291 réponses à ce sujet

[Chaotic-Fusion]

I can't imagine what was going on in Walters' head when he uttered that nonsense.

I've seen people defending Harbinger's absence in ME3 by stating that people only imagined his importance, the game never tells us anything about his role, he's just one among many. Bioware did nothing wrong. And now that we know, as people correctly assumed in ME2, that Harbinger is, in fact, the first and blueprint Reaper, his absence from the game is even more laughable. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

I see it as a gunfight where the one person is peculiarly unarmed.  Pray tell, what then is Harbinger seeing as he does tend to like to kill people?  And what other roles besides those in ME2 and 3 does Harbinger have?  Is he in some road show or something?  A one man er, monster machine, show where he says how misunderstood he is? 

He's not a villain now?  This is exactly what the writers have done to ruin ME.  That some people can not envision Harbinger as truly an enemy, even though he's been making people flavored silly putty.  I don't care if he is just the kid's lapdog-he has rabies and he can't be redeemed and loved and taken home to poop and pee in my yard.

Harbinger is like the Emperor in Star Wars since all they do is talk and show up once in a while.  Harbinger is a villian but he isn't the main villian that some people think he is.

[Ithurael]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Well, blueprotoss is deliberately missing the point and dragoon is being as dishonest as humanly possible in his definition of "confrontation". Not much use continuing with these arguments is there.

I see you still flip the table when you're proven wrong.  The final confrontation with Bill in Kill Bill is similar to the final confrontation with TIM and Shepard.

So TIM was the primary antagonist of the Mass Effect franchise?

[Dragoonlordz]

Ithurael wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Well, blueprotoss is deliberately missing the point and dragoon is being as dishonest as humanly possible in his definition of "confrontation". Not much use continuing with these arguments is there.

I see you still flip the table when you're proven wrong.  The final confrontation with Bill in Kill Bill is similar to the final confrontation with TIM and Shepard.

So TIM was the primary antagonist of the Mass Effect franchise?

The catalyst was the primary antagonist of the franchise. The one controlling the Reapers. Just because did not know of it's existance until the final game in trilogy did not mean he was not the one behind the cycles and the primary antagonist. TiM was not the main antagonist of the franchise anymore than Harbinger and Sovereign meaning secondary to the main one being catalyst. As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 08 septembre 2012 - 08:49 .

[Blueprotoss]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Well, blueprotoss is deliberately missing the point and dragoon is being as dishonest as humanly possible in his definition of "confrontation". Not much use continuing with these arguments is there.

I see you still flip the table when you're proven wrong.  The final confrontation with Bill in Kill Bill is similar to the final confrontation with TIM and Shepard.

So TIM was the primary antagonist of the Mass Effect franchise?

The catalyst was the primary antagonist of the franchise. The one controlling the Reapers. Just because did not know of it's existance until the final game in trilogy did not mean he was not the one behind the cycles and the primary antagonist. TiM was as not the main antagonist of the franchise anymore than Harbinger and Sovereign meaning secondary to the main one being catalyst.

You could say this because the Conduit was sabotaged in ME1 and there was no leadership shown from the Reapers until the Catalyst in ME3.

[Little Princess Peach]

Have you not noticed Op Bioware dose not want to give the fans what they want or they do give us what we "think" we want with strings attached

[Dragoonlordz]

Personally it is possible something will be done with Harbinger in DLC. But it will not be making him a final boss of ME3 and it won't be you killing him. It will not invalidate or be a method of dismissing the catalyst or give you new ending choices.

For example could be in Omega DLC an "additional" confrontation whether dialogue and some combat with him in some form but you won't be allowed to beat him because he is required for plot purpose to appear where he does in ME3 already. He will still be required to live and/or escape so that he can be where you have confrontation with him in the main core game as already is at that point before the beam. The DLC will not be about him aka not a 'Harbinger DLC' but in reality for example 'Omega DLC' of which he merely just present and part of it. It will not change the endings, it will not give you a new ending choice and it won't give you more content in the core game relating to him. You wil not get anything that changes the ending of ME3.

The main point remains in factual context a confrontation with him is already in ME3. Such DLC presence of him would be secondary confrontation. But it would have to stick pretty much to what I said above in order for it to be possible.

Modifié par Dragoonlordz, 08 septembre 2012 - 09:15 .

[saracen16]

Blueprotoss wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

Ithurael wrote...

