Another ME3 thread, if I may...

Idsertian

Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
513
0
1
I promise this isn't about the endings, I think we've all had enough of that shit. No, this is, in fact, about something at the beginning. Something that's been bugging me for awhile now, but took me some time to catch.

When Shepard boards the Normandy, has his/her little chat with Anderson and the cutscene kicks in, we get to see a Reaper destroyer blow the crap out of a pair of shuttles and an innocent patch of ground (the ground has rights too you know!). What bothers me is this:

Why does the Reaper make two un-armed, clearly civilian targets a priority target over the obviously military ship hanging in the air right in front of it? Not to mention not taking a single shot at it. Thinking about it, none of the Reapers make any move toward the Normandy at all, despite being clearly depicted giving the rest of the Alliance fleet a damned good rodgering. Though I suppose that can be explained away in some part by the ship's stealth capabilities.

So if you would be so kind Escapists, could someone explain it to me without resorting to "because no story otherwise"?

tl;dr: Watch this:


Tell me why the Reaper doesn't blow up the Normandy, without resorting to "because no story otherwise".

Now I'm going to go watch some tv, peace.
 

tendaji

New member
Aug 15, 2008
378
0
0
Well the Reapers didn't want to destroy Shepard's body for the most part. Throughout the second game Harbringer continuously said to preserve Shepard's body, because he was a significant figurehead against the Reapers. So chances are they had something special in mind for the human who thwarted their efforts several times. That's just my guess.
 

skywolfblue

New member
Jul 17, 2011
1,514
0
0
Idsertian said:
Though I suppose that can be explained away in some part by the ship's stealth capabilities.
Probably that. Reapers are robots, so they're probably more dependent on sensors then on visible spectra (cool, that's actually a word!). So given the Normandy's stealth tech it probably appears like a non-interesting tiny radar blip to the reapers radar or whatever.

Alternatively, Reapers may have prior experience with how whiny and bratty some kids can be and felt that eliminating them first would be preferable. :p
 

DoPo

"You're not cleared for that."
Jan 30, 2012
8,665
0
0
I don't know, it seemed to me that the Reaper just lashed out at the closest moving thing. A bit like a cat. It was going on about its business destroying stuff just by shooting here and there and suddenly two spots moved from the area the Reaper watched. Pretty instinctive response to attack them immediately. Shepard was a bit further away than the two other vessels.

That's how it seemed to me, though.

And people only complained about the ending? Sheesh, the dialogue near the beginning came off so cheesy and... strange? Unnatural? I don't know how to call it. I just had to groan. Well, rant over. Just venting here.
 

Idsertian

Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
513
0
1
skywolfblue said:
Alternatively, Reapers may have prior experience with how whiny and bratty some kids can be and felt that eliminating them first would be preferable. :p
Made me lol.

DoPo said:
I don't know, it seemed to me that the Reaper just lashed out at the closest moving thing. A bit like a cat. It was going on about its business destroying stuff just by shooting here and there and suddenly two spots moved from the area the Reaper watched. Pretty instinctive response to attack them immediately. Shepard was a bit further away than the two other vessels.

That's how it seemed to me, though.

And people only complained about the ending? Sheesh, the dialogue near the beginning came off so cheesy and... strange? Unnatural? I don't know how to call it. I just had to groan. Well, rant over. Just venting here.
Could be, yeah, makes sense. Also, I do agree with you on some of the early dialogue of the game, it came off quite stilted in places.
 

Chairman Miaow

CBA to change avatar
Nov 18, 2009
2,093
0
0
DoPo said:
I don't know, it seemed to me that the Reaper just lashed out at the closest moving thing. A bit like a cat. It was going on about its business destroying stuff just by shooting here and there and suddenly two spots moved from the area the Reaper watched. Pretty instinctive response to attack them immediately. Shepard was a bit further away than the two other vessels.

That's how it seemed to me, though.

And people only complained about the ending? Sheesh, the dialogue near the beginning came off so cheesy and... strange? Unnatural? I don't know how to call it. I just had to groan. Well, rant over. Just venting here.
I completely agree with that rant, when I played the beginning, I was really worried about the game, because it was so bad. I especially didn't like the first conversation with Hackett. "Oh, BTW Shepard, we found a maguffin, go check it out."
 

Fieldy409_v1legacy

New member
Oct 9, 2008
2,686
0
0
Well prehaps the reaper just didnt give a fuck? It might not have considered the Normandy a threat because the humans are ants compared to them.

It takes a lot of firepower to hurt a reaper and they hadnt brought that against it so the reaper could shoot whatever it wanted without worrying. Plus its their job to genocide so its smarter to get the ones who are going to run away and hide as opposed to military targets that will come to you. Saves you having to chase after them later.
 

