I'd consider it an insult on behalf of the whole franchise if squadmates were so inconsequential that they can simply be replaced like that. Death should, and it seems like it does, carry weight.AgitatedLemon wrote...
So you're down 2 squadmates. With nothing to fill the wasted slots.
Tali in particular is an Engineer, and AFAIK, there isn't another Engineer type person to take her place.
Actually, now that I think about it...
No, that's just wishful thinking.
"I'll always want you in my life." Miranda Lawson in Mass Effect 3
Débuté par
jtav
, juin 13 2011 05:39
#27226
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 05:56
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
Retour en haut
#27227
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:00
AgitatedLemon
-
- Members
- 6 294 messages
Considering the ME2 characters (And Wrex) get replacements....
#27228
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:04
AgitatedLemon
-
- Members
- 6 294 messages
Because I'm feeling generous-
<3<3<3
I'm going to bed now.
<3<3<3
I'm going to bed now.
Modifié par AgitatedLemon, 17 janvier 2012 - 06:04 .
#27229
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:04
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
Such as?AgitatedLemon wrote...
Considering the ME2 characters (And Wrex) get replacements....
#27230
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:06
AgitatedLemon
-
- Members
- 6 294 messages
jreezy wrote...
Such as?AgitatedLemon wrote...
Considering the ME2 characters (And Wrex) get replacements....
Wrex --> Wreav
Mordin --> salarian scientist (Won't spoil his name)
Just to name a few.
#27231
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:09
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
Guest_Catch This Fade_*
-
- Guests
Wreav being a replacement makes sense.AgitatedLemon wrote...
jreezy wrote...
Such as?AgitatedLemon wrote...
Considering the ME2 characters (And Wrex) get replacements....
Wrex --> Wreav
Mordin --> salarian scientist (Won't spoil his name)
Just to name a few.
#27232
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 06:09
Skullheart
-
- Members
- 4 345 messages
Mmm... *spoiler*
If Miranda died, great part of her dialogue is taken by Oriana. She replaces Miranda in sanctuary.-
A Spectre replaces Kasumi's dialogue if she died. Talking about the info of the grey box.
A random Salarian scientist replace Mordin in Sur'kesh
as for the rest of the character, I haven't readed.*spoiler*
All the ME2 cast is expendable, but teh character from ME1 aren't. That what we learned with the leak.
If Miranda died, great part of her dialogue is taken by Oriana. She replaces Miranda in sanctuary.-
A Spectre replaces Kasumi's dialogue if she died. Talking about the info of the grey box.
A random Salarian scientist replace Mordin in Sur'kesh
as for the rest of the character, I haven't readed.*spoiler*
All the ME2 cast is expendable, but teh character from ME1 aren't. That what we learned with the leak.
#27233
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 08:50
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
Mmmm... I see the mood in here is as black as my coffee.
#27234
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 09:05
wright1978
-
- Members
- 8 116 messages
flemm wrote...
Well, I'm really curious about the look(s). I expect it will be a significant change.
Don't know about the hair. If they feel really good about their improvements in that area, might be longer. But short hair is a possibility as well.
Think they are more likely to have played with the outfit than significantly changed her hair imo. I certainly hope she still has long hair.
#27235
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 09:42
ThomGau
-
- Members
- 554 messages
I think/hope BW won't change her look much . You can't modify/improve something "perfect " .
Her outfit would still be sexy but not as sexualised as it was in ME2 . I'd like to see her wearing a civilian outfit, something non Cerberus-related at least .
Longer hair would be nice but the same length she has in ME2 is great as well . As long as they manage to animate it decently, I would be glad .
Her outfit would still be sexy but not as sexualised as it was in ME2 . I'd like to see her wearing a civilian outfit, something non Cerberus-related at least .
Longer hair would be nice but the same length she has in ME2 is great as well . As long as they manage to animate it decently, I would be glad .
Modifié par ThomGau, 17 janvier 2012 - 09:46 .
