330 réponses à ce sujet

[EpicBoot2daFace]

legion999 wrote...

Mcfly616 wrote...

It's pretty funny that people can't understand priorities. As in stopping anybody and anything from making it to the Citadel via the Beam. (This priority takes precedence over blowing up the Normandy)

Some people fail to realize that there's Mako's and marines still charging the beam while you're getting your injured squadmates onto the Normandy (or those people just completely ignore the fact)

They're in denial. They don't want it to make sense, so they grasp for any straws they can, or just say "art" or "nonsensical" in order to justify their claims. It's rather funny and yet, quite pathetic at the same time.

Things don't play exactly how they imagined/wanted them to, so they search for any way to say it doesn't make sense. Pretty laughable, really.

Then why not blow up the beam? Why not put troops on the Citadel so they don't have to worry? Why not shoot the Normandy which would cause a massive explosion killing all soldiers nearby? Why does the presence of marines stop Harbinger from taking a second to shoot the Normandy? Why doesn't Harbinger just use it's main gun?

It seems to me that you're the one in denial. The one who wants it to make sense.

Agreed.

[10K]

Well no matter what you think OP, I still think that scene was ridiculous. The fact of the matter is Harbinger has two lasers, so I can't see why he didn't directed one of those to destroy the Normandy while he uses the other to stop people from getting to the beam. So yeah until someone can explain that this scene will remain crap.

[Han Shot First]

I agree with the OP.

From a military point of view Harbinger not firing on the Normandy makes perfect sense. The Normandy posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Harbinger or the Reapers, and if the Normandy had attempted to engage Harbinger it is lucky if it would have even scratched its paint. The Normandy was totally outclassed.

Second, Harbinger's objective was to stop the ground team from getting any personnel to the beam. The tanks, dismounted infantry, and the gunships providing air support were the real threat. Any one from the ground team that made it to the beam could potentially doom the Reapers. At the time the ground time posed a very serious threat to the Reapers, unlike the Normandy, which posed none.

Finally, the Normandy was involved in a medevac and was not directly assisting the ground push in any way.

In short, the ground time was a priority target. The Normandy was not.

Harbinger had his priorities in order.

[WYLDMAXX]

OP, a better explanation would be that Harbinger wanted to romance the Normandy.

[jstme]

Pretty sure that Normandy is more dangerous then those choppers Harbinger keeps shooting down.
Besides having much more firepower, it carries lots of people it can drop off.
And even if extremely intelligent sapient spaceship will intercept communication between Shepard and Joker - noone would believe that combat vessel with dozens of skilled combatants aboard was called in from extremely important space battle just to evac 2 people in a spot of strategical importance ,without dropping off reinforcements.
That scene is stupid beyond belief - even in most video gamey video games it still would be stupid - and any attempt to somehow defend it is an inevitable failure

See where i am coming from?

[archangel1996]

Sovereign is mad too because of this :lol:
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 08:50 .

[Maxster_]

Han Shot First wrote...

I agree with the OP.

From a military point of view Harbinger not firing on the Normandy makes perfect sense. The Normandy posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Harbinger or the Reapers, and if the Normandy had attempted to engage Harbinger it is lucky if it would have even scratched its paint. The Normandy was totally outclassed.

From a military point of view Harbringer not turning off the beam, or not using his main gun makes absolutely no sense.

Second, Harbinger's objective was to stop the ground team from getting any personnel to the beam. The tanks, dismounted infantry, and the gunships providing air support were the real threat. Any one from the ground team that made it to the beam could potentially doom the Reapers. At the time the ground time posed a very serious threat to the Reapers, unlike the Normandy, which posed none.

One shot from his main gun - and entire offesive is instantly annihilated.
And no one would got to the beam.
They were never a threat, one shot - and all dead instantly.

Finally, the Normandy was involved in a medevac and was not directly assisting the ground push in any way.