The_Waspman

New member
Sep 14, 2011
569
0
0
Because there wouldn't be a story otherwi... Oh, wait.

I understand where you're coming from, its just one of those tropes that we unfortunately have to accept. It happens in lots of media, its the 'good guy' equivolent of a villians monologue. People just standing around having a big exposition scene while all hell breaks loose around them.

Kinda proximal to the tutorial bit, where the Normandy will always conveniently show up as soon as you run out of ammo.

As for an in game reason..? I got nothing really. Unless you beleive the whole indoctrination theory, but thats not something we should go into here, right?
 

idarkphoenixi

New member
May 2, 2011
1,492
0
0
Idsertian said:
I promise this isn't about the endings, I think we've all had enough of that shit. No, this is, in fact, about something at the beginning. Something that's been bugging me for awhile now, but took me some time to catch.

When Shepard boards the Normandy, has his/her little chat with Anderson and the cutscene kicks in, we get to see a Reaper destroyer blow the crap out of a pair of shuttles and an innocent patch of ground (the ground has rights too you know!). What bothers me is this:

Why does the Reaper make two un-armed, clearly civilian targets a priority target over the obviously military ship hanging in the air right in front of it? Not to mention not taking a single shot at it. Thinking about it, none of the Reapers make any move toward the Normandy at all, despite being clearly depicted giving the rest of the Alliance fleet a damned good rodgering. Though I suppose that can be explained away in some part by the ship's stealth capabilities.

So if you would be so kind Escapists, could someone explain it to me without resorting to "because no story otherwise"?

Theres also some crap about it all being indoctrination I guess. So maybe the entire game was just a dream (or nightmare).
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
DoPo said:
I don't know, it seemed to me that the Reaper just lashed out at the closest moving thing. A bit like a cat. It was going on about its business destroying stuff just by shooting here and there and suddenly two spots moved from the area the Reaper watched. Pretty instinctive response to attack them immediately. Shepard was a bit further away than the two other vessels.

That's how it seemed to me, though.

And people only complained about the ending? Sheesh, the dialogue near the beginning came off so cheesy and... strange? Unnatural? I don't know how to call it. I just had to groan. Well, rant over. Just venting here.
Yeah, the beginning pissed me off.

"This war isn't about strategy or tactics, it's about survival. WE FIGHT OR WE DIE!"

Um... when faced with a stupidly powerful enemy, strategy and tactics are what you NEED in order to have a chance at winning, Shepard. And "We fight or we die"? Seriously? That line is beyond stupid. It's like if the Normandy ran out of food, Joker said "Shepard, we're out of food", and Shepard replies "WE EAT OR WE STARVE!" Just so... stupid.

And I didn't like Shepard going on auto-pilot when speaking. That really annoyed me.
 

gusenborge

New member
Nov 6, 2011
44
0
0
Ehh, since i dont know the hang of the spoiler thing in the message board im typing it out.

SPOILER ALERT GAD DAMMIT!







Anyhow, as far as i know Shepard has been indoctrinated since the first game but has been resisting it, the reapers are attempting to weaken his resolve and the way to do that is making him feel powerless(seing the ships being destroyed) and hopeless (When he lost the prothean VI on the asari homeworld)
 

JediMB

New member
Oct 25, 2008
3,094
0
0
The whole tutorial level in Vancouver does suffer a bit from "stupid drama", so to speak.

It feels like that the whole thing was there mostly for marketing purposes. (And we didn't even get our promised trial.)
 

MiloP

New member
Jan 23, 2009
441
0
0
I'm gonna go with the stealth capabilities thing too. Also explains why...

...none of the Reapers seem to notice the Normandy as it descends onto Earth during the last mission, even though it's clearly gonna fuck shit up.
 

idarkphoenixi

New member
May 2, 2011
1,492
0
0
gusenborge said:
Ehh, since i dont know the hang of the spoiler thing in the message board im typing it out.

SPOILER ALERT GAD DAMMIT!







Anyhow, as far as i know Shepard has been indoctrinated since the first game but has been resisting it, the reapers are attempting to weaken his resolve and the way to do that is making him feel powerless(seing the ships being destroyed) and hopeless (When he lost the prothean VI on the asari homeworld)
quick tutorial for you:

[*spoiler]post your spoiler crap here[*/spoiler]

remove the '*' and there ye go.
 

Idsertian

Member
Legacy
Apr 26, 2020
513
0
1
gusenborge said:
Anyhow, as far as i know Shepard has been indoctrinated since the first game but has been resisting it, the reapers are attempting to weaken his resolve and the way to do that is making him feel powerless(seing the ships being destroyed) and hopeless (When he lost the prothean VI on the asari homeworld)
The IT would explain it, chalk another one up to crazy fan theories I guess. Though it probably really is a case of drama > lore/making sense.