#27236
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 10:52
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 190 messages
@all:
This is part of my continuing debate with schemata about the question whether keeping the Collector base as such, without taking into account what TIM might do with it, is immoral. It is of tangential relevance to Miranda since her "betrayal" line at the Collector base appears to suggest exactly that, which is why I think it is out of character for her.
[quote]schemata wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
Oh my. This is getting ridicuously long. I'll try and keep my answers short. Basically, I challenge your statement that sentiment can be an indicator of moral truth. All it can be is functional with regard to the functioning of a human community. Details:[/quote]
My arguement was largerly for emotions. And yes we all have them and they operate in largely subtly ways, they aren't just the feelings you get when your super pissed, or are crying and are really sad. If we were soley rational, itd take us days to pick a ketchup bottle from the condiment aisle. We'd be reading labels, analyzing color and so on. But nope, emotions subtely kick in and we grab whatever and go. We are largely rational and emotional beings. This is my premise for the rest of the arguement.[/quote]
None of this proves that emotions can be indicative of moral truth - or, to avoid the question of whether moral truth actually exists - moral good. Which was your main justification for saying that keeping the CB is morally wrong. You were saying "keeping the CB *feels* wrong, so it *is* wrong". That we are all both emotional and rational creatures and that both faculties serve us well in different capacities provides no evidence that this is correct. As opposing evidence, I have mentioned instances where demagogues have used emotional manipulation to make people do evil, which leads to my stance that in moral matters, emotion untempered by reason is not to be trusted and certainly not an indicator of moral good.
[quote]Also, being both rational and emotional it is morally correct to destroy the collector base. That too, as that was the point, at one point.[/quote]
Since this is the point you were trying to make, you cannot use it as a premise.
[quote]I think your main point for the collector base is the following; whats done is done. Bad things happened but you can't do anything about that now. The CB, was a tool purposed by the collectors<reapers and can not have any moral judgement brought against it. Further destroying it your only losing potential knowledge that could aid you in the fight for the galaxy. Eff semantics, thats the gist, pretty much. I'll get to this as I work through the post.[/quote]
You summarized my viewpoint correctly. From this viewpoint, the only aspect with moral significance is what TIM might do with the base, and we have agreed to exclude that from our debate because it wasn't the point.
[quote]schemata wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote....
[...]in a situation where all intelligent life of the galaxy could be the price of a wrong decision, it is your moral obligation to use strategic reasoning in favor of passion, if you value all intelligent life in the galaxy more than the principle that a single life has no price.[/quote]
Not necessarly true, strategic reasoning is not always going to give the best outcome, sometimes the best decisions can be those in the moment, flares of perfect emotion and rationality coming together.[/quote]
(lengthy example snipped)
I have not disputed the (occasional and unreliable) power of inspiration. However, your example did not provide a *moral* decision. There also was no conflict between the rational and the emotional faculties. Survival was the only objective. Moral passions are especially problematic in decision-making because we are predisposed to follow them regardless of opposing evidence (I'll get to that in more detail below).
[quote]Whats this got to do with the CB? well it brings into question whether rational thought can provide the best outcome.[/quote]
Actually, no, that's not the question. The question is whether you are morally justified to throw away all chances of a strategic benefit in a war for the survival of all intelligent species in the galaxy just because keeping the CB "feels wrong" to you. You still have provided no convincing argument why you should be.
[quote][quote]No, that's not your belief if you act that way. Your belief is "the human life in front of you, the one you are making a decision about right now, is, always and unalterably, worth more consideration than any number of lives affected by your decision down the line". I would classify such an attitude as immoral on the principle of minimizing harm. [/quote]
You can classify it as minimizing harm, but you'd be wrong. Its not harm your minimizing, rather validating that the Collector base is immoral. Its a system. It was built with a specific purpose. To harvest human DNA, and possibly past civiliations DNA to begin building a new reaper. The losses incurred at this base were very large and as its a system built to do just that- harm. Well from our perspective anyway, turning us into DNA goo is bad.[/quote]
As a general statement, I say that if I value the single human life in front of me right now lower than the lives of a few billion human lives who might be be saved by my decision down the line, then I am making a decision based on the principle of minimizing harm. The harm I am responsible for anyway. What already happened cannot be laid at my feet as a consequence of my decision to keep the base. I am never morally responsible for what was already done and beyond my power to prevent. I am seriously confused why this principle appears to escape you. It's one of the core principles of any moral reasoning.
