts", ok... so, if you had 3 more liveships your junk fleet can take down the Turian Armada?
Modifié par mauro2222, 27 avril 2012 - 03:40 .
#98
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:40
Sebby
-
- Members
- 11 993 messages
obtuse4ngle wrote...
Yeah, and Cerberus is suddenly handwaved by saying "oh, yah. TIM's indoctrinated." Instead of relying on VentBrat dream sequences, they could've had an actual moral dilemma in the game (Cerberus v. Alliance, i.e. Do we save the galaxy or sacrifice it for the preservation of our species?)
Indoctrination ended up being just the covenient BS contrivence to prevent any kind of real player choice and to cut corners. What they did to the Geth,Cerberus,Rachni and Udina was horrendous.
There was never any tension over the possibility that one of your squadmates or allies would end up indoctrinated either. Instead the ones who were indoctrinated were EVUL and were those who the average player wanted to kill anyway(TIM and Udina).
#99
Guest_Opsrbest_*
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 03:48
Guest_Opsrbest_*
Guest_Opsrbest_*
-
- Guests
In game representaiton of Reapers: Earth, Tuchanka, Palaven and Rannoch. You can even throw in the CIC map when the Reapers cahse you around a system after the ! happens.Tleining wrote...
Opsrbest wrote...
Then you miss the point of what your shooting at. Yes, it's a giant gun strapped onto the back of a Reaper. Or as I think of them half-Reapers.
But you aren't shooting the Reaper. You are shooting the cannon. (5:21 to see where the Cain actually shoots the Hades Cannon.)
We kill half a Reaper at best to argue the semantics of well we don't know what it looks like. (even though I provide a picture that shows you exactly what it looks like.)
We're shooting at the Reaper with a Hades Cannon strapped onto it's back. Yes, we have to shoot at a vulnerable Point. But the Resulting Explosion obviously is enough to bring the Reaper down.
And again: It's possible that that wasn't a complete Reaper or was weakened or whatever. But in that case the Game needs to tell us about it. Which was Smudboy's whole Point. The Game is just going on without giving the Players neccessary Information. How do we know that HeavyWeapons can take the HadesCannon down? Why does no one mentions the possibility of taking the Beam-Reaper down with a Heavy Weapon? What are ThanixMissiles?
Yes, you can provide Pictures and based on that claim that the Hades Cannon wasn't stripped onto the back of a Destroyer, but you can't back up that by Codex or Ingame-Information. It's Speculation. Which is the weakness of the Game.
In game identification of Reapers: Codex: The Reapers - Reaper Variants.
In game identification of Thanix missles/cannons:
- Codex (secondary) - Weapons, arms, and equipment - Kenetic Barriers (for information regarding kentic barriers)
- Codex - Ships and Vehicles - Thanix entry
- Codex (secondary) - Reapers - Reaper vulnerabilities
In game reference of Reapers being taken down with Heavy Weapons:
- Codex(secondary) - The Reaper War - The miracle on Palaven.
The game does tell you. It just doesn't beat you over the head when you are playing through it.
I didn't say he was wrong in totality. There are a lot of continuity issues in ME3. He makes conclusions that are not factually based off information we gain from the game and what we are visually shown in that segment of his video. It's not a continuity issue as much as it is a bias issue that has no logical grounds.
Modifié par Opsrbest, 27 avril 2012 - 03:53 .
#100
Posté 27 avril 2012 - 04:09
Tleining
-
- Members
- 1 394 messages
Opsrbest wrote...
In game identification of Reapers: Codex: The Reapers - Reaper Variants.
In game identification of Thanix missles/cannons:
- Codex (secondary) - Weapons, arms, and equipment - Kenetic Barriers (for information regarding kentic barriers)
- Codex - Ships and Vehicles - Thanix entry
- Codex (secondary) - Reapers - Reaper vulnerabilities
In game reference of Reapers being taken down with Heavy Weapons:
- Codex(secondary) - The Reaper War - The miracle on Palaven.
The game does tell you. It just doesn't beat you over the head when you are playing through it.
............i'm sorry, how do you go from Thanix Cannons to Thanix Missiles?
When i think of Heavy Weapons i think of the Cain, Rocket- and Grenade-Launchers. They used Bombs on Palaven.
