475 réponses à ce sujet

[Eterna]

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Because humans don't appear as Reapers on his Scanners. The Nomrandy does. Your first mistake is assuming that Reapers see like Organics do. They don't have eyes. 

And the Humans who enter the normandy just "dissapear" on it's scanners? wouldn't that raise some suspision by Harbinger?

You're assuming it's scanners can peirce the enterior of a ship specifically made for Stealth operations. 

[Fixers0]

Eterna5 wrote...

You're assuming it's scanners can peirce the enterior of a ship specifically made for Stealth operations. 

Missing the point, Harbinger can hit every alliance marine (except Shepard, hooray for contrivance) at pinpoint accuarcy during the beam, but when they walk up the normandy's ramp he's suddenly unable to do so.

[clennon8]

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

Stop adding bull**** to this conversation. Find something better to do with your time than throw a tempertantrum. 

I think what I want to do right now is point out how hilariously awful your rationalizations are for how the Normandy was able to show up five seconds after Shepard radioed it, and was able to land unmolested right in front of Harbinger.  Please continue scrambling for incredibly weak explanations so I'll have something else to laugh at.

Modifié par clennon8, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:13 .

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Because humans don't appear as Reapers on his Scanners. The Nomrandy does. Your first mistake is assuming that Reapers see like Organics do. They don't have eyes. 

And the Humans who enter the normandy just "dissapear" on it's scanners? wouldn't that raise some suspision by Harbinger?

You're assuming it's scanners can peirce the enterior of a ship specifically made for Stealth operations. 

The IFF doesn't work that way. Reapers repeatedly pursue the Normandy on the galaxy map and destroy it if you're caught. The Rannoch Reaper fires up at the Normandy, Traynor comments on it. The Occuli on the other side of the Omega-4 Relay and the Collector Ship attack it. 

Modifié par The Night Mammoth, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:18 .

[hukbum]

I always wondered why someone would chose "control". I'm beginning to understand ...

[Seival]

hukbum wrote...

Seival wrote...

Because initially the beam was protected by the destroyer and ground forces, which were located right infront of the beam, not 6km away.

So the Reaper IFF only works with Harbinger, and the Destroyer had no rubble in the eye?

Do you know the difference between detecting/shooting at 6km through all kinds of interference like dust, explosions plus tons of friendlies and hostiles on the "radar", using only one ship (which was not designed to attack small ships), and detecting/shooting close-distance-single-target using one ship plus tons of ground forces support located at the target's destination?

Modifié par Seival, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:23 .

[Eterna]

clennon8 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

Stop adding bull**** to this conversation. Find something better to do with your time than throw a tempertantrum. 

I think what I want to do right now is point out how hilariously awful your rationalizations are for how the Normandy was able to show up five seconds after Shepard radioed it, and was able to land unmolested right in front of Harbinger.  Please continue scrambling for incredibly weak explanations so I'll have something else to laugh at.

I'm not scrambling at anything. It's explained in game. You not liking it doesn't make the explanation invalid. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:26 .

[Eterna]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

Because humans don't appear as Reapers on his Scanners. The Nomrandy does. Your first mistake is assuming that Reapers see like Organics do. They don't have eyes. 

And the Humans who enter the normandy just "dissapear" on it's scanners? wouldn't that raise some suspision by Harbinger?

You're assuming it's scanners can peirce the enterior of a ship specifically made for Stealth operations. 

The IFF doesn't work that way. Reapers repeatedly pursue the Normandy on the galaxy map and destroy it if you're caught. The Rannoch Reaper fires up at the Normandy, Traynor comments on it. The Occuli on the other side of the Omega-4 Relay and the Collector Ship attack it. 

The Reapers pursue the Normandy when it emits a scanning pulse. Thus gives away its location and alerts Reapers that it isn't a Reaper. 

The Destroyer would realize it's been tricked when another Reaper attacked it.

Edi only modifies the IFF in ME3. 

Missing the point, Harbinger can hit every alliance marine (except Shepard, hooray for contrivance) at pinpoint accuarcy during the beam, but when they walk up the normandy's ramp he's suddenly unable to do so.

