162 réponses à ce sujet

[Ulicus]

I missed this:

Talogrungi wrote...

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

"I don't know what drugs you're on, but stay back and I won't shoot you."

It's not remotely debatable, you're just being obstinate. You realise that what you suggest would make the "completed human reaper  concept" the only concept in the entire book that is unlabelled? 

Dude. Seriously.

EDIT: Seriously. There's clutching at straws... and then there's suggesting that an 1/8th of a human-reaper concept being to the left of text describing the human-reaper concepts means it's not part of what the text's referring to.

Modifié par Ulicus, 21 février 2010 - 11:22 .

[Weskerr]

Frotality wrote...

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?

1st: "Affective" is a word.

2nd: I've said at least five times in various places that I would replace "Affective" with "Effective" if I had the option to. I do not have that option.

3rd: I said essentially the same thing as the above sentence in my first post of this thread.

4th: The poll isn't supposed to represent the consensus of the people who posted in this thread. Anyone can vote in the poll regardless of whether or not he or she read this thread.

5th: If I had really meant to use the meaning of the word "affective" then I would have been looking for how people emotionally reacted to the human Reaper. That was not what I was interested in. I meant to use the meaning of the word "effective" to find out if the human Reaper produced a strong, postive impression on players as related to Mass Effect's overall story and the Plot of Mass Effect 2.

Modifié par Weskerr, 21 février 2010 - 11:28 .

[Railstay]

Weskerr wrote...

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."

Well if Reapers create themselves in the likeness of the material species, wouldn't it only add to my own argument that it literally is an embryo?  Of course an embryo in human terms.  It's made in our likeness, so presumably the way it is built and grows will be in our likeness too.  She could have easily called it a larva instead of saying "human terms".  It's not like Shepard wouldn't have understood the analogy just because it wasn't related to human biology, but she said "embryo" quite specifically.

[Railstay]

Talogrungi wrote...

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.

Okay, really dude?

Honestly.

[Railstay]

double post

Modifié par Railstay, 22 février 2010 - 07:10 .

[Hodster]

I liked this twist

[BatarianBob]

The hints it gave about the Reaper's motives and goals was good.



It's appearance was ridiculous.

[ericeggers83]

Here are my thoughts.



1. If you played ME1(if you didn't then this part of the game would be very confusing indeed) then you know the Reapers have been around for millions of years and they comeback when civilizations reach their peak. We'll say that's roughly 50,000 years apart each time. 10,000,000/50,000 = 200 Reapers. Obviously they've been succesful each time and there's a lot of them.



2. In ME1 they tell you that the Reapers come back to wipeout civilization correct? Well why is that? You know they do it for a reason, but there never is a definitive answer so basically it kind of makes it mysterious. Personally I never thought it was just because it's the cool thing to do every 50,000 years.



3. Consider points 1 and 2 and lets move on to ME2. I'm not sure if it ever mentions it in ME1, but you find out that the Reapers aren't entirely machine and have organic components to them. Well at the end you see the Human Reaper in it's early stages(I pretty much assumed that it wasn't gonna be it's "final" form) and you find out that too complete it you pretty much have to wipe out the entire species of that race to do it. Well naturally all species have a form of reproducing or manufacturing(in the geth's case). This is "one" reason why they destroy all organic life because making just one Reaper has some pretty steep requirements.



4. Now I'm just guessing at this point. As is previously mentioned the Reapers are highly advanced cybernetic organisms SO the machine can't live without the organic component . Well the organic component will eventually need nutrients and other things the machine itself can't provide(think Robocop and the baby food). These guys can only "feed" on intelligent lifeforms so that's another big reason why they have to wait so long(hey who doesn't want to see the Varren Reaper) and since there's a lot of Reapers there has to be plenty to go around(i assume Sovereign knows just the time when we're soft and tender to use Hansel and Gretel terms). Anyway this doesn't really have to do with the Human Reaper just another reason why the Reaper's would destroy all organic life.

[Schneidend]

Ulicus wrote...

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.

Yeah...I'm not sure where I was going with including your post. I agree, the human-reaper was awesome, though I didn't really find it silly at all. The only way I would have taken the human-reaper more seriously would be if it looked like Unicron. Then I'd probably have crapped my pants.

"For a time, I considered sparing your wretched little Citadel space. But now, you shall witness...it's dismemberment!"

[Weskerr]

Railstay wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

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."

Well if Reapers create themselves in the likeness of the material species, wouldn't it only add to my own argument that it literally is an embryo?  Of course an embryo in human terms.  It's made in our likeness, so presumably the way it is built and grows will be in our likeness too.  She could have easily called it a larva instead of saying "human terms".  It's not like Shepard wouldn't have understood the analogy just because it wasn't related to human biology, but she said "embryo" quite specifically.

You have good points don't get me wrong. I don't think there's enough evidence to definitely prove either of us right or wrong. However, for the sake of continuing this discussion, I'd like to make another counter-argument.

If the Human Reaper is literally an embryo because humans are the main ingredient in its production, and all Reapers look like the species used to produce them, then why doesn't this embryo look like an embryo? To me, it looks like a human skeleton without legs, not an embryo inside the womb.

[mikeloeven]

actually i think it would be fun to have kept it alive and maby overwritten it's ai with a copy of edi than in me3 we could airdrop the giant reaper gundam of doom right into the middle of a merc base mua hahahahaha (evilgasm)



no but on a more serious note it was actually quite an interesting story line element that the repears are in fact the remnants of the races that were wiped out by them. i think this will make the big reaper invasion much more interesting and allow the graphics designers to creat more awsome looking ships when they ever get around to the actual reaper invasion

[Railstay]

Weskerr wrote...

Railstay wrote...

Weskerr wrote...

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."

Well if Reapers create themselves in the likeness of the material species, wouldn't it only add to my own argument that it literally is an embryo?  Of course an embryo in human terms.  It's made in our likeness, so presumably the way it is built and grows will be in our likeness too.  She could have easily called it a larva instead of saying "human terms".  It's not like Shepard wouldn't have understood the analogy just because it wasn't related to human biology, but she said "embryo" quite specifically.

You have good points don't get me wrong. I don't think there's enough evidence to definitely prove either of us right or wrong. However, for the sake of continuing this discussion, I'd like to make another counter-argument.

If the Human Reaper is literally an embryo because humans are the main ingredient in its production, and all Reapers look like the species used to produce them, then why doesn't this embryo look like an embryo? To me, it looks like a human skeleton without legs, not an embryo inside the womb.

http://upload.wikime...with_embryo.jpg
http://images2.wikia...Humanreaper.jpg

It looked pretty close to an embryo to me, especially since it lacked legs like the early stages of an embryo and simply had a spine with a vestigal tail.

Modifié par Railstay, 24 février 2010 - 08:25 .

[Weskerr]

Railstay wrote...



http://upload.wikime...with_embryo.jpg
http://images2.wikia...Humanreaper.jpg

It looked pretty close to an embryo to me, especially since it lacked legs like the early stages of an embryo and simply had a spine with a vestigal tail.

I apologize Railstay for not responding sooner. I thought this thread was dead so I haven't checked it

After looking at those two images that you provided, I can't say that I agree with you. The human Reaper has a lot of the same anatomical features of a fully formed skeleton. The embryo does not. For example, the Reaper has a rib cage, a spine, a fully formed skull and so on. In other words, its structural appearance looks like fully formed bone. Embryos have cartilage, not bone.

Modifié par Weskerr, 26 février 2010 - 08:17 .