That doesn't seem to be the point of the statement. The point is to say that there is a technical means to defeat a technical enemy. They aren't the gods they proclaim to be.
Yup, agree with this. Never had a problem with that mind, if anything I quite like it for it's attempt at defiance when confronted with something so alien and powerful. A bit of bluster if you will.
That "bluster" makes Shepard look like an ignorant caveman who doesn't have a good grasp on the size of his club or the scale of his enemy, even though s/he clearly does.
For me?
When Javik recognised the Crucible. I didn't want the Crucible to be some last ditch project by the Protheans to defeat the Reapers. When, on Mars, Liara said 'The Protheans came close to defeating the Reapers', I practically did a spit take. The point of ME1 - the point of the cycles within the plot - is that the Reapers have pulled this off hundreds, maybe thousands of times. The Prothean cycle was normal - the Reapers took the Citadel, isolated everyone, and took their time crushing each system in turn. If a normal cycle can come 'close to defeating the Reapers' the Reapers would have failed sometime before now.
(Heck, if a normal cycle even manages to take down two or more Sovereigns, then the Reapers should be losing numbers as time goes on.)
So from Mars, I was expecting there to be something more to the Crucible. When Javik recognised it... It confirmed Liara's story. The Protheans had indeed been working on a device that had the potential to defeat the Reapers. And that disappointed me.
In the end, it turned out that there was a bit more to the Crucible than it appeared at first glance, but it still relegated our cycle's victory to blind dumb luck. The Catalyst mentions that the Crucible designs have only been around for the last several cycles. That means the only reason we even had a chance was because of the Prothean Ilos sacrifice AND the fact that our cycle happened after the Crucible plans had been developed but before the Reapers had managed to successfully wipe the plans out.
If I'd been writing it, I would have had the entire chance at victory descend from the events set in motion by the Prothean Ilos team. A chance at victory from self-sacrifice works better than a chance at victory from blind luck.
That "bluster" makes Shepard look like an ignorant caveman who doesn't have a good grasp on the size of his club or the scale of his enemy, even though s/he clearly does.
Shepard is stating that the Reapers have limitations themselves, and aren't the endless, limitless gods they make themselves out to be.
If it was as you say, Shepard would claim so. It's simplicity in the statement. It doesn't undermine the truth that the Reapers can be broken, if you want to level it in such simplistic terms. Which I don't think you do. I think most people with a problem with this line think it's too simple. It is, but it's also truthful. The Reapers are just machines, and they can be broken. You can do so on several occasions, including to the Reaper you're speaking too.
She never actually found the plans. She only found bits and pieces, clues really, that led to plans that are in the archives. She had access to the archives given to her by Hackett, but I would guess she never been in the archives until Shepard showed up. If she did find the plans, why didn't she forward them, or at least a copy, to Hackett so he and his team can look them over while she continues to find more information explaining what exactly this "weapon" does?
30 years. They had the archives 30 years, and now suddenly the weapon shows up. Hackett gave her access to see if she could make some sense of it. Super Mac had her standing around wondering at the archives. Apparently "Dr. Core" was also standing around wondering at it for a week as well. Everyone waiting for the reapers to arrive and for Shepard to show up so that The Illusive Man could give Shepard a lecture. What an ass pull of a plot.
Shepard is stating that the Reapers have limitations themselves, and aren't the endless, limitless gods they make themselves out to be.
If it was as you say, Shepard would claim so. It's simplicity in the statement. It doesn't undermine the truth that the Reapers can be broken, if you want to level it in such simplistic terms. Which I don't think you do. I think most people with a problem with this line think it's too simple. It is, but it's also truthful. The Reapers are just machines, and they can be broken. You can do so on several occasions, including to the Reaper you're speaking too.
Like this....
Shepard is stating that the Reapers have limitations themselves, and aren't the endless, limitless gods they make themselves out to be.
If it was as you say, Shepard would claim so. It's simplicity in the statement. It doesn't undermine the truth that the Reapers can be broken, if you want to level it in such simplistic terms. Which I don't think you do. I think most people with a problem with this line think it's too simple. It is, but it's also truthful. The Reapers are just machines, and they can be broken. You can do so on several occasions, including to the Reaper you're speaking too.
Eh. I get the intent about limitations. At that point, though, Shepard know absolutely nothing about the Reapers outside their immense size, their ability to control minds and persuade synthetics, and the fact that they successfully eliminate entire civilizations (like the vastly more advanced Protheans) every 50k years in the fashion flashed within Shepard's mind. It's still a seemingly-uninformed, moronic bit of chest-thumping that is in no way unavoidable.
At least Shepard has experience taking down Reapers to back up his bluster in ME3's renegade speech.
My problem is mostly with the "chest-thumping," rather than the literal meaning of the statement. I don't know what gallery Shepard's playing to -- surely Sovereign isn't going to be impressed by this.
Shep walked the walk to go with that chest-thumping talk though. Sovereign's dead.
My problem is mostly with the "chest-thumping," rather than the literal meaning of the statement. I don't know what gallery Shepard's playing to -- surely Sovereign isn't going to be impressed by this.
I don't think Sovereign would be impressed by anything.
To be fair though, Shepard chest-thumps at everyone who threatens him/her, or plays themselves up as being absurdly powerful. I mean ME2 is basically "Chest-Thump At TIM: The Game"
To be fair though, Shepard chest-thumps at everyone who threatens him/her, or plays themselves up as being absurdly powerful. I mean ME2 is basically "Chest-Thump At TIM: The Game"
Not for me it wasn't. I fully supported the man at his endeavors and methods.
