4712 réponses à ce sujet

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

Tali says "Break off your attack" without stating ANY reason to stop. If the Reapers suddenly became completely venerable, and Shepard suddenly said "break off the attack" without any further explination, would YOU listen?

The geth have been classed as non-ngotiable and organic-hostile for 300 years, and were believed to be that way LONG BEFORE the Reaper alliance. When you are dealing with an enemy that has done nothing but show you they seemingly have NO INTEREST in negotiation, standing down for no reason would seem to be a retarded move. So NO, he is NOT stupid. He simply has no reason to believe that this enemy that has always killed every peaceful negotiation party is suddenly going to stand down. It's not until Shepard explains the situation to him that Gerrel DOES stand down.
Point of this: If you want someone to stop, it helps to GIVE THEM ACTUAL REASON TO (like Shepard does), instead of standing around twittling your thumbs (Raan) or giving a half-hearted "stop" (Tali).

If the guy who saved us from Sovereign and the guy who defeated the Collectors said so then I would ask him why before refusing.  It is clear they may have more information than me on the situation so I find out.

As to you other post, whether the Geth appear friendly is irrelevant.  The issue is not trusting the Geth.  The issue is trusting a fellow Admiral and a guy who has twice defeated the Reaper threat.  They have more intel.  So I listen.

Modifié par remydat, 30 mars 2013 - 04:44 .

[remydat]

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Tali in ME1 says that the geth have killed anyone who tried to make contact with them. I posted where to find evidence of it earlier. I, nor she, ever said it was the COUNCIL who sent ambassadors. We don't know who these people are.

Even if it was the council, how does that break in-game lore? Tali's implication is that the council took no action AGAINST the geth. There's nothing lore-breaking about decades or even centuries later attempting to make peaceful contact. There's also nothing lore-breaking about not responding with force when those attempts fail. The council doesn't help when the geth outright attack human colonies, no rreason to say they would start a war over a lost ambassador.

Still no contradiction. As it is in game-lore actually AGREES with the novel.

As for the argument that the sovereign ret-con doesn't count because it wasn't said in game...what? You don't overrule the writing team on their own work.

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

Literally, you and remy both are THAT bad. It's absolutely ludicrous.

It's like you guys don't know when to agree to disagree to move on.  I extended you the common courtesy of still considering information I believe to be incorrect as true so that we can continue to debate and you still cry about it ad naseum.

You were given an answer on the assumption the story is correct.  So whatever misgivings I may have about the story is completely irrelevant to the discussion because I have answered the question assuming the story is correct.  

[remydat]

Steelcan wrote...
So we should just kill the Turians, Krogan, Asari, Salarians, batarians etc.. Because they might make a weapon in the future that could wipe out humanity.  Rachni queen should die, well I did kill her, and the genophage should be sabotaged, right?

Nope.  It just means acting like the disparity in numbers means the Quarians were no longer a threat is disingenuous.  The real threat to the Geth is not numbers.  It is in the Quarians coming up with a weapon, virus or program that renders your numerical advantage irrelevant.  That is the downside of being a machine forced to fight your creators ie people who may know more about your programing than you do.

Steelcan wrote...
  So it's ok for them to turn traitor on the galaxy

You can't betray someone you are not allied with or who you have no mutual trust with.  The Geth have no obligation to the rest of the galaxy who hates it and vice versa.  So neither side can betray the other.  The only act of betrayal was the Quarians deciding to wipe out a people who had spent their entire existence serving them.

Modifié par remydat, 30 mars 2013 - 05:00 .

[robertthebard]

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Tali in ME1 says that the geth have killed anyone who tried to make contact with them. I posted where to find evidence of it earlier. I, nor she, ever said it was the COUNCIL who sent ambassadors. We don't know who these people are.

Even if it was the council, how does that break in-game lore? Tali's implication is that the council took no action AGAINST the geth. There's nothing lore-breaking about decades or even centuries later attempting to make peaceful contact. There's also nothing lore-breaking about not responding with force when those attempts fail. The council doesn't help when the geth outright attack human colonies, no rreason to say they would start a war over a lost ambassador.

Still no contradiction. As it is in game-lore actually AGREES with the novel.

As for the argument that the sovereign ret-con doesn't count because it wasn't said in game...what? You don't overrule the writing team on their own work.

