82210 réponses à ce sujet

[JeffZero]

To me, it sounds kinda like what Hackett sounded like when he barked, "Commander Shepard!" right before the confrontation with the Catalyst after Shepard stopped replying. Hackett's VA sounds a bit off there to me somehow, mostly just with the pronunciation, and it reminds me quite eerily of "Miranda Shepard".

/salutes Big Boss

[ThomGau]

JeffZero wrote...

/salutes Big Boss

*Returns salute* and to kill two birds with one stone, picture time

Modifié par ThomGau, 08 juillet 2012 - 02:13 .

[JeffZero]

Oh, haha, excellent. I'd forgotten about the first-post picture tradition; been away a while. Quite good!

[flemm]

MisterJB wrote...
Not to mention the Inner Ring of the Citadel which suggests they know, or what least suspect, what Shepard did.

I think that fits the "they are studying this, trying to understand what happened" idea just as well, though.

Having said that, this is just a glimpse. And maybe not long after the events of ME3. So, one is free to imagine the situation evolving later on.

It's a very cool image. 

[CrutchCricket]

Regarding the slide, there is absolutely NO ONE who is simply going to say "oh look, the Reapers are helping rebuild now when they were intent on melting us or shoving dragon teeth up our asses earlier. Seems legit"
There will be caution. There might even still be fear. And there will be contingencies planned to the best of their abilities for what to do if the change of heart doesn't last. That being said I'm quite positive it has nothing to do with Shepard or the control entity. I doubt they even know there is a control entity and I don't think it would reveal itself as such.

On marriage names: I see all options as viable. Don't know what the choice would be but all would work. I agree that it may seem weird to take Shepard's name but only because we're used to Lawson and everyone calls Shepard by his last name.

Alternatively they might go under cover and choose an entirely different last name.

[o Ventus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

Regarding the slide, there is absolutely NO ONE who is simply going to say "oh look, the Reapers are helping rebuild now when they were intent on melting us or shoving dragon teeth up our asses earlier. Seems legit"
There will be caution. There might even still be fear. And there will be contingencies planned to the best of their abilities for what to do if the change of heart doesn't last. That being said I'm quite positive it has nothing to do with Shepard or the control entity. I doubt they even know there is a control entity and I don't think it would reveal itself as such.

It isn't exclusive to Control, either.

[CrutchCricket]

o Ventus wrote...
It isn't exclusive to Control, either.

Well in destroy they're all dead and in synthesis... yeah not touching that one.

[flemm]

Ieldra2 wrote...

*On the nature of the Catalyst and the Reapers, and why Synthesis is an attractive choice by me.
*The Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeedThe Truth: the Reapers want Shepard to succeed[/url] by JustinElenbaas

Short version: the Reapers are as much victims as servants of the cycle, they're enslaved by the Catalyst, and they're complicit in Shepard's success to some small degree, as much as their "indoctrination" allows them to be. That explains why Harbinger doesn't attack the Normandy.

Interesting reading, thanks.

What that line of thinking does, though, I think, is transfer that problem to the Catalyst and/or its designers. And then we need to find some reason to absolve them of their responsability as well. The second post you cite especially tries very hard to absolve everyone of responsibility.

By viewing the Reapers as as victims, their brutality can be excused and they can be "understood." The Reapers are not responsable because they are slaves. The Catalyst is not responsable, because it had not obtained a consciousness yet at the time it devised the "Reaper solution," this only occured once the cycle was in place. But, even when conscious, it was helpless to "change its programming" and alter the cycle itself. The designers are not responsable because they had no idea, when they designed the Catalyst, that it would find a solution as brutal and horrific as the Reapers, etc.

I may be missing something, or not summarizing part of it correctly. But I think this line of thinking tends to underline the problem rather than solve it. Once the Reapers become a practical scheme, they have to be understood the way any practical scheme would be, i.e. does it make sense? Is it the only/best solution?, etc. At which point the horror of what they do (repeatedly, for eons!) becomes impossible to excuse, so much so that one has to postulate that it was all a tragic accident, thereby robbing the whole concept of any power it might have had.

Modifié par flemm, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:53 .

[o Ventus]

CrutchCricket wrote...

o Ventus wrote...
It isn't exclusive to Control, either.

Well in destroy they're all dead and in synthesis... yeah not touching that one.

Peace and understanding for everybody!

It doesn't matter if they were slaughtering you wholesale not 5 minutes ago!

[CrutchCricket]

flemm, I think that whole line of reasoning that starts with "Reapers as victims" has robbed me of the power to keep my lunch down.

 

[o Ventus]

I won't lie, the OP in the 2nd thread there is REALLY reaching.

And it doesn't even remotely sound like Harbinger says "save us". It sounded more like "SRRRRRRRRHGNN USSSSS". You could interpret that to literally be anything.

