43 réponses à ce sujet

[LanceSolous13]

The Angry One wrote...

LanceSolous13 wrote...
Easy. Harbinger is taking out the tanks and soldies still running at the beam. They pose a more direct threat then the Normandy does.

Harbinger can fire two thanix cannons at once. The Normandy is hovering there for quite a while.

Also, The Normandy still has the Reaper IFF.

And Harbinger has eyes.

True, He can fire several beams at once, but there are pleanty of tanks and soldiers running/rolling by during the cutscene.

And, Harbinger may have eyes, but its perception that gives us information about what has been seen. Its never discussed, and with good reason, how Reapers see, but if his systems are detecting the Normandy has a Reaper IFF and are telling him 'Don't attack this ship', He knows not to attack that ship. Yes, flimsy excuse, but we're never told how they see things and I find it a bit of a guess to say that the glowing yellow on Harbinger is actually his eyes. He could be using Reaper Radar (Trademark) to see for all we know.

[jetfire118]

..wait...do reapers even have eyes...? xD

[MrDavid]

When I saw the scene there was a slight break in immersion, but I can forgive it for being such an awesome scene. I was fortunate enough to bring my LI with me to the beam.

[Eterna]

All aboard the QQ train.

[Skyhawk02]

Alushadow wrote...

so you like bad games covered with garbage?
good for you!

That was unnecessarily rude.  If you don't have a point to make then it's better not to say anything at all.  Even if you have a point to make there is no reason to be intentionally offensive while doing so.  Sorry to get all preachy, I just don't understand why people post comments like this.

[scotty1234]

I don't think Harbinger really cared about the Normandy picking people up, I actually think that is what it was hoping for. According to the Catalyst, the Reapers aren't violent by nature. So why destroy escaping people?

[Han Shot First]

Even during  amphibious assaults on places like Normandy and Iwo Jima, there were landing craft and amtracs evacuating the more seriously wounded while the beachead was still contested. These landing craft and amtracs were making multiple trips and were under fire the entire time.

With that in mind, the Normandy coming in for an evac is not necessarily unrealistic. Nor is Harbinger not firing at the Normandy. At that moment the Normandy is not assisting in the push and is only evacuating wounded. Harbinger had other priorities, such as the tanks, gunships and dismounted infantry who were close to the beam and closing fast. Any one of them could have potentially foiled the Reapers' plans as the Citadel was not garrisoned with Reaper troops.

[Rustedness]

scotty1234 wrote...

According to the Catalyst, the Reapers aren't violent by nature. So why destroy escaping people?

Why liquify sapient beings whilst conscious, impale living victims on spikes or half the stuff they do.

Wait... the Catalyst says that??

[Village_Idiot]

I agree that in execution this scene could have been handled better, my initial response to it was also befuddlement as to why Harbinger didn't just swat the Normandy out of the sky.

However, the rationale that Harby is focussing on those closer to the beam does make sense. The Reapers are clearly aware of the implications of someone reaching the conduit- why else would Harbinger be defending it? Therefore it would only make sense to prioritise the closest targets first. Even one soldier reaching the conduit would be an unacceptable loss, as we find out later.

The Normandy can't very well just crash into the conduit, and diverting firepower to destroy what is effectively a tactically worthless target could result in other forces making it through.

I'm not so certain about the IFF argument. It seems a ridculous oversight for reapers not to have conventional sight as well as more advanced sensors. In any case, during ME2's suicide mission the Collector occuli and cruiser have no difficulty detecting the Normandy despite the IFF/IES stealth systems e.t.c. Reapers one would imagine wouldn't suffer from this drawback either.

[The Angry One]

LanceSolous13 wrote...

And, Harbinger may have eyes, but its perception that gives us information about what has been seen. Its never discussed, and with good reason, how Reapers see, but if his systems are detecting the Normandy has a Reaper IFF and are telling him 'Don't attack this ship', He knows not to attack that ship. Yes, flimsy excuse, but we're never told how they see things and I find it a bit of a guess to say that the glowing yellow on Harbinger is actually his eyes. He could be using Reaper Radar (Trademark) to see for all we know.

The Reaper IFF explanation is absurd.

a) Try pinging sensors in the system maps and see what happens.

 Cerberus distributed copies of the Reaper IFF based on transmissions from EDI. If it were that easy, the Alliance would've just installed copies on all ships and fly circles around Reapers with impunity.

c) They would've at least installed them on shuttles and makos to rush the conduit under Harbinger's nose.

[The Angry One]

Rustedness wrote...

scotty1234 wrote...

According to the Catalyst, the Reapers aren't violent by nature. So why destroy escaping people?