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

Literally, you and remy both are THAT bad. It's absolutely ludicrous.

You know, it's really sad that you honestly believe that anything that says Mass Effect on it should be considered lore for the game.  Now, I have to have game review sites, Twitter, novels, comic books, fan fiction and who the hell knows what else to get a story from the game?  Of course, none of this addresses the fact that, as with Mr. Gaider writing stories in the DA universe, the ME novel writers should have indicated that some of the things they add would indeed conflict with game lore for the benefit of their story, and should not be taken as canon.

You are absolutely 100% correct.  Any work of fiction that has Mass Effect in the title, or any public medium that has somebody posting in it should supersede what ever lore is handed down in game.  It is not a game's responsibility to tell it's story, and if one doesn't buy the books/comics, then one should not be commenting on whether or not things happened in game, because w/out said books or comics, one has no way to know that that didn't happen in game, because it's mentioned in this book here.

[Hazegurl]

silverexile17s wrote...

First off, When you first Talk to Tali the moment she comes aborad (BEFORE the geth dreadnought mission) she says the last transmission she had with Legion was that the geth were having touble reaching consensis. She tells Shepard that this might be because they were already in talks with the Reapers long before the invasion ever began and were weighing their options. And for the record, she is making this observation in hindsight, based on how the geth have allied with the Reapers so quickly after the attack, so she is considering the possibility that the geth were in contact well before the invasion started. It's only an observation Tali makes from an educated guess that is in turn made in hindsight. She is only JUST now peiceing the trouble reaching consensis with the possibility of Reaper contact.  Hence why she never went to the Admirals: because she is only just now figuring on this.

Post the video for that conversation. You'll have to excuse me for not taking your word for it considering the fact that you tend to put pieces of dialouge in the wrong topic to give it false meaning.  But once again that would be Tali's speculation on why contact was lost. She knows nothing of what was going on with the Geth. And yes she is wrong because Leigon proves her speculation to be false when they first come in contact with him and she agrees with him and EDI.  Hence why she then says her people were wrong.

But still, it makes sence that the Reapers would try and recrut the geth right off the bat.

But still, you are wrong. The Reapers extended an offer when the Quarians attacked and the Geth were deseperate to live. And even though they were desperate to live, if you get rid of their Reaper worshipping zealots, the decision is still hard for them to make. You want to know what the Geth were doing before the Quarians attacked? Planning to kill Reapers like the rest of the galaxy. They were even getting prepared while Shepard was still trying to convince everyone else that the threat exists.

And NO, it DOESN'T contridict thmy statement. Legion says that it "would not have been nessessary." I said the geth jumped on it in deperation without thinking, because in terms of long-term consiquences, they DIDN'T think.

You do nothing but contradict yourself and treat the dialouge as though it were puzzle pieces to force your point. Now you claim they didn't think of the long term consequences. How would you even know that? You have no idea how far ahead the Geth thought but still reached the conclusion that losing their free will was better than death and let's not pretend that the Quarians wouldn't have wiped them out if they didn't side with the Reapers.

And AGAIN, no he doesn't. You are the one stretching the sentance.

I have not stretched anything. I have provided nothing but proof to back up my claims to you and even tried to help you out in proving your own point. Yet your point was so one sided and forced to the point where that was a failure. 

You even misused the word "evidently" and based an entire opinion behind it. Why can't you just admit, that you thought the word meant that Leigon had doubts?

www.thefreedictionary.com/evidently

Evidently: Clearly, without question,undoubtedly.

The sentence is what it is. Legion tells Shepard that siding with the Reapers over termination, even if it costs them their free will, is without a doubt a better deal.

I remind you that the Geth V.I. never says those lines. And AGAIN, when you talk to Legion, he no longer reconizes himself as a member of the geth. He sees himself as individual from the rest of the geth. If he DID agree with it, he would have said "there was no other choice," or "it was nessessary." He DOESN'T. He doesn't support what the geth did.

Post a vid where dialouge isn't skipped over. But really I don't even care. As your entire opinion is that Leigon was against the Geth siding with the Reapers. And that had already been proven false.

Leigon does not become an individual from the Geth until just before the final upload of the code. "Shepard I must go to them." Even Tali admits that Leigon became an individual just before dying.

