133 réponses à ce sujet

[Aaleel]

Man I never thought it would take legs like this. I was just trying to say something I noticed because I've seen other people as well talking about the inconsistency because of killing one with a Cain.

But everywhere else in the game if it was a destroyer they called it a destroyer, or a reaper. They only called this thing a turret, AA gun, or Hades canon.

[David7204]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Wait. I just checked that myself. It's not in the Codex, it's just a wiki entry. So that's not backed up by the game.

Are you kidding? The comics never happened in the game, obviously. But they quite clearly shaped the story.

1/10.

That is completely ridiculous. The comics were made by BioWare, or someone affiliated with them. That paragraph could have been written by any idiot with internet access.

[darkchief10]

The Angry One wrote...

Eh. The whole concept of the Hades cannon is ludicrous in the extreme.
I mean, maybe if it were an anti-dreadnought weapon. I could buy that. But they use it to shoot down shuttles. Eh?

Last I checked a Destroyer can shoot down small craft just fine by itself. But I guess big blue lasers are so much more artistic. Or something.

They were just trying to finish before the rEApers forced them to release, the hades canon has no place in mass effect lore

[Jadebaby]

David7204 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Wait. I just checked that myself. It's not in the Codex, it's just a wiki entry. So that's not backed up by the game.

Are you kidding? The comics never happened in the game, obviously. But they quite clearly shaped the story.

1/10.

That is completely ridiculous. The comics were made by BioWare, or someone affiliated with them. That paragraph could have been written by any idiot with internet access.

The most funny thing about that, is it's probably the idiot with internet access that has a better idea of the lore than BioWare does. I mean, it was put on their post-ME3.

I honestly think after deception BioWare just stopped caring.

[elitehunter34]

Well, after re-watching that scene, the Cain shot did go right into the cannon's barrel, so that destroyed it. Kinda agree with TAO though, why does it need to turn into that cannon? Destroyers already shoot down stuff with ease.

[David7204]

There's nothing official to indicate that the cannon was a Reaper destroyed with a weaker gun mounted to it.

[TookYoCookies]

The Angry One wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Surely you're not arguing that tanks have never been used to shoot soldiers.

I'm arguing that using tanks exclusively to shoot soldiers is inefficient.
Especially if in this case you're compromising the safety of the Reaper to mount a giant cannon for no other purpose than to do what it already can do without it.

A better analogy would be taking a soldier who can shoot other soldiers perfectly fine with a gun, and mounting a cruise missile launcher on their back, then using those cruise missiles to shoot soldiers. It's ridiculous and pointless overkill.

Hey! Knock it off!

You take that 'sound logic' of yours and f*ck off before we all get banned.

[The Angry One]

Aaleel wrote...

Man I never thought it would take legs like this. I was just trying to say something I noticed because I've seen other people as well talking about the inconsistency because of killing one with a Cain.

There are inconsistencies all over. See just a little later with the conduit Destroyer:

Tanks: "We can't kill a Reaper with tanks!"
Shepard: "I will use missiles!"
Reaper: "HAR HAR the missiles do nothing!"
Shepard: "Oh well, hey tanks, kill the Reaper please."
*tanks proceed to kill the Reaper*
Tanks: "Well that was surprisingly easy! Why didn't we do that in the first place?"

But everywhere else in the game if it was a destroyer they called it a destroyer, or a reaper. They only called this thing a turret, AA gun, or Hades canon.

Because that, heaven help us, is it's function and role in the battle. There's no point in calling it anything else.
The visual evidence shows us that it's a Reaper.

[David7204]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

David7204 wrote...

Wait. I just checked that myself. It's not in the Codex, it's just a wiki entry. So that's not backed up by the game.

Are you kidding? The comics never happened in the game, obviously. But they quite clearly shaped the story.

1/10.

That is completely ridiculous. The comics were made by BioWare, or someone affiliated with them. That paragraph could have been written by any idiot with internet access.

The most funny thing about that, is it's probably the idiot with internet access that has a better idea of the lore than BioWare does. I mean, it was put on their post-ME3.

I honestly think after deception BioWare just stopped caring.

That's nice. That doesn't change the fact that that paragraph doesn't mean anything.

[The Angry One]

elitehunter34 wrote...

Well, after re-watching that scene, the Cain shot did go right into the cannon's barrel, so that destroyed it. Kinda agree with TAO though, why does it need to turn into that cannon? Destroyers already shoot down stuff with ease.