[quote]And are only possible tangible result from this, is possibly analyzing reaper data in time to help with a future war effort, or prevent a war all together.[/b][/quote]
Only? What's "only" about a chance for turning the tides of a war in which the price of defeat is the death of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? A chance you would throw away on a hunch?
[quote]Here is quote: "this loss, it seems, would be less important than the far reaching moral loss to the human race if the data were to be investigated." (real quote with words switched around, but its from a precedent in human history that ties to this exact arguement, hint it has to do ****s and there medical research. and whether we should use it because its already there, and the damage was done.)[/quote]
I know this quote, I have been aware of the parallel right from the start, and I very much disagree with the statement.
[quote]If we intergrate this knowledge from the collector base. the liquidfied dead become sciences martyrs, while the reapers become the tortures. If we win the War with the Reapers, It could be unquantifiably tied to the research done by the Reapers. Imagine where we would be then? We would have won the war, but at significant cost. A new precendent. That the Means justify the Ends. It'd be in the proof that the reaper technology, as gruesome as it was, and even though millions lost their lifes, it still saved us.[/quote]
So what's new in that? That possible benefits of technologies and scientific results are independent from the means that have been used to achieve them is reality. I'd rather have people acknowledge it than stick their head into the sand to deny it. The stance "No good can ever come from things which have been used for evil or gained by evil means" is delusional, one of those things so easy to see which our moral passions would make us deny (see above). It doesn't mean I'd promote such atrocities. It doesn't mean I'd not usually do my best to prevent them. It does, however, mean that a higher moral good - such as survival of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy - may sometimes come at a price. This, too, is reality. You may or may not agree about which ends justify which means, but there is no denying that sometimes, if you want a certain desirable end, you must take certain unpleasant means.
[quote]This would become our new moral fabric. A Galaxy TIM envisioned. That inhumane science can finally be justified if the Ends are great enough. Now imagine the far reaching affects of this. Ethics throughout the galaxy would crumble. As made obvious by the reaper invasion- if the research can have the ends large enough in scope, there is no amount of life suffering that could persuade those twisted enough to discard there new moral founding from performing expirements. There truly is an answer here.[/quote]
So why aren't we all N*zis - because I assure you, the results from their experiments have been used. It's (1) because we don't have a scenario every day where our collective survival is threatened, and (2) because atrocities remain, well, atrocious. Unsurprisingly, people as a rule don't want them. For necessary evil to be adopted, the necessity has to be demonstrated. Apocalyptic scenarios like this are always dreamed up by moral absolutists like you, but in fact we already live in a world where extreme situations have justified extreme measures, and it hasn't destroyed the moral fabric of our societies. People like to be deceived about this, but your vaunted spiritual purity (that's what came up in your earlier post) is inconsequential in the face of more tangible benefits, to say nothing about survival.
[quote]But para shep is the man. and as he traveled throughout the CB, watched the colonists on horizon become liquified, and destroy the sleeping embryo reaper, his neuron synapyse formed new connections. The experience and suffering were real to him.[/quote]
And you think Renegades have no empathy? If I may quote what you can say after you let the hostages die in ME1's "Bring Down the Sky": "I'll gladly let her face keep me awake at night if it means your family can live in safety".
Besides, if I may repeat: you are not responsible for the deaths caused by the Reapers. You may have empathy with the victims, but your moral obligation is to the living.