Modifié par o Ventus, 08 juillet 2012 - 04:58 .

[flemm]

CrutchCricket wrote...

flemm, I think that whole line of reasoning that starts with "Reapers as victims" has robbed me of the power to keep my lunch down.

 

A thousand pardons for any nutrition my post may have cost you 

I was merely summarizing

[hot_heart]

In a way, I agree that while the slides are nice and all, I can't help feeling that a bit too much is being read into the Control one.

We all remember the Presidium Hospital image and getting excited about a Miranda statue when, apparently, the artist just borrowed an asset from elsewhere to shove into the picture.

Some of those pictures on the screen look familiar but I can't quite place them. With the amount of care put into some other stuff, I wouldn't be too surprised if an artist just stuck in some faintly-related images on the instruction to "Just make sure this one has something Reaper-related in it."

Modifié par hot_heart, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:14 .

[o Ventus]

hot_heart wrote...

We all remember the Presidium Hospital image and getting excited about a Miranda statue when, apparently, the artist just borrowed an asset from elsewhere to shove into the picture.

There's a Miranda statue in the hospital?

[jtav]

So what? Whatever reasoning BW had when they created the slide, the text is there now to be analyzed on its own merits. I don't care what they were thinking. The writers are now irrelevant.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

So what? Whatever reasoning BW had when they created the slide, the text is there now to be analyzed on its own merits. I don't care what they were thinking. The writers are now irrelevant.

@bold- Did you really say that? Legitimately?

[jtav]

Yes. Once the work is done, the author's interpretation is irrelevant. The work speaks for itself.

[o Ventus]

jtav wrote...

Yes. Once the work is done, the author's interpretation is irrelevant. The work speaks for itself.

If they are sending a particular message, then that is the message they are sending. Other interpretations are patently false on that basis alone.

If the author says X happened, but the audience's analysis concludes that Y happened, the audience is wrong in this case.

[flemm]

hot_heart wrote...
We all remember the Presidium Hospital image and getting excited about a Miranda statue when, apparently, the artist just borrowed an asset from elsewhere to shove into the picture.

That's focusing too much on the statue where that specific image is concerned, I think. The artist stated that he chose that asset more or less randomly, to illustrate how the area would look with a statue there, but the image as a whole is not random: the hospital setting, and the Lazarus-esque images probably correspond to Miranda (perhaps added as a reason to justify to statue after the asset had been chosen?). Hence it is still a very cool image.

Anyway, that's concept art, these images are from the game.

o Ventus wrote...
If the author says X happened, but the audience's analysis concludes that Y happened, the audience is wrong in this case.

Not so, generally speaking, for a whole variety of reasons.

Modifié par flemm, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:31 .

[JeffZero]

flemm would probably agree with me if I were to say that sometimes, a work literally fails to even stand, falls apart and we all collectively forget it ever happened. DS9's "Let He Who Is Without Sin..." for example.

[o Ventus]

flemm wrote...

Not so, for a whole variety of reasons.

If the person who wrote or otherwise developed the setting or story says something happened, it happened. If they say it happened in a specific way that is consistent with any visible hints shown, that's how it happened. The producer's voice always carries weight.

[Dr. Doctor]

Does the Catalyst's backstory remind anyone else of GO-TO from KOTOR 2? He was an AI designed to keep the Republic stable only come to the conclusion that it couldn't acheieve that goal and became a crime lord. In the KOTOR comics other GO-TO droids went rogue and conquered the planets that they were supposed to assist.

[flemm]

o Ventus wrote...
If the person who wrote or otherwise developed the setting or story says something happened, it happened. If they say it happened in a specific way that is consistent with any visible hints shown, that's how it happened. The producer's voice always carries weight.

That's not really how it works, for the most part.

The Extended Cut is actually a good example of this, in certain ways.

1) Original Endings released. Creators had a certain idea in mind, but it didn't come across. Had they left it at that, there would really be no way to determine whether the creator's "intent" had any value at all.

2) Not satisfied with the reception of their original idea, the creators try again (Extended Cut). Part of the point of this was to make certain interpretations impossible, yes, but that doesn't mean they weren't possible or valid before.

3) Now we have a new version, and creator "intent" doesn't really matter anymore, once again.

Something like that.

Modifié par flemm, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:41 .

[flemm]

A couple of relevant quotes to chew on:

A writer must learn to be silent when his work starts to speak.
-Neitzsche.
(sometimes translated differently, I think.)

All worthy work is open to interpretations the author did not intend. Art isn't your pet -- it's your kid. It grows up and talks back to you.
-Joss Whedon

Very relevant to Miranda, actually, I think

Modifié par flemm, 08 juillet 2012 - 05:40 .

[JeffZero]

...that's some daunting stuff!