Yeah, Joker reported to Harbringer about that medevac. That is how Harbringer knew that there would be medevac. And that is why he didn't used his main gun.
He is very polite and prefer fair play.

In short, the ground time was a priority target. The Normandy was not.

Harbinger had his priorities in order.

In short, you still trying to defend that garbage scene with more nonsense than already in it.

[De1ta G]

Why does this scene matter so freakin much? I can understand discussing it. What's the point of these forums if not for discussing. But this just keeps getting brought up over and over again as if every little detail about the scene must be analyzed thoroughly until it is determined whether or not scene is logical. It being logical is irrelevant. How many times have you watched a movie and during a certain scene though "That wouldn't happen."? It's fiction, it isn't suppose to be real. It's suppose to be relatively realistic, but not everything that happens is going to be perfectly logical.

Scenes like those are placed for numerous reasons. In this case it was to way to show not only how your squad got back onto the Normandy, but also included a touching, final goodbye scene with Shepard's romance.

What would you rather know? Why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy or how did your squad manage to get back on the Normandy?

[archangel1996]

De1ta G wrote...

Why does this scene matter so freakin much? I can understand discussing it. What's the point of these forums if not for discussing. But this just keeps getting brought up over and over again as if every little detail about the scene must be analyzed thoroughly until it is determined whether or not scene is logical. It being logical is irrelevant. How many times have you watched a movie and during a certain scene though "That wouldn't happen."? It's fiction, it isn't suppose to be real. It's suppose to be relatively realistic, but not everything that happens is going to be perfectly logical.

Scenes like those are placed for numerous reasons. In this case it was to way to show not only how your squad got back onto the Normandy, but also included a touching, final goodbye scene with Shepard's romance.

What would you rather know? Why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy or how did your squad manage to get back on the Normandy?

Both you don't fix a plot hole just to make one even bigger

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 08:58 .

[Maxster_]

De1ta G wrote...

Why does this scene matter so freakin much? I can understand discussing it. What's the point of these forums if not for discussing. But this just keeps getting brought up over and over again as if every little detail about the scene must be analyzed thoroughly until it is determined whether or not scene is logical. It being logical is irrelevant. How many times have you watched a movie and during a certain scene though "That wouldn't happen."? It's fiction, it isn't suppose to be real. It's suppose to be relatively realistic, but not everything that happens is going to be perfectly logical.

Scenes like those are placed for numerous reasons. In this case it was to way to show not only how your squad got back onto the Normandy, but also included a touching, final goodbye scene with Shepard's romance.

What would you rather know? Why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy or how did your squad manage to get back on the Normandy?

What a pathetic excuse for a garbage writing.
Guess you have no idea what term "fiction" even means. I'm not even saying about "science fiction".

[jstme]

De1ta G wrote...

Why does this scene matter so freakin much? I can understand discussing it. What's the point of these forums if not for discussing. But this just keeps getting brought up over and over again as if every little detail about the scene must be analyzed thoroughly until it is determined whether or not scene is logical. It being logical is irrelevant. How many times have you watched a movie and during a certain scene though "That wouldn't happen."? It's fiction, it isn't suppose to be real. It's suppose to be relatively realistic, but not everything that happens is going to be perfectly logical.

Scenes like those are placed for numerous reasons. In this case it was to way to show not only how your squad got back onto the Normandy, but also included a touching, final goodbye scene with Shepard's romance.

What would you rather know? Why Harbinger didn't fire on the Normandy or how did your squad manage to get back on the Normandy?

I would rather to have a good quality of writing. And if the abovementioned quality did not take a huge dive in certain parts of ME3 ,creating confusion and breaking immersion, there would be no need to ask about teleporting squad OR about med evac.
Bad written part meant to fix another bad written part still leaves bad written part.   

[De1ta G]

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

[Tefnacht]

Harbinger shouldn't even be there. Once the destroyer guarding the beam got blown up, the Reapers should just have used indoctrinated TIM aboard the Citadel to shut down the beam and the whole thing would be done with right there.
Hammer is stranded with nowhere to go, the Reapers have all the time to destroy the “space microphone”, wipe out Sword at their own leisure and go back to business as usual. The whole plot doesn't make any sense.