[quote]Shep Knows there are far reaching consquences. For some they see the base as the easy answer. From point A to point B. Tech that could aid in the coming war. But not para shep, he sees far into the future and knows he wont become the very thing he's trying to prevent. he wont compromise, not himself, and more importantly the moral fabric of the galaxy just to survive.[/quote]
I do not deny that Paragon Shepard is designed to think along those lines, and that Paragon Shepard's story touches those themes. I think, however, that stories like this are made to support our collective denial of the true nature of the universe, namely the fact that there is no necessary link between desirable means and desirable consequences, and that human morality is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things.
And I deny that Miranda ever thinks along the same lines. She's too pragmatic. Things like spiritual purity, the soul of the species and the moral fabric of the galaxy are likely meaningless terms to her, at the very least she'd consider them inconsequential in the face of survival. She's a practical woman. And you can thank fate that there are people like her around. We would long be extinct if we classified our collective survival as secondary.
This is part of my continuing debate with schemata about the question whether keeping the Collector base as such, without taking into account what TIM might do with it, is immoral. It is of tangential relevance to Miranda since her "betrayal" line at the Collector base appears to suggest exactly that, which is why I think it is out of character for her.
[quote]schemata wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote...
Oh my. This is getting ridicuously long. I'll try and keep my answers short. Basically, I challenge your statement that sentiment can be an indicator of moral truth. All it can be is functional with regard to the functioning of a human community. Details:[/quote]
My arguement was largerly for emotions. And yes we all have them and they operate in largely subtly ways, they aren't just the feelings you get when your super pissed, or are crying and are really sad. If we were soley rational, itd take us days to pick a ketchup bottle from the condiment aisle. We'd be reading labels, analyzing color and so on. But nope, emotions subtely kick in and we grab whatever and go. We are largely rational and emotional beings. This is my premise for the rest of the arguement.[/quote]
None of this proves that emotions can be indicative of moral truth - or, to avoid the question of whether moral truth actually exists - moral good. Which was your main justification for saying that keeping the CB is morally wrong. You were saying "keeping the CB *feels* wrong, so it *is* wrong". That we are all both emotional and rational creatures and that both faculties serve us well in different capacities provides no evidence that this is correct. As opposing evidence, I have mentioned instances where demagogues have used emotional manipulation to make people do evil, which leads to my stance that in moral matters, emotion untempered by reason is not to be trusted and certainly not an indicator of moral good.
[quote]Also, being both rational and emotional it is morally correct to destroy the collector base. That too, as that was the point, at one point.[/quote]
Since this is the point you were trying to make, you cannot use it as a premise.
[quote]I think your main point for the collector base is the following; whats done is done. Bad things happened but you can't do anything about that now. The CB, was a tool purposed by the collectors<reapers and can not have any moral judgement brought against it. Further destroying it your only losing potential knowledge that could aid you in the fight for the galaxy. Eff semantics, thats the gist, pretty much. I'll get to this as I work through the post.[/quote]
You summarized my viewpoint correctly. From this viewpoint, the only aspect with moral significance is what TIM might do with the base, and we have agreed to exclude that from our debate because it wasn't the point.
[quote]schemata wrote...
[quote]Ieldra2 wrote....
[...]in a situation where all intelligent life of the galaxy could be the price of a wrong decision, it is your moral obligation to use strategic reasoning in favor of passion, if you value all intelligent life in the galaxy more than the principle that a single life has no price.[/quote]
Not necessarly true, strategic reasoning is not always going to give the best outcome, sometimes the best decisions can be those in the moment, flares of perfect emotion and rationality coming together.[/quote]
(lengthy example snipped)
I have not disputed the (occasional and unreliable) power of inspiration. However, your example did not provide a *moral* decision. There also was no conflict between the rational and the emotional faculties. Survival was the only objective. Moral passions are especially problematic in decision-making because we are predisposed to follow them regardless of opposing evidence (I'll get to that in more detail below).
[quote]Whats this got to do with the CB? well it brings into question whether rational thought can provide the best outcome.[/quote]
Actually, no, that's not the question. The question is whether you are morally justified to throw away all chances of a strategic benefit in a war for the survival of all intelligent species in the galaxy just because keeping the CB "feels wrong" to you. You still have provided no convincing argument why you should be.