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Well, blueprotoss is deliberately missing the point and dragoon is being as dishonest as humanly possible in his definition of "confrontation". Not much use continuing with these arguments is there.

I see you still flip the table when you're proven wrong.  The final confrontation with Bill in Kill Bill is similar to the final confrontation with TIM and Shepard.

So TIM was the primary antagonist of the Mass Effect franchise?

The catalyst was the primary antagonist of the franchise. The one controlling the Reapers. Just because did not know of it's existance until the final game in trilogy did not mean he was not the one behind the cycles and the primary antagonist. TiM was as not the main antagonist of the franchise anymore than Harbinger and Sovereign meaning secondary to the main one being catalyst.

You could say this because the Conduit was sabotaged in ME1 and there was no leadership shown from the Reapers until the Catalyst in ME3.

I don't know. I mean, Saren was more of an antagonist to Shepard than Sovereign was in ME1, and Harbinger and the Collectors moreso in ME2. In ME3, I felt that TIM was the main antagonist as he was the one who opposed Shepard directly, with Kai Leng as his right-hand man and foil for Shepard. The war was against the Reapers, that was for certain, and they remained an over-arching opposing force in the entire trilogy. At the end, though, the Catalyst was simply their collective intelligence, and his behavior seemed more like a proxy than an antagonist.

Either way, what matters is defeating them regardless of the method, be it a boss fight, a conversation, or a choice.

[Blueprotoss]

saracen16 wrote...

I don't know. I mean, Saren was more of an antagonist to Shepard than Sovereign was in ME1, and Harbinger and the Collectors moreso in ME2. In ME3, I felt that TIM was the main antagonist as he was the one who opposed Shepard directly, with Kai Leng as his right-hand man and foil for Shepard. The war was against the Reapers, that was for certain, and they remained an over-arching opposing force in the entire trilogy. At the end, though, the Catalyst was simply their collective intelligence, and his behavior seemed more like a proxy than an antagonist.

Either way, what matters is defeating them regardless of the method, be it a boss fight, a conversation, or a choice.

Its okay to sya this while the Reapers in general are the main focus whether its Saren, Sovreign, TIM, the Collectors, Harbinger, or the Catalyst.

Modifié par Blueprotoss, 08 septembre 2012 - 09:35 .

[Rommel49]

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I can't imagine what was going on in Walters' head when he uttered that nonsense.

I've seen people defending Harbinger's absence in ME3 by stating that people only imagined his importance, the game never tells us anything about his role, he's just one among many. Bioware did nothing wrong. And now that we know, as people correctly assumed in ME2, that Harbinger is, in fact, the first and blueprint Reaper, his absence from the game is even more laughable. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?

Hell, it was always bunk. Harbinger's codex entry states that the Alliance correctly identified it as being both the oldest Reaper in the armada as well as the one leading the attack on Earth. And nobody ever fires on it, even when it's obstructing a critical objective during the most decisive moments of the war.

Speaking from experience, the idea you'd ignore a target like that is about as unrealistic as you can get. It'd be the target of every gun in range. During WWII, we have the hunt for the Bismarck as an example, or Operation Vengeance, the effort to kill Yamamoto.

[paul165]

anorling wrote...



ME3 is too video-gamey. All this fancy graphics, explosions and whatnot. They should just let the next story take place entirely on Twitter. Or maybe on a canvas, placed in The Louvre Museum.

I thought the whole story did take place on twitter:sick:

[Blueprotoss]

Rommel49 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I can't imagine what was going on in Walters' head when he uttered that nonsense.

I've seen people defending Harbinger's absence in ME3 by stating that people only imagined his importance, the game never tells us anything about his role, he's just one among many. Bioware did nothing wrong. And now that we know, as people correctly assumed in ME2, that Harbinger is, in fact, the first and blueprint Reaper, his absence from the game is even more laughable. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?

Hell, it was always bunk. Harbinger's codex entry states that the Alliance correctly identified it as being both the oldest Reaper in the armada as well as the one leading the attack on Earth. And nobody ever fires on it, even when it's obstructing a critical objective during the most decisive moments of the war.

Speaking from experience, the idea you'd ignore a target like that is about as unrealistic as you can get. It'd be the target of every gun in range. During WWII, we have the hunt for the Bismarck as an example, or Operation Vengeance, the effort to kill Yamamoto.

You can only do so much when you're outgunned and outnumbered, which didn't happen to Harbinger.

To be fair ignorance was the main downfall for the Bismark and Yamamoto other then both being outnumbered.