And again, Wrong. The Geth V.I. says that it was because he didn't think Shepard would be smart enough to apreicate the upgrades. With Legion, he waffles on Shepard's comment - he does NOT deny that he feels ashamed at taking the codes for himself.

"Again, wrong?" On what? I don't dispute anything the Geth V.I says. As for Leigon, the one we are truly discussing here, and what he did or did not say. He tells Shepard point blank that the Geth (meaning himself) are not above taking the upgrade and lying to him/her about it. Doesn't sound like this great shame you continue to speak of.

Now, in helping you out again you can say that Leigon hanging his head low while mentioning that he has the upgrades means that he is ashamed of having them. But I can also say that he hung his head low because he was lying to Shepard about it and knew he would get upset, which he does.

But you want to know who does sound ashamed of her people's actions? Evidently, it'sTALI

[Da Don Giovanni]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Actually it's pretty hilarious.

Just saying.

Just so you know all those times I lampooned your name, I just messing around.

I was a huge fan of SWTOR, and played a Sith Inquistor. I supported the Empire fully and Cheesecake offended me at first, but the Grand Admiral part overrides that now.

Toodles.

[Papa John0]

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Papa John0 wrote...

Geth. The Quarians are idiots.

. I'd say the geth were idiots for allying with the Reapers.

This exactly, anyone who joins the reapers is either indoctrinated or stupid. killing the former is just business, killing the latter is a favor to the universe.

They were indoctrinated and had no way of knowing what the machine gods were until it was too late. The Quarians, on the other hand, built an AI race that was technologically and numerically superior to themselves. They attempted to keep this race enslaved only to have them revolt and kick the Quarians off their home planet. There's a reason the Quarians live in a flotilla: they are idiots.

The Quarian suit is a mark of shame. They have lost their home to their own creation.

The events of ME3 only cement this. The galaxy is under threat of the Reapers and the Quarians decide that this is the perfect opportunity to throw EVERYTHING they have (including the life ships) at the superior Geth fleet. If not for Shepard boarding the mothership and convincing Legion to stand down and disable the shields, the Quarians would have been annihilated and on the fast track to extinction.

I support the peaceful resolution to the conflict, but I have very little sympathy for the Quarians beyond saving them to avoid genocide.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Da Don Giovanni wrote...

Grand Admiral Cheesecake wrote...

Actually it's pretty hilarious.

Just saying.

Just so you know all those times I lampooned your name, I just messing around.

I was a huge fan of SWTOR, and played a Sith Inquistor. I supported the Empire fully and Cheesecake offended me at first, but the Grand Admiral part overrides that now.

Toodles.

All is well my good Inquisitor.

[tevix]

@Remy

All you've proven is that you are pulling a double standard to defend your point. Throwing out in game codex entries because a character doesn't say it is just senseless. There's nothing more to say. If you look at a game and say "legion didn't say it, it's not canon, don't care if it's in the codex" you're unreasonable.

@Robert

You're being as ridculous, stubborn, and dismissive and are double talking just like remy. Your rant did nothing to prove contradiction between the novels and in game lore.

The point of writing a novel is to expand on the story. It's still canon. The only novel that had contradictions to in-game lore was deception, and that was admitted by BW to not be canon because of its flaws.

You both are dismissing factual canon because it doesn't fit your arguments.

There's no sense coming to a forum to debate when you won't acknowledge facts.

Since you've both managed to make yourselves look completely ridiculous and blow your credibility to dust I consider my mission accomplished.

[robertthebard]

tevix wrote...

@Remy

All you've proven is that you are pulling a double standard to defend your point. Throwing out in game codex entries because a character doesn't say it is just senseless. There's nothing more to say. If you look at a game and say "legion didn't say it, it's not canon, don't care if it's in the codex" you're unreasonable.

@Robert

You're being as ridculous, stubborn, and dismissive and are double talking just like remy. Your rant did nothing to prove contradiction between the novels and in game lore.

The point of writing a novel is to expand on the story. It's still canon. The only novel that had contradictions to in-game lore was deception, and that was admitted by BW to not be canon because of its flaws.

You both are dismissing factual canon because it doesn't fit your arguments.

There's no sense coming to a forum to debate when you won't acknowledge facts.

Since you've both managed to make yourselves look completely ridiculous and blow your credibility to dust I consider my mission accomplished.