[quote][quote]No, that's not your belief if you act that way. Your belief is "the human life in front of you, the one you are making a decision about right now, is, always and unalterably, worth more consideration than any number of lives affected by your decision down the line". I would classify such an attitude as immoral on the principle of minimizing harm. [/quote]
You can classify it as minimizing harm, but you'd be wrong. Its not harm your minimizing, rather validating that the Collector base is immoral. Its a system. It was built with a specific purpose. To harvest human DNA, and possibly past civiliations DNA to begin building a new reaper. The losses incurred at this base were very large and as its a system built to do just that- harm. Well from our perspective anyway, turning us into DNA goo is bad.[/quote]
As a general statement, I say that if I value the single human life in front of me right now lower than the lives of a few billion human lives who might be be saved by my decision down the line, then I am making a decision based on the principle of minimizing harm. The harm I am responsible for anyway. What already happened cannot be laid at my feet as a consequence of my decision to keep the base. I am never morally responsible for what was already done and beyond my power to prevent. I am seriously confused why this principle appears to escape you. It's one of the core principles of any moral reasoning.
[quote]And are only possible tangible result from this, is possibly analyzing reaper data in time to help with a future war effort, or prevent a war all together.[/b][/quote]
Only? What's "only" about a chance for turning the tides of a war in which the price of defeat is the death of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy? A chance you would throw away on a hunch?
[quote]Here is quote: "this loss, it seems, would be less important than the far reaching moral loss to the human race if the data were to be investigated." (real quote with words switched around, but its from a precedent in human history that ties to this exact arguement, hint it has to do ****s and there medical research. and whether we should use it because its already there, and the damage was done.)[/quote]
I know this quote, I have been aware of the parallel right from the start, and I very much disagree with the statement.
[quote]If we intergrate this knowledge from the collector base. the liquidfied dead become sciences martyrs, while the reapers become the tortures. If we win the War with the Reapers, It could be unquantifiably tied to the research done by the Reapers. Imagine where we would be then? We would have won the war, but at significant cost. A new precendent. That the Means justify the Ends. It'd be in the proof that the reaper technology, as gruesome as it was, and even though millions lost their lifes, it still saved us.[/quote]
So what's new in that? That possible benefits of technologies and scientific results are independent from the means that have been used to achieve them is reality. I'd rather have people acknowledge it than stick their head into the sand to deny it. The stance "No good can ever come from things which have been used for evil or gained by evil means" is delusional, one of those things so easy to see which our moral passions would make us deny (see above). It doesn't mean I'd promote such atrocities. It doesn't mean I'd not usually do my best to prevent them. It does, however, mean that a higher moral good - such as survival of all intelligent organic life in the galaxy - may sometimes come at a price. This, too, is reality. You may or may not agree about which ends justify which means, but there is no denying that sometimes, if you want a certain desirable end, you must take certain unpleasant means.
[quote]This would become our new moral fabric. A Galaxy TIM envisioned. That inhumane science can finally be justified if the Ends are great enough. Now imagine the far reaching affects of this. Ethics throughout the galaxy would crumble. As made obvious by the reaper invasion- if the research can have the ends large enough in scope, there is no amount of life suffering that could persuade those twisted enough to discard there new moral founding from performing expirements. There truly is an answer here.[/quote]
So why aren't we all N*zis - because I assure you, the results from their experiments have been used. It's (1) because we don't have a scenario every day where our collective survival is threatened, and (2) because atrocities remain, well, atrocious. Unsurprisingly, people as a rule don't want them. For necessary evil to be adopted, the necessity has to be demonstrated. Apocalyptic scenarios like this are always dreamed up by moral absolutists like you, but in fact we already live in a world where extreme situations have justified extreme measures, and it hasn't destroyed the moral fabric of our societies. People like to be deceived about this, but your vaunted spiritual purity (that's what came up in your earlier post) is inconsequential in the face of more tangible benefits, to say nothing about survival.
