162 réponses à ce sujet

[Stengahpolis]

Zhijn wrote...

I think some of you are missing the point of us who are saying its silly, or just me.

For one i dont think its silly if its brood'd into a ship's shell (that dosnt look human ofc!), it was the fact that the final fight was against a frickin giant human robot. =/

Blah!.

This.
While I think the reaper fetus looking like a giant human skeleton was a bit silly, I'm willing to accept that it only looked like that because it was in a very early stage of development.
However, having to fight it as the final boss was absolutely retarded.

[catelee2u]

I have mixed feelings. It was awesome as a finish to ME2 and had the wow factor for an end fight and a coolness factor of 11/10. Does it make sense though? Not sure....what would a giant terminator reaper do? I still like it though and wouldn't change a thing. The ending of ME2 is the most fun and best of any game IMO and I've played a lot of games.

Modifié par catelee2u, 21 février 2010 - 01:33 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

I didn't really like the human reaper. Honestly I had more of a challenge facing the Praetorians. they should've let the final boss battle simply be two praetorians guarding the injection tubes...

Plus I totally delivered the killing blow to my human reaper with a SMG. That's like, punching out Cthulu or something...

[anmiro]

at first, I thought it was lame. But, I started my own thread and after a lot of discussion I have come to accept it.



Here the link if anyone wants to check it out. http://social.biowar...75014/1#1275014

[Ulicus]

Talogrungi wrote...

In answer to the criticism of a human reaper looking silly, it's 100% reasonable to point to concept art that shows how a human reaper was to be incorporated into a traditonal reaper ship. If there was any evidence in the game that even hints that the human reaper was not supposed to be part of a larger ship, then I'd agree that in-game > concept. There isn't, so the concept art is the most definitive evidence available.

Someone may have already brought this up, but the concept art is specifically stated to have been one of the many designs for the human-reaper larva. It does not say, or even suggest, "This is what the human-reaper was going to look like by the end". At all.

"The countless designs for the Reaper-human larva [above and previous page] covered a full spectrum between Reaper and human forms.  Ultimately, a more human shape was chosen, albeit one that's only partially formed, and of distinctly Reaper construction".

I like the theory that the human-reaper we see in ME2 was to be incorporated/grow into a more Reaper-like ship design. It makes sense. But the concept art does not "[show] how a human reaper was to be incoporated into a traditional reaper ship". It shows a rejected concept for the human reaper.

[Vlainstrike]

Charlton Heston comments on Mass Effect 2: It's people! Soylent Reapers are made out of people... Listen to me Hatcher, you gotta tell em... Soylent Reapers are people!!!!!!!!

My thoughts: That base may be a horrifying symbol, but it is much more than a human smoothie machine [...] Although, brainfreeze is an oft accepted consequence to a good smoothie. (Awww, he went there..... too far man! too far!) 

Btw, to those that think it makes sense that the end product of a human smoothie machine should look like a human - 
Why don't chicken nuggets look like chickens? Why don't hamburgers look like cows?  Why isn't orange juice shaped like big freakin' oranges?

Modifié par Vlainstrike, 21 février 2010 - 02:42 .

[Talogrungi]

Ulicus wrote...

I like the theory that the human-reaper we see in ME2 was to be incorporated/grow into a more Reaper-like ship design. It makes sense. But the concept art does not "[show] how a human reaper was to be incoporated into a traditional reaper ship". It shows a rejected concept for the human reaper.

Not true. It's not stated that the diagram is a rejected concept art; there's no "accepted" image (in-game or out) that supercede it as an accurate diagram of a completed "human" Reaper and as you rightly say, the diagram just does make sense.

[Daxton212]

I thought it was great.  After the first Mass Effect all you knew about the Reapers was that they got their jollies off by destroying galactic civilization every couple of millennia.  Now, they have this dark motive to harvest all organic life in the galaxy in order to reproduce.  It’s always better when the bad guys have a motive that isn’t ‘alien beyond our understanding:alien:.’

[Vaenier]

I would have liked the more fetus like human reaper, so that it actually grows into a full normal reaper. the one they had looked more like it was half constructed, not grown.

Plus, who doesnt like to dropkick alien babies? [dead space ftw]

[BattleVisor]

lol No such word as affective

[RighteousRage]

aaniadyen wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

This thread can now benefit from the following concept art courtesy of Internet Kraken.

This is the finished Human reaper.

Uhhhh? It looks way more like a Prothean to me.

[Railstay]

aaniadyen wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

This thread can now benefit from the following concept art courtesy of Internet Kraken.

This is the finished Human reaper.

No it's not.  It's only one picture from the dozens that went into conceptualizing the Human-Reaper, and probably rejected.  It may not even be a Human-Reaper -- to me that looks pretty unhuman.  Sure the two eyesockets in front could be a human distinction, but how many races can you point out to be in Mass Effect that don't have eyes in front and a nose?  The elongated brain is definitely unhuman.