Cool, but let's take the statement from the author that you went on and on about in the last post I quoted.  Now, I have one simple question for you:  What did BioWare change in the game due to that statement?  I don't need your personal attacks.  I just need an answer to that simple question.  Assuming you can provide that, we'll see where we go.

[remydat]

tevix wrote...

@Remy

All you've proven is that you are pulling a double standard to defend your point. Throwing out in game codex entries because a character doesn't say it is just senseless. There's nothing more to say. If you look at a game and say "legion didn't say it, it's not canon, don't care if it's in the codex" you're unreasonable.

Whether I personally believe the stories is irrelevant because I have already provided an answer assuming the stories are correct.  So what exactly are you running on about?  Also only one side continues to make personal comments about others.  You are really getting quite emotional for the internet.  

Modifié par remydat, 30 mars 2013 - 10:02 .

[tevix]

@Robert

I don't think I understand.

"What did bioware change in the game due to that statement."

I don't think I understand what your talking about.

[robertthebard]

tevix wrote...

@Robert

I don't think I understand.

"What did bioware change in the game due to that statement."

I don't think I understand what your talking about.

Ok, this was your little tantrum earlier:

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

I want to know what was changed when this writer posted that Sovereign was stronger than he was supposed to be in cutscenes(I believe that's what you said, not going back several pages to look though).  I mean, you are seriously ready to have a stroke over whether or not the guy said it, or maybe whether I believe he said it, or maybe that it's somehow important to the dialog, so I want to know what changed in the games because of it.  Did they edit out the ship names dialog you can have with the reporter if you don't punch her?  Did Hackett quit saying that the battle with Sovereign took everything they had, you know, things like that.  Because frankly, if the answer is nothing, what's the point of a) bringing it up, and holding your breath in the aisle at WalMart, stomping your feet and screaming until somebody tells you he said it?

[tevix]

@Robert

Nope, not answering.

You tell me to leave my "personal attacks" behind then twice accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum.

Not conversing with you after that.

[robertthebard]

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Nope, not answering.

You tell me to leave my "personal attacks" behind then twice accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum.

Not conversing with you after that.

Right, so the correct answer is:  They didn't change anything.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

Tali says "Break off your attack" without stating ANY reason to stop. If the Reapers suddenly became completely venerable, and Shepard suddenly said "break off the attack" without any further explination, would YOU listen?

The geth have been classed as non-ngotiable and organic-hostile for 300 years, and were believed to be that way LONG BEFORE the Reaper alliance. When you are dealing with an enemy that has done nothing but show you they seemingly have NO INTEREST in negotiation, standing down for no reason would seem to be a retarded move. So NO, he is NOT stupid. He simply has no reason to believe that this enemy that has always killed every peaceful negotiation party is suddenly going to stand down. It's not until Shepard explains the situation to him that Gerrel DOES stand down.
Point of this: If you want someone to stop, it helps to GIVE THEM ACTUAL REASON TO (like Shepard does), instead of standing around twittling your thumbs (Raan) or giving a half-hearted "stop" (Tali).

If the guy who saved us from Sovereign and the guy who defeated the Collectors said so then I would ask him why before refusing.  It is clear they may have more information than me on the situation so I find out.

As to you other post, whether the Geth appear friendly is irrelevant.  The issue is not trusting the Geth.  The issue is trusting a fellow Admiral and a guy who has twice defeated the Reaper threat.  They have more intel.  So I listen.

AGAIN, WRONG. Anyone would assume that ANYBODY that intends to spare the Reapers is indoctrinated and completely disregard the order, REGARDLESS of who they are. Shepard's credibility was shot to hell just from joining Cerberus. It's clear that the Commander's word can be broken quite easily based on how widely shuned Shepard was in ME2, and even mid-way through ME3. So, WRONG. They would disregard the order completely, since they are in a combat situation against an enemy that has shown no reason to be merciful. They wouldn't even give a second thought to who the hell you are - they would block you out completely, as any order to spare the Reapers would be considered tantimount to insanity.
Look at it this way - Shepard DOES NOT give any reason. None whatsoever. Ignores your requests. Or simply shuts off the comm without another responce. THEN what?