[quote]But para shep is the man. and as he traveled throughout the CB, watched the colonists on horizon become liquified, and destroy the sleeping embryo reaper, his neuron synapyse formed new connections. The experience and suffering were real to him.[/quote]
And you think Renegades have no empathy? If I may quote what you can say after you let the hostages die in ME1's "Bring Down the Sky": "I'll gladly let her face keep me awake at night if it means your family can live in safety".
Besides, if I may repeat: you are not responsible for the deaths caused by the Reapers. You may have empathy with the victims, but your moral obligation is to the living.
[quote]Shep Knows there are far reaching consquences. For some they see the base as the easy answer. From point A to point B. Tech that could aid in the coming war. But not para shep, he sees far into the future and knows he wont become the very thing he's trying to prevent. he wont compromise, not himself, and more importantly the moral fabric of the galaxy just to survive.[/quote]
I do not deny that Paragon Shepard is designed to think along those lines, and that Paragon Shepard's story touches those themes. I think, however, that stories like this are made to support our collective denial of the true nature of the universe, namely the fact that there is no necessary link between desirable means and desirable consequences, and that human morality is inconsequential in the larger scheme of things.
And I deny that Miranda ever thinks along the same lines. She's too pragmatic. Things like spiritual purity, the soul of the species and the moral fabric of the galaxy are likely meaningless terms to her, at the very least she'd consider them inconsequential in the face of survival. She's a practical woman. And you can thank fate that there are people like her around. We would long be extinct if we classified our collective survival as secondary.
#27237
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 11:04
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 190 messages
Phew. After this stretch of writing I must post a Miranda picture:
#27238
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 11:52
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 190 messages
Her in-game appearance is far from that. They could, for instance, ensure that her face doesn't fall into the Uncanny Valley in certain lighting conditions.ThomGau wrote...
I think/hope BW won't change her look much . You can't modify/improve something "perfect " .
I like Miranda's hair and would dislike to see it changed. She can look good with shorter hair, as one of TruePrince's pieces of fan art demonstrates (embedded somewhere in the 1070s), but I find dark long hair hugely attractive. Animated hair would be a nice improvement.Her outfit would still be sexy but not as sexualised as it was in ME2 . I'd like to see her wearing a civilian outfit, something non Cerberus-related at least .
Longer hair would be nice but the same length she has in ME2 is great as well . As long as they manage to animate it decently, I would be glad .
As for the outfit, I hope they come up with something new and interesting. I wonder if they'll give her a somewhat ragged look, indication what she might have been through. Probably not though, since that would compromise her appearance at *early game spoiler location*, and I don't think they'll give her two outfits.
#27239
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 12:00
jtav
-
- Members
- 13 965 messages
She could plausibly look a little worse for wear there as well, considering what some of her lines imply.
#27240
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 12:03
Ieldra
-
- Members
- 25 190 messages
Am I weird when I say that would make her even more attractive to me? As long as she doesn't look haggard.jtav wrote...
She could plausibly look a little worse for wear there as well, considering what some of her lines imply.
#27241
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 12:10
jtav
-
- Members
- 13 965 messages
Not strange at all.
I just hope she does something awesome on screen. And I get more of the woman who liked Cerberus because they told her nothing was impossible.
I just hope she does something awesome on screen. And I get more of the woman who liked Cerberus because they told her nothing was impossible.
#27242
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 01:19
JosephDucreux
-
- Members
- 852 messages
Skullheart wrote...
Dont worry, I'll tell you what happens with the dextro team dead (and unloyal dextros alive in ME3).
Please, do tell.
#27243
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 01:27
JosephDucreux
-
- Members
- 852 messages
I'd rather have Miranda NOT be ruthless. Otherwise, she'd just be another project head of Akuze and Teltin, resorting to extreme measures to get results. I always like to think that she's smarter and better than that.
#27244
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 03:21
CrutchCricket
-
- Members
- 7 750 messages
JosephDucreux wrote...