He also misses Anderson and Coates. Thus implying that he doesn't have pin point accuracy. Also he's busy trying to stop the rest of hammer from reaching the beam.

Modifié par Eterna5, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:31 .

[clennon8]

The fact that it is NOT explained in game and CANNOT be explained in game is what makes the "explanation" invalid. You may as well say "God did it" so I can have a really good laugh.

[The Night Mammoth]

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

Stop adding bull**** to this conversation. Find something better to do with your time than throw a tempertantrum. 

I think what I want to do right now is point out how hilariously awful your rationalizations are for how the Normandy was able to show up five seconds after Shepard radioed it, and was able to land unmolested right in front of Harbinger.  Please continue scrambling for incredibly weak explanations so I'll have something else to laugh at.

I'm not scrambling at anything. It's explained in game. You not liking it doesn't make the explanation invalid. 

It's not explained in game. 

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Even if Harbinger could not detect the Normandy as unfriendly, wouldn't the fact that hostile organics are both dropping off and entering the "Reaper" tip him off that something is up?

[Eterna]

clennon8 wrote...

The fact that it is NOT explained in game and CANNOT be explained in game is what makes the "explanation" invalid. You may as well say "God did it" so I can have a really good laugh.

Except it is explained in game, I even linked you a video. 

It's not explained in game.

Yes. It is. 

Modifié par Eterna5, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:30 .

[clennon8]

*dies laughing*

[Seival]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

Stop adding bull**** to this conversation. Find something better to do with your time than throw a tempertantrum. 

I think what I want to do right now is point out how hilariously awful your rationalizations are for how the Normandy was able to show up five seconds after Shepard radioed it, and was able to land unmolested right in front of Harbinger.  Please continue scrambling for incredibly weak explanations so I'll have something else to laugh at.

I'm not scrambling at anything. It's explained in game. You not liking it doesn't make the explanation invalid. 

It's not explained in game. 

Did you expect some subtitles saying that Harbinger was indeed unable to attack the Normandy effectively at that point? That's silly.

Everything we see in game can be explained by a common logic. But some people just want to keep whining about "bad ending" no matter what. And this is completely unconstructive.

[Bourne Endeavor]

dreman9999 wrote...

1.You do understand that those narrative requirments are not set in stone and the write can apply it anyway they want as long as the result is fine.
I don't need to see EDi go on to the normady to see that she did. If she is on the ground at one point that much lateron seen on the normady...with all the capability the normady has I can see how that happen. A story doesnot need to tell everything, just the background to allow it to happen. A thing smudboy doesnot get which many people have brought up to him.

Example: The movie inception takes it's time to explain the details and background of it's dream tech....In the end of the movies, we are never told if it's a dream or not...It's left yo use to decide if it's real or not.

Provided the sequence of events derives of logical probability, then the narrative may gloss over certain portions. The Normandy disengaging from direct conflict with the Reaper armada, arriving within seconds all whilst Harbinger floats by idling allowing it to evac your squad, is neither probable nor logical. Therefore, suspension of belief is broken and the scene becomes contrived.

No, the story does not have to explain everything. It must, however, maintain consistency.

2. As I said before, that is an issue with harbinger not firing on the normady.

And you have yet to refute why he wouldn't shoot it.

3.The problem here is that you think this is being objective. You missing the fact here that not as many people are bothered by it. Which makes it a case of preferance.

A person's preference does not determine the quality of literature. I need only mention Twilight to proof that. By your claim, Twilight cannot be faulted for the innumerable examples of poor writing it boosts. In fact, no written work in existence could be criticised. Incidentally, this results in everything being forced into neutrality. We cannot have good without bad, as they are necessary opposing elements.

Fortunately, this is not the case as we have established rules to determine how literacy work is judged. Plot holes, contrivances and Deus Ex Machinas are examples of what is considered poor writing. The more blatant, the less willing we are to suspend our disbelief.

By applying these rules, I am able to make an objective analysis. Unless, you truly believe in the aforementioned neutrality. In which case, I cannot help you.