And for God sakes, did you NOT see that timeline? How is anyone supposed to trust the geth off the bat with a track record like that? And AGAIN, Tali never gave any reason to stand down. In the eyes of the Admirals, Tali is (a) a child that hasn't got a real grasp of warfare, and ( too emotionally invested in a geth, and © an Admiral only in title. NO real authority.
And AGAIN, wrong, because when Shepard talks to Gerrel and DOES give real reason to stop the attack, Gerrel STOPPS the attack. In the "quarians die" ending, only Tali ever speaks, and does so without giving any reason to.
I don't know why you are attacking Gerrel for not listening to Shepard when Gerrel DOES listen to Shepard and call off the attack. And that happens because Shepard GIVES A REASON TO STOP.

[silverexile17s]

robertthebard wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Robert

I don't think I understand.

"What did bioware change in the game due to that statement."

I don't think I understand what your talking about.

Ok, this was your little tantrum earlier:

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

I want to know what was changed when this writer posted that Sovereign was stronger than he was supposed to be in cutscenes(I believe that's what you said, not going back several pages to look though).  I mean, you are seriously ready to have a stroke over whether or not the guy said it, or maybe whether I believe he said it, or maybe that it's somehow important to the dialog, so I want to know what changed in the games because of it.  Did they edit out the ship names dialog you can have with the reporter if you don't punch her?  Did Hackett quit saying that the battle with Sovereign took everything they had, you know, things like that.  Because frankly, if the answer is nothing, what's the point of a) bringing it up, and holding your breath in the aisle at WalMart, stomping your feet and screaming until somebody tells you he said it?

Alright. First off, your snide comments do nothing to encourage a discussion, so check the attitude at the door if you plan to have a debate, since you are going off an a tangent just as bad as what you accuse him of doing. He responded that way because you refuse to acknowledge proven cannon as real, simply because it wasn't shown in-game, and that in-game isn't the be-all know-all you claim it to be, since even that CAN and HAS been retconned.

And the point was that he admitted that he portrayed Sovergien as more powerful then it was actually supposed to be. Just look at the differences in ME1 and ME3.
Sovergien = lasers on every limb, and zero vuneribility.
ME3 Reapers = single spine-mounted laser, and listed as vunerable to combined effort of several crusiers.
Sovergien was portrayed with too much power for a single Reaper. They toned it down for ME3. THAT'S the point.

[silverexile17s]

robertthebard wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Nope, not answering.

You tell me to leave my "personal attacks" behind then twice accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum.

Not conversing with you after that.

Right, so the correct answer is:  They didn't change anything.

Incorrect. Sovergien was displayed as having lasers on every limb, and sheilds that could not be broken by the entire Alliance fleet.
In ME3, this is CHANGED. Reapers are displayed as having a single spinal-mounted beam, and as being vunerable to a small fleet of crusiers, or combined dreadnought-crusier tactics. "The Battle of Palaven" Codex entry lists the turians taking down multiple Sovergien-class capital ships with clever tactics and fleet attacks. Hell, even the batarians were taking down Reapers.
See the difference between the current Reapers and Sovergien?
Sovergien was protrayed as invunerable and invincible. Modern Reapers are displayed as simply "hard to kill" and are no longer as invunerable as Sovergien was protrayed.
So, WRONG, there IS a drastic change in how they were protrayed.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Tali in ME1 says that the geth have killed anyone who tried to make contact with them. I posted where to find evidence of it earlier. I, nor she, ever said it was the COUNCIL who sent ambassadors. We don't know who these people are.

Even if it was the council, how does that break in-game lore? Tali's implication is that the council took no action AGAINST the geth. There's nothing lore-breaking about decades or even centuries later attempting to make peaceful contact. There's also nothing lore-breaking about not responding with force when those attempts fail. The council doesn't help when the geth outright attack human colonies, no rreason to say they would start a war over a lost ambassador.

Still no contradiction. As it is in game-lore actually AGREES with the novel.

As for the argument that the sovereign ret-con doesn't count because it wasn't said in game...what? You don't overrule the writing team on their own work.

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

Literally, you and remy both are THAT bad. It's absolutely ludicrous.

It's like you guys don't know when to agree to disagree to move on.  I extended you the common courtesy of still considering information I believe to be incorrect as true so that we can continue to debate and you still cry about it ad naseum.

You were given an answer on the assumption the story is correct.  So whatever misgivings I may have about the story is completely irrelevant to the discussion because I have answered the question assuming the story is correct.  

In other words, you worship headcannon?