Unfortunately, I couldn't beat my chest at Hackett and Anderscum.
I feel like we need an acronym to keep this straight. UTNABSNHAGAE? UTBSNHAGE?My Shepard is an Unfettered, True-neutral/amoral, byronic, semi-sociopathic nominal hero who's above good and evil. He's very much an end justifies the needs type person, who believes that he does what he has to do, with his own motivations to boot. To some extent, he is he who fights monsters. And come ME3, I'm no longer able to play him entirely like this.
I've said it before; Anderson always came across as "the guy who blows smoke up your ass" instead of "the guy who gets things done."Not for me it wasn't. I fully supported the man at his endeavors and methods.
Unfortunately, I couldn't beat my chest at Hackett and Anderscum.
I feel like we need an acronym to keep this straight. UTNABSNHAGAE? UTBSNHAGE?
I fed it into Word Unscrambler. Some of the more amusing output: SUNBATHE, NAUSEANT, SUBAGENT.
Actually SUBAGENT sounds quite cool. Or it did until I looked it up.
On topic, I found the giant Thresher Maw killing the Reaper kind of silly. Not so much that the fight happened, that was cool, just that the Reaper actually lost. The same type of Reaper that took like 6 volleys from the entire Quarian fleet to bring down, and it gets crushed by a giant worm.
...Okay, what's with the Anderson hate exactly?
Sycophancy, disdain thereof. The ME cast is, IMO, overpopulated with yes-men....Okay, what's with the Anderson hate exactly?
Sycophancy, disdain thereof. The ME cast is, IMO, overpopulated with yes-men.
The Shepard worship was a bit of the top outside of Citadel DLC.
The problem I had with the plot overall (Catalyst rant aside) isn't the plot itself, so much as the fandom's blatant literalism of it. Mass Effect 2 spawned multiple 10+ page threads of discussions on the morality of Cerberus and the choice of the Collector Base, because it was that thought provoking to weigh pragmatism vs. clean-cut morality.
But then come ME3 and suddenly people take the plot of the game at face value. Things that might have normally spawned multi-page discussions (especially the endings) always boiled down to "It doesn't matter if there's an implied alternative, that's not what the game shows me up-front!" as if the only interpretation that mattered was the one that came neatly wrapped for the player's consumption.
Doomsayers claiming the Galaxy was ruined in the original ending's Destroy because a Relay exploded, despite the fact the circumstances between that scene and Arrival were so VASTLY different. But all people saw was "Relay exploded, ergo, system annhilated." Or the claims that everyone starved to death despite conventional FTL clearly being an alternative mode of transportation, with people citing the game's fuel mechanic as a reason why.
So it's less that I questioned the plot so much as I questioned the fandom's ability to digest a plot that required people to actually stop and consider things. It forever boggles my mind that this was the same fandom who spent weeks dissecting and discussion ME2's plot. So I suppose it made me question the plot by proxy, or rather, question whether people could handle a plot where information wasn't hand-picked and prepared for you.
The problem I had with the plot overall (Catalyst rant aside) isn't the plot itself, so much as the fandom's blatant literalism of it. Mass Effect 2 spawned multiple 10+ page threads of discussions on the morality of Cerberus and the choice of the Collector Base, because it was that thought provoking to weigh pragmatism vs. clean-cut morality.
But then come ME3 and suddenly people take the plot of the game at face value. Things that might have normally spawned multi-page discussions (especially the endings) always boiled down to "It doesn't matter if there's an implied alternative, that's not what the game shows me up-front!" as if the only interpretation that mattered was the one that came neatly wrapped for the player's consumption.
Doomsayers claiming the Galaxy was ruined in the original ending's Destroy because a Relay exploded, despite the fact the circumstances between that scene and Arrival were so VASTLY different. But all people saw was "Relay exploded, ergo, system annhilated." Or the claims that everyone starved to death despite conventional FTL clearly being an alternative mode of transportation, with people citing the game's fuel mechanic as a reason why.
So it's less that I questioned the plot so much as I questioned the fandom's ability to digest a plot that required people to actually stop and consider things. It forever boggles my mind that this was the same fandom who spent weeks dissecting and discussion ME2's plot. So I suppose it made me question the plot by proxy, or rather, question whether people could handle a plot where information wasn't hand-picked and prepared for you.
To be fair, for about a year after release, just mentioning the words "Geth", "Quarians" or "Rannoch" could spawn tens of pages worth of bickering, name calling, and debate over the right choice at Rannoch. A little less so with the genophage as well. The endings however were rather lopsided in favor of destroy, at least on BSN. It didn't help that the people on BSN were the ones most likely to get ME3 close to launch and thus experienced the original ending and all the disappointment that entails.
And not everyone was saying that the relay explosion=arrival. And I would think citing the fuel limitations would be a good thing. It means that people paid attention to the series and were using established lore to back up their arguments vs. pure emotions and conjecture. But I think the main problem was that ME2 left a lot to be imagined, there was infinite potential for ME3. The endings of ME3 left little chance for a proper sequel, and with the ending such a disappointment, people didn't look towards the bright future, but the red/blue/green stained past.
There's far too many ass kissers in the series. Don't get me wrong, I like being appreciated like everyone else, but Bioware take it way over the top in Mass Effect.
Random salarian: Is that...Shepard? Oh my science, could you please please sign my dorsolateral dermal plica??
Shepard: Um...
Random quarian: Keelah! Shepard! Would you mind if I took a quick scan to get the biochemical makeup of your sweat?
Shepard: Oh what the f
Retour en haut