Seival wrote...

It's unknown where was Normandy exactly when called for evac in both scenes. It could be not too far away in the Earth atmosphere in both cases. There is nothing illogical in that.

Considering Ashley/Kaidan was able to board the Normandy following the Reaper invasion. We can determine it was relatively close to Vancouver. Whereas, the evac scene situates the Normandy on the outskirts of Earth's atmosphere. This equates to several thousand miles of distance, yet the latter inexplicably happens faster.

As I said, Normandy passed too close to debris with hidden collector fighters, which got the visual contact. After that each collector vessel was informed about the Normandy. There was no massive battle around. It was not too hard to track one ship in open space, when they already knew about the ship presence.

What relevance does this have to what I asked you? I asked for evidence regarding your theory about the IFF. As it stands, you seem to be inventing a narrative that does not exist.

Seival wrote...

About Destoryers. Warm-up and aim a gun to shoot a target which is 100 meters infront of you? This makes no sense. Several random shots at least have a chance to hit someone. And what if perfectly aimed shot will miss, because target evaded it? Each second of warming-up and aiming was just wasted for nothing in that case.

EDIT: And Harbinger was in hurry in "final run" scene. It had no time for precision shots.

Reapers fire at a fraction of the speed of light. We clearly witness Harbinger doing this in frequent succession during the downward spirit. In fact, after the Normandy evac scene. He fires three additional shots, thus he had the capability. I'll even go you one better. Harbinger hits Shepard with... precision accuracy!

So either Harbinger is an absolute moron, couldn't shoot water while above the ocean or blind. By the way, claiming he was simply lucky, only proves the scene is contrived, defending your entire argument.

[Applepie_Svk]

hukbum wrote...

I always wondered why someone would chose "control". I'm beginning to understand ...

because you know...

Seival wrote...

Everything we see in game can be explained by a common logic. But some people just want to keep whining about "bad ending" no matter what. And this is completely unconstructive.

Your kind of common logic is the same like Dreman´s one... you would start build a house with roof than proceed with middle level and end up with basement.


Whole this deffense with Reaper IFF reminds me good old days back at PS one with Metal Gear Solid and Snake´s favourite camouflage...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 14 octobre 2012 - 09:05 .

[MegaSovereign]

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 14 octobre 2012 - 08:54 .

[Seival]

I think we're going in circles here.

And haters just turned "blablabla" mod when ran out of arguments. Typical.

I told everything I wanted to tell on topic, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

[Rovay]

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

[Applepie_Svk]

Seival wrote...

I think we're going in circles here.

And haters just turned "blablabla" mod when ran out of arguments. Typical.

I told everything I wanted to tell on topic, and I'm not going to repeat myself.

We told you 1-2 pages ago that you should stop trolling and stop making things up, but no... it would be too easy for ya.

You are trying to deffend bad scene with lot of wild imaginations and speculations, but we are here for these which are wrong, you should instead send a CV to BioWare and ask them if they are not looking for another awsome writer which would help them with their new IP --- THE SPACE MAGIC  you could be even space wizzard.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 14 octobre 2012 - 09:04 .

[MegaSovereign]

Rovay wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

I came to find true love.

[Eterna]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Rovay wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

I came to find true love.

You can have me. 

[Rovay]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Rovay wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

I came to find true love.

Well... Good luck then! In this place, with such ambitious goal you're going to need every help you can get...

[MegaSovereign]

Eterna5 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Rovay wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

I came to find true love.

You can have me. 

I'm not racist but I'm not into synthetics.

[Eterna]

MegaSovereign wrote...

Eterna5 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

Rovay wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Watch the drones scramble to come up with their hilariously awful rationalizations for why the EC didn't suck balls.

The Normandy scene was probably the weakest part of the EC. The rest of it was actually pretty good IMO.

Don't divide people up into factions and call them names, you're better than that.

Isn't it the whole reason people come to BSN in the first place? Well, that and Bioware games I guess...

I came to find true love.

You can have me. 

I'm not racist but I'm not into synthetics.

Synthesis.

It is the ideal solution.