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

AGAIN, WRONG. Anyone would assume that ANYBODY that intends to spare the Reapers is indoctrinated and completely disregard the order, REGARDLESS of who they are. Shepard's credibility was shot to hell just from joining Cerberus. It's clear that the Commander's word can be broken quite easily based on how widely shuned Shepard was in ME2, and even mid-way through ME3. So, WRONG. They would disregard the order completely, since they are in a combat situation against an enemy that has shown no reason to be merciful. They wouldn't even give a second thought to who the hell you are - they would block you out completely, as any order to spare the Reapers would be considered tantimount to insanity.
Look at it this way - Shepard DOES NOT give any reason. None whatsoever. Ignores your requests. Or simply shuts off the comm without another responce. THEN what?

And for God sakes, did you NOT see that timeline? How is anyone supposed to trust the geth off the bat with a track record like that? And AGAIN, Tali never gave any reason to stand down. In the eyes of the Admirals, Tali is (a) a child that hasn't got a real grasp of warfare, and ( too emotionally invested in a geth, and © an Admiral only in title. NO real authority.
And AGAIN, wrong, because when Shepard talks to Gerrel and DOES give real reason to stop the attack, Gerrel STOPPS the attack. In the "quarians die" ending, only Tali ever speaks, and does so without giving any reason to.
I don't know why you are attacking Gerrel for not listening to Shepard when Gerrel DOES listen to Shepard and call off the attack. And that happens because Shepard GIVES A REASON TO STOP.

So wait, after forging a Krogan, Turian and Salarian alliance and saving the Quarian's a** when they launched a stupid attack that would have wiped them from existence if not for my intervention, I am now suddenly indoctrinated.  LOL.  All you are doing is proving why I should choose the Geth.

Look dude.  I am Shepard.  I am the hero of this story not the Quarians.  I saved the Galaxy from Saren.  I defeated the Collectors.  I made peace between 3 races that everyone thought was impossible to do and I saved the Quarians from dying at the hands of the Geth after the Reaper Code.  If that is not enough for you to shut the f**k up and do what I say when I say it then I have no use for you.  I am going up against the Reapers.  I don't have time to deal with Gherel's stubborn bullsh*t.  Tali is with me bro, she speaks on my authority.  You fall in line or you die.

[remydat]

silverexile17s wrote...

In other words, you worship headcannon?

You were given an answer under the assumption that the story form ME Revelations was canon so no I don't worship head cannon.  Whatever my personal thoughts on what is canon and what isn't, I extended the common courtesy of accepeting that what you said was canon is canon for the purpose of discussion and then gave an answer.  You guys have ignored that answer for 3 or 4 pages so you can continue to b*tch and cry about something I basically have moved on from. 

Now I await your next response crying about this topic.

[silverexile17s]

robertthebard wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Tali in ME1 says that the geth have killed anyone who tried to make contact with them. I posted where to find evidence of it earlier. I, nor she, ever said it was the COUNCIL who sent ambassadors. We don't know who these people are.

Even if it was the council, how does that break in-game lore? Tali's implication is that the council took no action AGAINST the geth. There's nothing lore-breaking about decades or even centuries later attempting to make peaceful contact. There's also nothing lore-breaking about not responding with force when those attempts fail. The council doesn't help when the geth outright attack human colonies, no rreason to say they would start a war over a lost ambassador.

Still no contradiction. As it is in game-lore actually AGREES with the novel.

As for the argument that the sovereign ret-con doesn't count because it wasn't said in game...what? You don't overrule the writing team on their own work.

Writer: Yeah, that wasn't actually supposed to be like that, sorry. That's not right.
You: Where is it said in game?
Writer: Well...nowher, I'm telling you right now
You: Nope sorry, not said in game its not canon
Writer: It's my work...I'm telling you that that wasn't canon.
You: No, nuh uh, didn't see it in game it's not canon. You're wrong.
Writer: It's my work! I decide what's canon and whats not!
You: Nooope, not listening...
Writer: .....WTF??

Literally, you and remy both are THAT bad. It's absolutely ludicrous.

You know, it's really sad that you honestly believe that anything that says Mass Effect on it should be considered lore for the game.  Now, I have to have game review sites, Twitter, novels, comic books, fan fiction and who the hell knows what else to get a story from the game?  Of course, none of this addresses the fact that, as with Mr. Gaider writing stories in the DA universe, the ME novel writers should have indicated that some of the things they add would indeed conflict with game lore for the benefit of their story, and should not be taken as canon.