And I think the art director went on record saying that they had a bunch of different initial ideas for the Human-Reaper until they scrapped most of the concept art, because they were not satisfied with how non-human the first sketches were.  This is consistent with Thane's design too, which is probably the most heavily documented.  He went from looking like a bird, then to aquatic then finally reptilian.

What we see in ME2 is the definitive shape.  Also another hit against the "shell" theory:  What is the point of laser eyes if you're going to be hiding behind a cuttlefish ship?  You can't even use them.

[Railstay]

Talogrungi wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

I like the theory that the human-reaper we see in ME2 was to be incorporated/grow into a more Reaper-like ship design. It makes sense. But the concept art does not "[show] how a human reaper was to be incoporated into a traditional reaper ship". It shows a rejected concept for the human reaper.

Not true. It's not stated that the diagram is a rejected concept art; there's no "accepted" image (in-game or out) that supercede it as an accurate diagram of a completed "human" Reaper and as you rightly say, the diagram just does make sense.

You're conveniently omitting information in order to strengthen your case.  In the art book you're referring to, which holds the rejected concept art that you are championing as the "true" form of the Human-Reaper, has this quote which Ulicus mentioned:

The countless designs for the Reaper-human larva [above and previous page] covered a full spectrum between Reaper and human forms.  Ultimately, a more human shape was chosen, albeit one that's only partially formed, and of distinctly Reaper construction.

The next picture immediately following the sketch you keep using as evidence is a fully colored picture of the Human-Reaper we saw at the end of ME2.  This with the above statement clearly means the concept art you claim is the final basis was rejected, and the final product which was authorized to be a full color sketch, is the Human-Reaper form we see in ME2.

Modifié par Railstay, 21 février 2010 - 05:36 .

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

A giant human-shaped machine flying through space would be kinds of funny though. Would remind me of that Doctor Evil submarine

[Weskerr]

Railstay wrote...


But she doesn't use the term "like".  She says pretty bluntly that it's an embryo.

Like I said, the other theories don't make sense.  They're simply superfluous.  Why create a Human-Reaper form that serves as the "core" or "pilot"?  Why not just be the ship?  It's incredibly inefficient to waste resources to inhabit some inferior form that will control a superior shell.  Furthermore, why even bother creating this "core" in the likeness of a human?  What would the point be if all you end up being is part of a cuttlefish design anyway?  It's contradicting.  So they don't actually make new Reapers in their own image, because essentially they still look the same.  The origin or decision they arrived at to make cuttlefish-shaped ships would also be pointless as well.

We have to agree to disagree as they say. I just don't think EDI meant that the human Reaper is literally an embryo. She meant that the two have similarities. "An embryo in human terms" is what she said. Again, I think she's trying to explain to Shepard what he's looking at in terms he can understand, or at least to explain further what she meant by ...."in a very early stage of development."

[Weskerr]

double post

Modifié par Weskerr, 21 février 2010 - 09:38 .

[TheLostGenius]

Definitely not. It provided no further insight into Reaper's origin, technology or goals. It was made obvious in the first game that they hunt down every advanced species to exctinction, or they indoctrinate them.  Likely taking the best genetic aspects of the most advanced species and using them to advance their technology slowly over the aeons. Mordin suggests in dialogue that Humans are the most genetically evolved species of all the aliens.

[Zhijn]

*reads thru the replies**

But... you fought a giant human robot at the end!.

Cmon!.

Modifié par Zhijn, 21 février 2010 - 09:43 .

[Frotality]

K, i wanna know, what bunch of loonies keeps choosing 'affective'? for one, its not a word, and two, the poll results really doesnt represent the general consensus of the thread...how can that many people haved looked at that thing without so much as an awkward eyebrow raise? mroe importantly why are they not posting why they didnt? you do realize 'affective' means that it conveyed the twist to the player in a proper manner and tone right? not that it made you think about whether you liked it not for a week?

[Ulicus]

Zhijn wrote...

*reads thru the replies**

But... you fought a giant human robot at the end!.

Cmon!.

I know. It was awesome.

[Talogrungi]

Railstay wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

I like the theory that the human-reaper we see in ME2 was to be incorporated/grow into a more Reaper-like ship design. It makes sense. But the concept art does not "[show] how a human reaper was to be incoporated into a traditional reaper ship". It shows a rejected concept for the human reaper.

Not true. It's not stated that the diagram is a rejected concept art; there's no "accepted" image (in-game or out) that supercede it as an accurate diagram of a completed "human" Reaper and as you rightly say, the diagram just does make sense.

You're conveniently omitting information in order to strengthen your case.  In the art book you're referring to, which holds the rejected concept art that you are championing as the "true" form of the Human-Reaper, has this quote which Ulicus mentioned:

The countless designs for the Reaper-human larva [above and previous page] covered a full spectrum between Reaper and human forms.  Ultimately, a more human shape was chosen, albeit one that's only partially formed, and of distinctly Reaper construction.

The next picture immediately following the sketch you keep using as evidence is a fully colored picture of the Human-Reaper we saw at the end of ME2.  This with the above statement clearly means the concept art you claim is the final basis was rejected, and the final product which was authorized to be a full color sketch, is the Human-Reaper form we see in ME2.