I'd rather have Miranda NOT be ruthless. Otherwise, she'd just be another project head of Akuze and Teltin, resorting to extreme measures to get results. I always like to think that she's smarter and better than that.
She is smarter and better. She can get the job done without resorting to pointless cruelties. Torturing kids is so much more wasteful than not torturing kids. Being ruthless is about getting the job done at any cost (roughly speaking). That doesn't mean you don't go for the lowest bid.
Anyway I'll be posting some more screenshots tonight hopefully, when the shackles of employment no longer bind me. I pretty much know what all my choices are gonna be except for one. I'm not sure what to do with Kasumi's gray box. In the past I've been indifferent and there was an option that said "do it, it's what Keiji wants you to" so I took that every time. Now I'm wondering if it's worth keeping or if there are any other motivations Shepard might have. I don't mean to derail though, so if you have any thoughts feel free to PM or take it to the Kasumi thread. I plan on asking around there too but discussion amongst the regulars isn't quite as...robust over there.
#27245
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 03:22
CrutchCricket
-
- Members
- 7 750 messages
DP fail.
Modifié par CrutchCricket, 17 janvier 2012 - 03:22 .
#27246
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 03:27
Berg
-
- Members
- 157 messages
JosephDucreux wrote...
I'd rather have Miranda NOT be ruthless. Otherwise, she'd just be another project head of Akuze and Teltin, resorting to extreme measures to get results. I always like to think that she's smarter and better than that.
Ruthless does not mean being like the cells in Akuze or Teltin. That was ruthless, but also savage, cruel and stupid.
Miranda is ruthless, but was completely opposed to what happened to Jack. She is ruthless in the pursuit of noble causes, such as defeating teh repears. That is what I would like to see more of in ME3.
#27247
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 03:41
ThomGau
-
- Members
- 554 messages
Ieldra2 wrote...
Her in-game appearance is far from that. They could, for instance, ensure that her face doesn't fall into the Uncanny Valley in certain lighting conditions.
I was refering to her looks aside from the light glitch, which should be taken care of, for sure .
Given her current situation in ME3, they may make her look a bit worse, as if she was on the run . Hair not as tidy and maybe longer since she has no time to " go to the hairdresser " so to speak . Maybe less make-up as well but overall, something not too drastic . I don't want a " hagard " Miranda as you said, more of a " Nude " look .
Modifié par ThomGau, 17 janvier 2012 - 03:52 .
#27248
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 03:55
AgitatedLemon
-
- Members
- 6 294 messages
ThomGau wrote...
Ieldra2 wrote...
Her in-game appearance is far from that. They could, for instance, ensure that her face doesn't fall into the Uncanny Valley in certain lighting conditions.
I was refering to her looks aside from the light glitch, which should be taken care of, for sure .
Given her current situation in ME3, they may make her look a bit worse, as if she was on the run . Hair not as tidy and maybe longer since she has no time to " go to the hairdresser " so to speak . Maybe less make-up as well but overall, something not too drastic . I don't want a " hagard " Miranda as you said, more of a " Nude " look .
She doesn't need to look like an escaped convict.
She's gone from Cerberus, but she still has an enormous network of contacts.
#27249
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 04:01
ThomGau
-
- Members
- 554 messages
I didn't mean to be that extreme about her look Lemon, don't get me wrong, these are just speculations .
She may or may not have time to fully take care of her appearance .
In any case, I don't really mind, she'll be gorgous anyway
She may or may not have time to fully take care of her appearance .
In any case, I don't really mind, she'll be gorgous anyway
Modifié par ThomGau, 17 janvier 2012 - 04:03 .
#27250
Posté 17 janvier 2012 - 04:02
MASSEFFECTfanforlife101
-
- Members
- 8 311 messages
I just saw a picture of Yvonne Strahovski as a toddler. *out of vocabulary mode* She was SOOO cute my heart melted *squee* 
Oh boy, I was just out character there.
Oh boy, I was just out character there.
