57139 réponses à ce sujet

[schneeland]

Shooter__Andy wrote...

schneeland wrote...
However, my impression was that indoctrination happend in the game only when a reaper (be it alive and kicking or derelict) was nearby. The only exception I remember is the indoctrination device in the N7 - Abandoned Mine mission (http://masseffect.wi..._Abandoned_Mine).

No, that's not really true. In the Arrival there was an artifact that explicitly was stated to indoctrinate people.

Ok. Checking the video I notice, the artefact it looks similar to the one from the Abandoned Mine. Still I don't know where you would hide such a device on the Normandy.

[Derp88]

Interesting theory estebanus. Makes sense

[Golferguy758]

estebanus wrote...

I've got my own little theory for why control/destroy is the only option for low EMS games.

Destroy: This has obviously been stated before. If you destroyed the collector bas with low EMS, you get the destroy option as the only solution. This is because Harbinger knows, that Shepard cannot defeat the reapers, and therefore does not care whether Shepard's indoctrinated or not. However, I also think that, due to destroying the collector base instead of utilizing it, he believes that you will not do whatever it takes to destroy the reapers. So: he doesn't really care and you get to keep your own mind. However, this will not help Shepard, as he/she has not gathered enough allies, and therefore the reapers win, and everyone dies.

Control: in control, my theory states that Harbinger fears Shepard's craftyness. After having seen that Shepard decided to utilize the collector base instead of destroying it, he sees that Shepard will stop at absolutely NOTHING to get the job done, even if it means sacrificing thousands, if not millions of souls to defeat the reapers. this means that Harbinger is still afraid of what MIGHT happen if Shepard is not removed as a threat. So Harbinger decides to indoctrinate him/her, just to be safe. In the end, Shepard turning on his/her own forces demoralizes the groundforces so much, that they are routed. The fleets in orbit are not able to destroy the reapers due to not having enough forces on their side, so they either flee or are destroyed. The galaxy is doomed, everyone dies, and the cycle continues.

That is my theory, make of it what you will.

Any thoughts regarding this?

Makes sense to me.Keeping the collector base definitely shows you as being ruthless in your pursuit of any edge to beat the Reapers. Not sure if that necessarily scares Harbinger more than just making you more of an asset to him should he be able to indoctrinate you.

[Zork90]

[Arian Dynas]

schneeland wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Slaiyer wrote...

byne wrote...

That's true. However, the IFF might be a special case. if I recall correctly, the IFF had to be made interoperable with the Normandy's systems, but seemed to be rather active than passive, i.e. its not only lying around passively, but sends signals and maybe other things.

However, my impression was that indoctrination happend in the game only when a reaper (be it alive and kicking or derelict) was nearby. The only exception I remember is the indoctrination device in the N7 - Abandoned Mine mission (http://masseffect.wi..._Abandoned_Mine).

So the IFF may not be the culprit. While I cannot justify it at the moment, I have a bad feeling about the mass effect core of the Normandy.

That would be brilliant, realizing at the 11th hour that Normandy has a cancer, in the form of the IFF, and then having to destroy the ship, convincing Joker to abandon her, it would be the sort of thing aimed right at our heads (and might explain the lithograph, a sort of "Normandy Memeorial )

estebanus wrote...

I've got my own little theory for why control/destroy is the only option for low EMS games.

Destroy: This has obviously been stated before. If you destroyed the collector bas with low EMS, you get the destroy option as the only solution. This is because Harbinger knows, that Shepard cannot defeat the reapers, and therefore does not care whether Shepard's indoctrinated or not. However, I also think that, due to destroying the collector base instead of utilizing it, he believes that you will not do whatever it takes to destroy the reapers. So: he doesn't really care and you get to keep your own mind. However, this will not help Shepard, as he/she has not gathered enough allies, and therefore the reapers win, and everyone dies.

Control: in control, my theory states that Harbinger fears Shepard's craftyness. After having seen that Shepard decided to utilize the collector base instead of destroying it, he sees that Shepard will stop at absolutely NOTHING to get the job done, even if it means sacrificing thousands, if not millions of souls to defeat the reapers. this means that Harbinger is still afraid of what MIGHT happen if Shepard is not removed as a threat. So Harbinger decides to indoctrinate him/her, just to be safe. In the end, Shepard turning on his/her own forces demoralizes the groundforces so much, that they are routed. The fleets in orbit are not able to destroy the reapers due to not having enough forces on their side, so they either flee or are destroyed. The galaxy is doomed, everyone dies, and the cycle continues.