And again, you're ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no in-game information relative to the "finished" shape of the human Reaper. It's not mentioned. It's not shown. The concept art is the only illustration of it.

So what you're actually doing is saying: "I have no evidence to prove my point, but yours is still wrong."

And unfortunately, proof (in the form of concept art) > no proof whatsoever.

Modifié par Talogrungi, 21 février 2010 - 10:10 .

[Ulicus]

Talogrungi wrote...

And again, you're ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no in-game information relative to the "finished" shape of the human Reaper. It's not mentioned. It's not shown. The concept art is the only illustration of it.

So what you're actually doing is saying: "I have no evidence to prove my point, but yours is still wrong."

And unfortunately, proof (in the form of concept art) > no proof whatsoever.

Proof? The concept art is specifically stated to be of the human reaper larva - not the human reaper's final form.  It is specifically stated to have been rejected in favour of the big metal skeleton.

It is not "the only illustration of [the human reaper's final form]" as you keep on insisting.

Might the human reaper have ended up looking similar to a "normal" Reaper ship in the end? Sure. I certainly hope so, since that makes the most sense to me. But the concept art is NOT proof.

Talogrungi wrote...

Not true. It's not stated that the diagram is a rejected concept art;

Reality doesn't care if you believe it. It is what it is. I gave you the quote. It is directly beneath the image you're pointing to as being the completed human reaper.

Lets go back to what I first objected to:

talogrungi wrote...
it's 100% reasonable to point to concept art that shows how a human reaper was to be incorporated into a traditonal reaper ship

It is certainly reasonable to point to the concept art and say, "Look, here's how it COULD  work" but it's utterly disingenuous to point to it and say, "this is what it WAS going to look like in the end" - which is what you have been doing - because it was a rejected concept for the embryo. The art book flat out says so.

If you want support for the idea that the human reaper was going to look similar to the other Reapers when it was finished, then point to the fact that all the Reapers look similar out in dark space at the end. That's enough to convince me... and it's certainly suggestive.

Modifié par Ulicus, 21 février 2010 - 10:54 .

[Schneidend]

Ulicus wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

*reads thru the replies**

But... you fought a giant human robot at the end!.

Cmon!.

I know. It was awesome.

You fought a not-so-giant turian robot at the end of the first game. How does that make even slightly more sense?

The human-reaper larva was fine. It just could have been harder or made to look a bit more alien, is all.

[Talogrungi]

Ulicus wrote...

Talogrungi wrote...

And again, you're ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no in-game information relative to the "finished" shape of the human Reaper. It's not mentioned. It's not shown. The concept art is the only illustration of it.

So what you're actually doing is saying: "I have no evidence to prove my point, but yours is still wrong."

And unfortunately, proof (in the form of concept art) > no proof whatsoever.

Proof? The concept art is specifically stated to be of the human reaper larva - not the human reaper's final form. It is specifically stated to have been rejected in favour of the big metal skeleton.

Might the human reaper have ended up looking similar to a "normal" Reaper ship in the end? Sure. I certainly hope so, since that makes the most sense to me. But there's no proof either way.

Talogrungi wrote...

Not true. It's not stated that the diagram is a rejected concept art;

Reality doesn't care if you believe it. It is what it is. I gave you the quote. It is directly beneath the image you're pointing to as proof.

Lets go back to what I first objected to:

talogrungi wrote...
it's 100% reasonable to point to concept art that shows how a human reaper was to be incorporated into a traditonal reaper ship

It is certainly reasonable to point to the concept art and say, "Look, here's how it COULD  work" but it's utterly disingenuous to point to it and say, "this is what it WAS going to look like in the end" - which is what you have been doing - because it was a rejected concept for the embryo. The art book flat out says so.

If you want support for the idea that the human reaper was going to look similar to the other Reapers when it was finished, then point to the fact that all the Reapers look similar out in dark space at the end. That's enough to convince me... but it's not proof.

Not yet, anyway.

I could argue that the text states that the rejected Reaper-human larva lllustrations are "above and on the previous page", while the picture posted is to the left, but that's debateable too I suppose.

Well, unless Bioware is planning on chipping into this debate, we'll just have to agree to disagree. The concept art is definitive enough for me. It looks like a Reaper; the shape of the Human Reaper is a recognisable element of it, and I don't think we're gonna get anything more definitive until ME3.

Modifié par Talogrungi, 21 février 2010 - 10:56 .

[Ulicus]

Schneidend wrote...

Ulicus wrote...

Zhijn wrote...

*reads thru the replies**

But... you fought a giant human robot at the end!.

Cmon!.

I know. It was awesome.

You fought a not-so-giant turian robot at the end of the first game. How does that make even slightly more sense?

The human-reaper larva was fine. It just could have been harder or made to look a bit more alien, is all.

I know. I said it was awesome. Did you see a [ / sarcasm ] where there wasn't one?

If so: there wasn't one.

It was silly, dumb, outrageous... and it was awesome.