You are absolutely 100% correct.  Any work of fiction that has Mass Effect in the title, or any public medium that has somebody posting in it should supersede what ever lore is handed down in game.  It is not a game's responsibility to tell it's story, and if one doesn't buy the books/comics, then one should not be commenting on whether or not things happened in game, because w/out said books or comics, one has no way to know that that didn't happen in game, because it's mentioned in this book here.

WHAT? That's the ENTIRE POINT. Those books are licenced pieces of Mass Effect lore. The "sad" thing is that you are completely willing to disregard lore just because it doesn't agree with your preconceptions. That's literally the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The books and comics are licenced and offical pieces of the lore, with offical acknowledgements in the games. Paul Grayson's existance in-game, as well as Kahlee Sanders and Kai Leng, validate the events they were depicted in during the books: 
Anderson shot Leng in both legs: Mass Effect: Retribution.
Kahlee met David during his mission under Saren: Mass Effect: Revelation.
Cerberus attack on the quarians: Mass Effect: Ascencion.
Paul Grasyon being implanted with Reaper tech, which is templated for the Cerberus soldiers: Mass Effect: Retribution.
Kai Leng's existance: Mass Effect: Retribution.
Liara's recovery of Shepard's body and Feron's capture: Mass Effect: Redemption.
Aria's loss of Omega and General Oleg Petrovsky's existance: Mass Effect: Invasion.

All these things are created from events in the books and comics, and in the case of James Vega's mission against the Collectors, an animated movie. You CANNOT disregard the lore when it is CONFIRMED to be cannon. Anything that is non-cannon is pulled and retconned, which has only happened ONCE - Mass Effect: Deception, which is being confirmed for full rewrite and re-release, since that was written seperate from the game licence.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

AGAIN, WRONG. Anyone would assume that ANYBODY that intends to spare the Reapers is indoctrinated and completely disregard the order, REGARDLESS of who they are. Shepard's credibility was shot to hell just from joining Cerberus. It's clear that the Commander's word can be broken quite easily based on how widely shuned Shepard was in ME2, and even mid-way through ME3. So, WRONG. They would disregard the order completely, since they are in a combat situation against an enemy that has shown no reason to be merciful. They wouldn't even give a second thought to who the hell you are - they would block you out completely, as any order to spare the Reapers would be considered tantimount to insanity.
Look at it this way - Shepard DOES NOT give any reason. None whatsoever. Ignores your requests. Or simply shuts off the comm without another responce. THEN what?

And for God sakes, did you NOT see that timeline? How is anyone supposed to trust the geth off the bat with a track record like that? And AGAIN, Tali never gave any reason to stand down. In the eyes of the Admirals, Tali is (a) a child that hasn't got a real grasp of warfare, and ( too emotionally invested in a geth, and © an Admiral only in title. NO real authority.
And AGAIN, wrong, because when Shepard talks to Gerrel and DOES give real reason to stop the attack, Gerrel STOPPS the attack. In the "quarians die" ending, only Tali ever speaks, and does so without giving any reason to.
I don't know why you are attacking Gerrel for not listening to Shepard when Gerrel DOES listen to Shepard and call off the attack. And that happens because Shepard GIVES A REASON TO STOP.

So wait, after forging a Krogan, Turian and Salarian alliance and saving the Quarian's a** when they launched a stupid attack that would have wiped them from existence if not for my intervention, I am now suddenly indoctrinated.  LOL.  All you are doing is proving why I should choose the Geth.

Look dude.  I am Shepard.  I am the hero of this story not the Quarians.  I saved the Galaxy from Saren.  I defeated the Collectors.  I made peace between 3 races that everyone thought was impossible to do and I saved the Quarians from dying at the hands of the Geth after the Reaper Code.  If that is not enough for you to shut the f**k up and do what I say when I say it then I have no use for you.  I am going up against the Reapers.  I don't have time to deal with Gherel's stubborn bullsh*t.  Tali is with me bro, she speaks on my authority.  You fall in line or you die.