If it is so important to deny use of the beam to puny humans and it cannot be shut down, why does Harbinger bother to land and play “whack-a-marine” with his tertiary weapon instead of glassing the whole area with a single shot of his primary gun from orbit? Boom. Done. Shepard wouldn't even see it coming.

Nothing makes any sense here anymore, it just happens because it was written that way. Harbinger needed his cameo, EC Normandy needed to evacuate our teammates, the beam needed to stay active because otherwise the game would just end ... its just a big pile of feces.

[Maxster_]

De1ta G wrote...

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

So, now an excuse for a garbage writing is that there is no "perfect" writing?

Modifié par Maxster_, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:08 .

[archangel1996]

I'm happy with good wirting too, anyway i may suggest you The Witcher for nearly perfect writing

Modifié par archangel1996, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:09 .

[fiendishchicken]

I have a perfectly logical reason.

Bad writing. It could have been implemented much better and easier, and not made yet another gaping plot hole in the story. But Casey Hudson has to have his art. There was only so much Patrick Weekes could do.

[De1ta G]

Maxster_ wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

So, now an excuse for a garbage writing is that there is no "perfect" writing?

No, but it does excuse some not-so-great writing when there are much more important scenes that are written very well. It is also free and optional.

[EpicBoot2daFace]

I think the scene serves it's purpose and that is to give everyone a chance to say goodbye to their love interests in that moment when you know it's about to hit the fan.

[Meltemph]

De1ta G wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

So, now an excuse for a garbage writing is that there is no "perfect" writing?

No, but it does excuse some not-so-great writing when there are much more important scenes that are written very well. It is also free and optional.

Typically, I would be willing to say, ok, sure, bad writting is excused because there is always the setting, and that is really well done.  Problem is, the ending essetnially breaks the setting(in 3 parts).

Modifié par Meltemph, 16 janvier 2013 - 09:16 .

[jstme]

De1ta G wrote...

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

I do not demand perfection. General level or writing throughout the trilogy was more then acceptable for story-dependent video game. 
But it all went south in the end, with sudden symbolism overload and lack of attention to basic details.
As for good sci-fi writing ,from what i read i can recommend Stanislav Lem, Kurt Vonnegut, Terry Pratchett (do not laugh - Discworld has more science in its fiction then synthesis in Mass Effect) ,Dan Simmons. 

[Maxster_]

De1ta G wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

De1ta G wrote...

When you find perfect writing fpr anything, tell me. I want to read it.

So, now an excuse for a garbage writing is that there is no "perfect" writing?

No, but it does excuse some not-so-great writing when there are much more important scenes that are written very well. It is also free and optional.

And how does ME3 relates to that? That game's story is pure garbage writing, from start to finish, with only 1.5 exceptions(Tuchanka and Rannoch except Geth becoming heretics suddenly).
Concepts like Crucible, Cerberus Empire, Catalyst, and scenes like evac scene(or whole priority:earth), earth:intro, cerberus coup - not jus not-so-well written, they are written utterly horrible.

[Mafrodon]

The question isn't why didn't harbinger shoot down the Normandy. It's how did the Normandy get there so quickly in the first place. We know joker was with sword fleet and when shepard radiod for help joker replied "we're taking heavy losses up here" interrupted immediately by static, one second later the Normandy appears with joker saying " Normandy inbound" does no one else find this weird? This whole scene is either supposed to be a wtf moment or really rushed illogical writing. Or both.

[Maxster_]

Mafrodon wrote...

The question isn't why didn't harbinger shoot down the Normandy. It's how did the Normandy get there so quickly in the first place. We know joker was with sword fleet and when shepard radiod for help joker replied "we're taking heavy losses up here" interrupted immediately by static, one second later the Normandy appears with joker saying " Normandy inbound" does no one else find this weird? This whole scene is either supposed to be a wtf moment or really rushed illogical writing. Or both.