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

I see it as a gunfight where the one person is peculiarly unarmed.  Pray tell, what then is Harbinger seeing as he does tend to like to kill people?  And what other roles besides those in ME2 and 3 does Harbinger have?  Is he in some road show or something?  A one man er, monster machine, show where he says how misunderstood he is? 

He's not a villain now?  This is exactly what the writers have done to ruin ME.  That some people can not envision Harbinger as truly an enemy, even though he's been making people flavored silly putty.  I don't care if he is just the kid's lapdog-he has rabies and he can't be redeemed and loved and taken home to poop and pee in my yard.

Harbinger is like the Emperor in Star Wars since all they do is talk and show up once in a while.  Harbinger is a villian but he isn't the main villian that some people think he is.

Hmm which Star Wars would that be?  The one where Darth Vader finally decides he can't deny that he's acted like a pawn in the Emperor's plans after he sees the Emperor attempt to kill Luke in a fight.  The same one Darth Vader fights to the death.  That one that never actually gets involved in a true confrontation, except when he does?

Harbinger is the one pulling on the Collector General's strings and the one you actually fight who assumes control in ME2.  Did you not hear him at the end relinquishing control.  That was Harbinger who says, "I know this hurts you."  Who did you think that was?

[DeathWingKingUltimate]

Rommel49 wrote...

Chaotic-Fusion wrote...

I can't imagine what was going on in Walters' head when he uttered that nonsense.

I've seen people defending Harbinger's absence in ME3 by stating that people only imagined his importance, the game never tells us anything about his role, he's just one among many. Bioware did nothing wrong. And now that we know, as people correctly assumed in ME2, that Harbinger is, in fact, the first and blueprint Reaper, his absence from the game is even more laughable. Seriously, who thought that was a good idea?

Hell, it was always bunk. Harbinger's codex entry states that the Alliance correctly identified it as being both the oldest Reaper in the armada as well as the one leading the attack on Earth. And nobody ever fires on it, even when it's obstructing a critical objective during the most decisive moments of the war.

Speaking from experience, the idea you'd ignore a target like that is about as unrealistic as you can get. It'd be the target of every gun in range. During WWII, we have the hunt for the Bismarck as an example, or Operation Vengeance, the effort to kill Yamamoto.

Look Bro it's ME3, A game which all logical military strategies sacrificed in the name of Artistic NONESENSE 

[3DandBeyond]

paul165 wrote...

anorling wrote...



ME3 is too video-gamey. All this fancy graphics, explosions and whatnot. They should just let the next story take place entirely on Twitter. Or maybe on a canvas, placed in The Louvre Museum.

I thought the whole story did take place on twitter:sick:

Most of it.  Emily Wong died there.  The galaxy went from being a wasteland there to being a wasteland-lite because relay explosions became itty bitty explosions instead of system killers.  Torso Shepard was at first reunited with friends, then was given the implication that s/he would be, then was clearly alive, then was dead, and then became ambiguous all on twitter.  Plots and themes are mere idealistic concepts that are meaningless in stories.  Especially when twitter does the rewrites.

[The Angry One]

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

[Blueprotoss]

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hmm which Star Wars would that be?  The one where Darth Vader finally decides he can't deny that he's acted like a pawn in the Emperor's plans after he sees the Emperor attempt to kill Luke in a fight.  The same one Darth Vader fights to the death.  That one that never actually gets involved in a true confrontation, except when he does?

Darth Vader is an antagonist just like Boba Fett while their reasons are different for not being villians.  The Emperor is a villian no matter what even when he's also an antagonist.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

Harbinger is the one pulling on the Collector General's strings and the one you actually fight who assumes control in ME2.  Did you not hear him at the end relinquishing control.  That was Harbinger who says, "I know this hurts you."  Who did you think that was?

Harbinger still isn't the leader and he even says that he isn't the Reaper leader.  Its like saying War is the leader of the Four Horsemen because he's the 1st one to act.

[3DandBeyond]

The Angry One wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

I know you know this is how this person handles all posts with which he or she disagrees.  It's never genuine discussion.  It's always, "you're an idiot in these specific ways" which totally ignores anything you say.  There's no discussing going on under those rules.  The apparent desire to "win" trumps rational thought every time.

[DeathWingKingUltimate]

The Angry One wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

At least we got boss fights here 

[Blueprotoss]

The Angry One wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

Its not our fault that you flipped the table multiple times even on the word "confrontation".