Wrong. The point is that REGARDLESS of your rep, anyone that suddenly yells, "Spare the Reapers" for no reason is going to be ignored - LOL, that is NOT a hard hurdle to get over.
And in Shepard's case, I AGAIN REMIND you that when the Commander speaks to Gerrel, he DOES offer reasons to listen, which Gerrel acknowledged. UNLIKE Tali, Shepard gave a reason to stand down.
Tali = limp "stop." No one in their right mind would listen to that while fighting an avowed enemy.
Shepard = real reason and explination for stopping. Actual cause to stand down now.
This ISN'T rocked science.
So, wrong. All you did was validate why you are prejudiced for the geth.

And being the "Hero of the Galaxy" didn't save you from cowtowing to the Catalyst's arbatrary choices, now did it? You still either gave up your morals, or lost everything.
"I am Shepard" is NOT valid reason. Being Shepard doesn't instantly translate as "I am the godsend that is always right." ME2 went out of the way to illistrate that exact thing is NOT true. Shepard is just as falible as any other human being.
And AGAIN, what the hell are you babbling about? Last I checked, Gerrel DID consider that enough when he stands down on Shepard's order. What are you yelping about there?
And AGAIN, Tali says NOTHING but "Break off your attack." No reasoning whatsoever. No mention of Shepard. No mention of geth stopping. NOTHING AT ALL.
And IDK if you realized it, but being Shepard wasn't enough for ANY OTHER RACE to get behind you. It wasn't good enough for Wrex/Wreve, who holds the entire war effort hostage for a genophage cure. It wasn't good enough for the Asari and Salarians, who need to see the Citadel attacked by Cerberus to take the war seriously. It wasn't enough for the turians to martch off to war with you right off the bat. It wasn't good enough for the Alliance when you told them about the Collectors. So again, stop with the Shepard Worship. And "fall in line or die?" Sounds like you fit right in with Cerberus, Mr. Ruthless Renagade.

[robertthebard]

silverexile17s wrote...

robertthebard wrote...

tevix wrote...

@Robert

Nope, not answering.

You tell me to leave my "personal attacks" behind then twice accuse me of throwing a temper tantrum.

Not conversing with you after that.

Right, so the correct answer is:  They didn't change anything.

Incorrect. Sovergien was displayed as having lasers on every limb, and sheilds that could not be broken by the entire Alliance fleet.
In ME3, this is CHANGED. Reapers are displayed as having a single spinal-mounted beam, and as being vunerable to a small fleet of crusiers, or combined dreadnought-crusier tactics. "The Battle of Palaven" Codex entry lists the turians taking down multiple Sovergien-class capital ships with clever tactics and fleet attacks. Hell, even the batarians were taking down Reapers.
See the difference between the current Reapers and Sovergien?
Sovergien was protrayed as invunerable and invincible. Modern Reapers are displayed as simply "hard to kill" and are no longer as invunerable as Sovergien was protrayed.
So, WRONG, there IS a drastic change in how they were protrayed.

Now see, this is how a discussion about in game things should be settled, with lore from the game.  Yes, I am aware of the codex entry, in fact, I just read it tonight after going to Menae.  There is no novel I have to go buy, there is no fansite I have to go to.  I can load up my last save, open the codex, and see the entry.  All the fluff to the discussion is moot.  The point that I've been trying to make, which seems to get under some people's skin, is that the game defines what is game lore, not a novel, not a writer on a website, even if it is BSN.  Bring me codex entries, or at least that they exist, and I can go find it myself in game, I have three saves that have gone all the way through the trilogy from beginning to end.  I can read anything that I'm that interested in knowing from the codex entries, instead of telling me that , if I want to know the real story to the game, I have to go buy some novels.

[silverexile17s]

remydat wrote...

silverexile17s wrote...

In other words, you worship headcannon?

You were given an answer under the assumption that the story form ME Revelations was canon so no I don't worship head cannon.  Whatever my personal thoughts on what is canon and what isn't, I extended the common courtesy of accepeting that what you said was canon is canon for the purpose of discussion and then gave an answer.  You guys have ignored that answer for 3 or 4 pages so you can continue to b*tch and cry about something I basically have moved on from. 

Now I await your next response crying about this topic.

Yet, you disregard in-game codex entries. And again, you are the one that refused to answer multiple questions, or the refutes that proved YOUR supposed answers as biased.
And stop with the condesending BS. You don't act like that unless you intend to have it returned to you. Besides, you yourself show innability to move on from the topic, so please don't call the kettle black. At least TRY to be civil.