It is plothole coverage EAWare-style. When you cover one big glaring plothole(teleporting squadmates) with another, even bigger plothole(teleporting Normandy).

[Han Shot First]

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

I agree with the OP.

From a military point of view Harbinger not firing on the Normandy makes perfect sense. The Normandy posed absolutely no threat whatsoever to Harbinger or the Reapers, and if the Normandy had attempted to engage Harbinger it is lucky if it would have even scratched its paint. The Normandy was totally outclassed.

From a military point of view Harbringer not turning off the beam, or not using his main gun makes absolutely no sense.

Based on what exactly? Your head canon about how Harbinger's main gun and targeting systems work?

We know next to nothing about how Harbinger's weaponry functions. The codex entries are rather vague and sparse on details.

How do we know that the weapons being fired by Harbinger during the beam rush scene were in fact the betters tools for that particular task, due to both the capabilities and limitations of both weapons systems?

I'll give you a real world example.

A shell fired by 155mm howitzer is much more destructive than rounds fired by a medium machine gun firing 7.62mm rounds. That doesn't however, mean that a 155mm howitzer is a better direct fire weapon against dismounted infantry than a machine gun that fires 7.62 mm rounds. In fact, the opposite is true.

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Second, Harbinger's objective was to stop the ground team from getting any personnel to the beam. The tanks, dismounted infantry, and the gunships providing air support were the real threat. Any one from the ground team that made it to the beam could potentially doom the Reapers. At the time the ground time posed a very serious threat to the Reapers, unlike the Normandy, which posed none.

One shot from his main gun - and entire offesive is instantly annihilated.
And no one would got to the beam.
They were never a threat, one shot - and all dead instantly.

Refer to what I posted above on the lack of knowledge regarding Reaper weapon and targeting capabilities and limitations, and needing head canon to fill in gaps.

Also destroying the Normandy in no way guarantees that you wipe out the ground team. If the destruction of the Normandy SR1 was anything to go by, the destruction of the SR2 would not have been that dramatic. At best it would have killed and wounded some people in the immediate vicinity, but it certainly wouldn't have eliminated the entire ground team. And it would have been a distraction that potentially buys enough time for someone to make it to the beam.

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

Finally, the Normandy was involved in a medevac and was not directly assisting the ground push in any way.

Yeah, Joker reported to Harbringer about that medevac. That is how Harbringer knew that there would be medevac. And that is why he didn't used his main gun.
He is very polite and prefer fair play.

Common sense.

The Normandy deployed to the rear and was not flying towards Harbinger in an aggressive manor. It would not been diffidcult to deduce that it was conducting a medevac, just as in a real world combat situation it would not be difficult to deduce that helos were conducting a medevac if they were not engaging you and deploying in your enemy's rear.

Maxster_ wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...



In short, the ground time was a priority target. The Normandy was not.

Harbinger had his priorities in order.

In short, you still trying to defend that garbage scene with more nonsense than already in it.

No I'm defending that scene with a little thing called common sense, something in short supply on the BSN, and basing my assertions on my own experiences in the military.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 16 janvier 2013 - 10:22 .

[XxBrokenBonezxX]

Master Che wrote...

crimzontearz wrote...

Right, merciless reaper does not kill its nemesis and allows them to retreat for a good couple of minutes politely waiting? Right....no

Nemesis...that's a human concept based on feelings of vengance and spite...Right....no.

Try again.

Did you play ME2? "You will know pain Shepard."? Are you just plain dumb? Harbinger is more Shepard's nemesis than anyone/thing else. It's not Saren and certainly not Kai Leng. You're trying to explain something that has absolutely no logic behind it. It's like trying to explain why you would dress your dog in pizza and walk him around on a skateboard with plastic bottles for wheels. It makes no ******* sense.

Try again.