[Hrothdane]

3DandBeyond wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

I know you know this is how this person handles all posts with which he or she disagrees.  It's never genuine discussion.  It's always, "you're an idiot in these specific ways" which totally ignores anything you say.  There's no discussing going on under those rules.  The apparent desire to "win" trumps rational thought every time.

What I find most ironic is that this fellow uses a picture of someone dressed like Vash the Stampede, someone whose catchphrase was "Love and Peace" and who had the patience and humility of a saint.

[The Angry One]

Blueprotoss wrote...

The Angry One wrote...

Dragoonlordz wrote...

 As for TAO she can continue to ignore reality but I already addressed her misinformation and dishonesty on the prior page.

You know what go ahead and be as flippant as you want with the argument, but don't you dare sit there and accuse me of being dishonest when you know full well you are misinterpreting the context of the type of confrontation we're talking about.
But of course it's so like you to accuse me of what you're doing in order to "win" due to some some percieved rivalry with me. I pity you.

Its not our fault that you flipped the table multiple times even on the word "confrontation".

I did no such thing. My definition of confrontation has always been the obvious one - a meaningful confrontation between the main antagonist and the protagonist. Not the side villain. Not "rocks fall, everyone dies", but and actual confrontation, verbal or physical, that ends with suitable catharsis.
Have I spelt it out enough for you? Or will you continue to wallow in technicalities for no reason?

3DandBeyond wrote...

I know you know this is how this
person handles all posts with which he or she disagrees.  It's never
genuine discussion.  It's always, "you're an idiot in these specific
ways" which totally ignores anything you say.  There's no discussing
going on under those rules.  The apparent desire to "win" trumps
rational thought every time.

I know right?
I don't get that line of thinking at all.

Modifié par The Angry One, 08 septembre 2012 - 10:33 .

[xlI ReFLeX lIx]

Yes BioWare, it's a real shame that a video game feels to much like a video game >.<

Modifié par xlI ReFLeX lIx, 08 septembre 2012 - 10:33 .

[3DandBeyond]

Blueprotoss wrote...

3DandBeyond wrote...

Hmm which Star Wars would that be?  The one where Darth Vader finally decides he can't deny that he's acted like a pawn in the Emperor's plans after he sees the Emperor attempt to kill Luke in a fight.  The same one Darth Vader fights to the death.  That one that never actually gets involved in a true confrontation, except when he does?

Darth Vader is an antagonist just like Boba Fett while their reasons are different for not being villians.  The Emperor is a villian no matter what even when he's also an antagonist.

3DandBeyond wrote... 

Harbinger is the one pulling on the Collector General's strings and the one you actually fight who assumes control in ME2.  Did you not hear him at the end relinquishing control.  That was Harbinger who says, "I know this hurts you."  Who did you think that was?

Harbinger still isn't the leader and he even says that he isn't the Reaper leader.  Its like saying War is the leader of the Four Horsemen because he's the 1st one to act.

Oh dear god.  I said the Emperor was the villain and acted like it-you said he never had any confrontations and that's why harbinger was like him.  I said the Emperor tried to fight with and kill Luke-you were trying to say that the Emperor and Harbinger were alike in that neither of them fought at all.  And in that you implied even that Harbinger was at least partly in charge.  I didn't.

Where did I say Harbinger was the leader-you said he never did much of anything in any of the games so he wasn't really a villain.  Do you even remember what you write at all?  Stop pulling out other random analogies just to confuse it all-you have no logic here at all on which to base anything.  You're just using crap to say some stuff that makes no sense.  I'm sorry, it's true.  You can't even follow things you've previously said so you're just arguing to argue.

Harbinger doesn't have to be the leader to be a villain.  I couldn't care less if he was the boss or number 28 in command.  He has goo inside him-goo made from people.  That means I want him dead.  That does not mean I want him acting as gatekeeper for the galaxy and I don't want to have his space seed inside me.  Dead as in incapable of making people goo anymore.  Incapable of shooting at people and trying to kill them with his beam.  In case you didn't realize it people tend to hate the reapers as a whole-they don't pick and choose the reapers based on which ones are less evil and which ones are real killers.  They want to kill all of them.

[JamieCOTC]

While what Hudson said was idiotic, I agree w/ the decision to not have a boss fight w/ TIM. His strength has always been his intellect. To reduce him to a battling Husk-Boss would have cheapened the character even further.