EDIT: Oh, can someone do me the kindness of either copy pasting here, or PM'img me, the contents of this article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116735-BioWare-Falsely-Advertised-Mass-Effect-3 ?

I've tried looking at Kotaku's article, the one here and the one on MCV and each time I get a blank page, or 1x1 GIF'd. It's like the internet doesn't want me to see it. Ta in advance.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
idarkphoenixi said:
Theres also some crap about it all being indoctrination I guess. So maybe the entire game was just a dream (or nightmare).
Coming soon: Mass Effect 3: No, we're serious this time.
 

Tanakh

New member
Jul 8, 2011
1,512
0
0
Idsertian said:
Oh, can someone do me the kindness of either copy pasting here, or PM'img me, the contents of this article: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116735-BioWare-Falsely-Advertised-Mass-Effect-3 ?
BioWare "Falsely Advertised" Mass Effect 3
Andy Chalk | 11 April 2012 10:56 am
461
image

The Better Business Bureau says that BioWare's promises for Mass Effect 3 do in fact constitute false advertising.

The brouhaha over the end of Mass Effect 3 is like nothing I've ever seen. Fans aren't just upset, they're seriously pissed off, and the staying power of their their nerd rage is almost beyond belief. Petitions and angry forum posts are par for the course, but an anger-fueled, $80,000 Child's Play drive? An FTC complaint? And in case that's not enough, now Majorie Stephens, the director of communications for the Better Business Bureau of Northern Indiana, has weighed in on the matter with an opinion that's certain to fan the flames even higher: All those complaints about false advertising are valid - technically speaking, anyway.

As Stephens explains on the Better Business Bureau blog, it comes down to a question of absolutes. The Mass Effect website promises, among other things, that "the decisions you make completely shape your experience and outcome," which as she notes does not leave a lot of room for interpretation. "There is no indecision in that statement. It is an absolute," she wrote. The problem is that based on the flood of virtually identical complaints, it's not actually true.

Stephens' proclamation carries no legal weight but it'll probably make a lot of aggrieved fans feel a little better about the whole thing, or at least give them some sense of validation. She also expressed hope that it might teach advertisers to take a little more care about promising the moon if they can't deliver. "The lesson to be learned here is companies should give careful consideration to how they word their advertisements," she continued. "Otherwise, there could be detrimental effects, especially in the era of social media and online forums."

"Detrimental effects" indeed. Even BioWare's late-to-the-game efforts to smooth the waters with the Mass Effect 3: Extended Cut DLC that will "clarify" the ending seems to have only made things worse, as fans who want a "better" ending say that mere clarification isn't nearly enough, while those who hoped BioWare would stick to its guns are disappointed that it gave in to the howling. In other words, we can expect this fight to carry on for awhile yet, probably at least until sometime this summer, when the Extended Cut DLC comes out.
 

floppylobster

New member
Oct 22, 2008
1,528
0
0
Idsertian said:
I promise this isn't about the endings, I think we've all had enough of that shit. No, this is, in fact, about something at the beginning. Something that's been bugging me for awhile now, but took me some time to catch.

When Shepard boards the Normandy, has his/her little chat with Anderson and the cutscene kicks in, we get to see a Reaper destroyer blow the crap out of a pair of shuttles and an innocent patch of ground (the ground has rights too you know!). What bothers me is this:

Why does the Reaper make two un-armed, clearly civilian targets a priority target over the obviously military ship hanging in the air right in front of it? Not to mention not taking a single shot at it. Thinking about it, none of the Reapers make any move toward the Normandy at all, despite being clearly depicted giving the rest of the Alliance fleet a damned good rodgering. Though I suppose that can be explained away in some part by the ship's stealth capabilities.

So if you would be so kind Escapists, could someone explain it to me without resorting to "because no story otherwise"?

tl;dr: Watch this:


Tell me why the Reaper doesn't blow up the Normandy, without resorting to "because no story otherwise".

Now I'm going to go watch some tv, peace.
If it's 'TL;DR' you offer a 4 minute video?! I think I can get through your 'wall of text' in 4 minutes thank you.

But as for your question (Spoilers ahead). I'm not sure it's ever established that they go for military targets. In fact I think the ending established they are going for the smartest beings in the galaxy. So we must assume that those on the shuttles are smarter than Shepard and that crew. And, if they're scientists, then most likely they were. And wasn't one of them the 'star child' from the ending? I would think that was a prime target. Is it even a war (as the humans constantly try to refer to it as?) Any way, the biggest surprise of the video you posted - Shepard's a dude!? Mind blown.