Why liquify sapient beings whilst conscious, impale living victims on spikes or half the stuff they do.

Wait... the Catalyst says that??

The Catalyst says that Reapers aren't warlike, and compares them to fire, stating that a force of nature can't help doing what it was made to do.

It says this, because it is a lying, manipulative jerk. What the Reapers do is declare war on all advanced life by definition.

[The Gman707]

I loved the EC. I thought the ending delivered a lot more closure this time. I think it seams clear that what ever the ending had done half the
pe
ople on here would still complain. Thats the way

[LanceSolous13]

The Angry One wrote...

LanceSolous13 wrote...

And, Harbinger may have eyes, but its perception that gives us information about what has been seen. Its never discussed, and with good reason, how Reapers see, but if his systems are detecting the Normandy has a Reaper IFF and are telling him 'Don't attack this ship', He knows not to attack that ship. Yes, flimsy excuse, but we're never told how they see things and I find it a bit of a guess to say that the glowing yellow on Harbinger is actually his eyes. He could be using Reaper Radar (Trademark) to see for all we know.

The Reaper IFF explanation is absurd.

a) Try pinging sensors in the system maps and see what happens.

 Cerberus distributed copies of the Reaper IFF based on transmissions from EDI. If it were that easy, the Alliance would've just installed copies on all ships and fly circles around Reapers with impunity.

c) They would've at least installed them on shuttles and makos to rush the conduit under Harbinger's nose.

A) Gameplay-Story Segregation?

B and C) Ok, let me rephrase what I said earlier. 'Don't attack this ship (unless you otherwise absolutely have to)'

[Shallyah]

The EC was excellent. Let entitled whiners keep going at it, their numbers grow thinner by the hour and their voices grow dissonant.

Modifié par Shallyah, 30 juin 2012 - 08:40 .

[LanceSolous13]

The Angry One wrote...

Rustedness wrote...

scotty1234 wrote...

According to the Catalyst, the Reapers aren't violent by nature. So why destroy escaping people?

Why liquify sapient beings whilst conscious, impale living victims on spikes or half the stuff they do.

Wait... the Catalyst says that??

The Catalyst says that Reapers aren't warlike, and compares them to fire, stating that a force of nature can't help doing what it was made to do.

It says this, because it is a lying, manipulative jerk. What the Reapers do is declare war on all advanced life by definition.

I agree with that. The fire anology was bad. Fire doesn't have a choice in the matter. The Reapers/Catalyst do.

Also, I was seething with a slight rage when it said that the Reapers don't fight wars/aren't warlike. Really wanted a Paragade Interupt to point to the surroundings and go "THEN WHAT THE FREAKING HELL AM I LOOKING AT OUT THERE?!" Ugh. Least the little bugger is dead in most endings...

[kormoram]

The best about ME3 ending is you get as much GReadyness you can to jump a massive force against the Reapers.
The pitiful is how all of those assets are nullified to "Shepard must win this war alone" point o view.

[Asch Lavigne]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

LegendaryBlade wrote...

jetfire118 wrote...

People always complain about something else cant just sit and FREAKING WATCH. Then think its needs to be freaking real like ITS A DAMN VIDEO GAME. Yea the beam scene was very cool. Seeing the reapers go down was epic

You're right, quality writing and execution is for losers and nerds. Discussion about topics on forums about discussing topics is also for nerds.

So how do you think they could have fixed it any better, please explain. At least it gave us a quality moment with our LI so stop...

They could've had the goodbye scene after Shep pulls them behind the tank and calls in the Normandy. Then Shep continues running... yada yada till she/he gets to the beam. Then the Normandy could've swept in to save everyone. Someone could ask "Where's Shepard?" and one of your squadmates can say "She/he was hit but still made it." Then you cut to Hackett getting the info that Shep made it to the Citadel.

I also feel bad for all the half dead soldiers lying on the ground. They must have been so happy to see the Normandy then so sad. So very sad.

Modifié par Asch Lavigne, 30 juin 2012 - 08:46 .

[Rustedness]

The Angry One wrote...

The Catalyst says that Reapers aren't warlike, and compares them to fire, stating that a force of nature can't help doing what it was made to do.

It says this, because it is a lying, manipulative jerk. What the Reapers do is declare war on all advanced life by definition.

Hah, must've missed a youtube vid.

Modifié par Rustedness, 30 juin 2012 - 09:52 .

[LegendaryBlade]

Shallyah wrote...

The EC was excellent. Let entitled whiners keep going at it, their numbers grow thinner by the hour and their voices grow dissonant.

I could literally wash my car with the amount of pretentiousness leaking off of this post.

I'm not even using literally as an intensifier. I could actually do this. That's how pretentious that post was.