I remember firing it at the body, but yeah gameplay. I suppose you could reason that the barrel is a weak point and hence bypass the destroyer's armouring.

[Jadebaby]

David7204 wrote...

There's nothing official to indicate that the cannon was a Reaper destroyed with a weaker gun mounted to it.

There's nothing to prove it's not. Point is, I'll take the wiki's stance over stuff BioWare hasn't even bothered to explain, if they thought it wasn't correct (if they cared), then they'd explain it.

[David7204]

The burden of proof is on you. Not me.

[mongoosephantom]

The Angry One wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

Well, after re-watching that scene, the Cain shot did go right into the cannon's barrel, so that destroyed it. Kinda agree with TAO though, why does it need to turn into that cannon? Destroyers already shoot down stuff with ease.

I remember firing it at the body, but yeah gameplay. I suppose you could reason that the barrel is a weak point and hence bypass the destroyer's armouring.

I remember aiming at the body too but the shot just directed itself to to the cannon's barrel.

[The Angry One]

David7204 wrote...

The burden of proof is on you. Not me.

Actually the onus is on you to prove it isn't a Reaper when visual evidence suggests otherwise.
There's any number of ways you can reason why it's weaker than a standard Reaper, and the dumbness of it's utility remains either way.

Modifié par The Angry One, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:19 .

[David7204]

That's not even close to good enough, particularly when the dialogue explicitly suggests otherwise.

[Arturia Pendragon]

Head-canon:

The Hades Cannon requires so much energy that it does not have standard Reaper shields and cannot fire standard Reaper weapons (lasers, reaper farts, etc). On top of that, while a Reaper is planet-side, its shields are at a greatly reduced strength due to the fact that it has to counter gravity with its EEZO core, per the codex. Thus, a Cain can destroy a Hades, but most likely not a real Destroyer.

Then again, 2 Thanix missiles manage to critically damage a Destroyer. Who knows what a 25 gram slug accelerated to 5 km/s would do.

Modifié par Arturia Pendragon, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:25 .

[mongoosephantom]

Arturia Pendragon wrote...

Head-canon:

The Hades Cannon requires so much energy that it does not have standard Reaper shields and cannot fire standard Reaper weapons (lasers, reaper farts, etc). On top of that, while a Reaper is planet-side, its shields are at a greatly reduced strength due to the fact that it has to counter gravity with its EEZO core, per the codex. Thus, a Cain can destroy a Hades, but most likely not a real Destroyer.

Makes sense because after the shot was fired i think only the cannon was destroyed and the Reaper's armor wasnt damaged.

[The Angry One]

David7204 wrote...

That's not even close to good enough, particularly when the dialogue explicitly suggests otherwise.

Dialogue suggests nothing of the sort. They call it an AA gun and a cannon because that's what it's doing.
The state of something doesn't change based on what observers call it. How would anyone know it's not a Reaper anyway, since it looks like one regardless?
Last I checked no Reaper in ME3 is particularily talkative unless they're dying and have time to spout inane propaganda.

[Jadebaby]

The Angry One wrote...

David7204 wrote...

The burden of proof is on you. Not me.

Actually the onus is on you to prove it isn't a Reaper when visual evidence suggests otherwise.
There's any number of ways you can reason why it's weaker than a standard Reaper, and the dumbness of it's utility remains either way.

well said. Whether it is or isn't, it's purpose is stupid.

[Taboo]

It was a big ass gun that I blew up.

It wasn't that difficult to figure out.

[D24O]

What does it even matter whether the canon is a reaper or not?

[darkchief10]

Taboo-XX wrote...

It was a big ass gun that I blew up.

It wasn't that difficult to figure out.

you're logic, it hurts meB)

[mongoosephantom]

 [quote]D24O wrote...

What does it even matter whether the canon is a reaper or not?
[/quote 
Well it does because after the Cain was fired the Reaper was disabled and we know that conventional weapons cant damage Reapers.

Modifié par mongoosephantom, 20 juillet 2012 - 12:32 .

[David7204]

I'm confident the resistance could have figured out the difference between a Reaper and an AA gun.

[Hey]

D24O wrote...

What does it even matter whether the canon is a reaper or not?

Just cuz if it's a reaper destoyer, we could have saved ourself a serious headache, fighting towards the beam and elsewhere.