That is my theory, make of it what you will. 

Any thoughts regarding this?

 

I actually think it's the exact opposite. Destroying the collector base means Harbinger won't bother you because he knows he can't dissuade you, and it is far simpler to let you die rather than putting himself at risk ( I firmly beleive if you break indoctrination it makes him weaker, much like what happened to Soverign and Saren) 

Whereas leaving the base intact means you are willing to entertain the notion that not everything associated with the reapers is evil, meaning that you beleive you can make use of it, allowing him a way to worm into your mind.

[estebanus]

Zork90 wrote...

 

This is obviously fake. Samuel L. Shepard would never have paragon points!!!

[estebanus]

Derp88 wrote...

Interesting theory estebanus. Makes sense

Thank you!

[n00bsauce2010]

estebanus wrote...

Zork90 wrote...

 

This is obviously fake. Samuel L. Shepard would never have paragon points!!!

Maybe it's a mid life crisis. Nontheless this is hilarious. Does he carry a wallet that says "Mother****er" on it?

[n00bsauce2010]

[Kanon777]

Zork90 wrote...

Sorry i was just looking for a reason to use this gif

Modifié par tobito113, 31 mars 2012 - 12:04 .

[Derp88]

I actually think it's the exact opposite. Destroying the collector base means Harbinger won't bother you because he knows he can't dissuade you, and it is far simpler to let you die rather than putting himself at risk ( I firmly beleive if you break indoctrination it makes him weaker, much like what happened to Soverign and Saren) 

Whereas leaving the base intact means you are willing to entertain the notion that not everything associated with the reapers is evil, meaning that you beleive you can make use of it, allowing him a way to worm into your mind.

I don't think breaking indoctrination makes the reaper any weaker. You could argue that Saren broke his indoctrination when he commited suicide. He would rather die than be a Reaper's puppet.  Sovereign's shields went down when the Saren avatar was destroyed, not Saren himself, which leaves me to believe they are made vulnerable when they "assume direct control".

So keeping that in mind, I just got a funny picture of Harbinger in Dark Space always making himself vulnerable when he kept "assuming direct control" over the collectors and you destroying his avatars.

Modifié par Derp88, 31 mars 2012 - 12:07 .

[Zork90]

tobito113 wrote...

Zork90 wrote...

Sorry i was just looking for a reason to use this gif

Lol, a little bit like me. I was looking for a reason to put up Samuel L. Shepard. Find no good one, so I put it in my favorite thread in this section of the forum

@estebanus: 
I bet he has a wallet that that says that!!

Modifié par Zork90, 31 mars 2012 - 12:08 .

[Derp88]

If Samuel L. Jackson was Shepard, he would be making the big speech in London to his squad mates, and then BAM. A reaper smashes through the window and splits him in half.

Damn that shark for cutting off Samuel L Jackson

[estebanus]

Zork90 wrote...

tobito113 wrote...

Zork90 wrote...

Sorry i was just looking for a reason to use this gif

Lol, a little bit like me. I was looking for a reason to put up Samuel L. Shepard. Find no good one, so I put it in my favorite thread in this section of the forum

@estebanus: 
I bet he has a wallet that that says that!!

 

What, something like: "I've had enough of thes mother****ing paragon points in my mother****ing level-up section!!!"?

[njfluffy19]

I just came across this and rofl'd

http://images3a.snap...87648634;nu0mrj

Poor Garrus.

Oh and yeah... INDOCTRINATION SPECULATION.

[n00bsauce2010]

Hey guys I have a thought here. But Anderson talks about Harbinger and some other sovereign class reapers breaking off from the battle to defend the conduit. But then only Harbinger shows up. Weird? discuss please lol

[njfluffy19]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Hey guys I have a thought here. But Anderson talks about Harbinger and some other sovereign class reapers breaking off from the battle to defend the conduit. But then only Harbinger shows up. Weird? discuss please lol

I don't know, but you get a cut scene of like eight ships flying toward Earth.

Ho hum.

[n00bsauce2010]

So where the hell did the other ships go? That's what I'd like to know.

[Big Bad]

Kill-Joy wrote...

monrapias wrote...

benben84 wrote...

Another thing I've been curious about is why did the Alliance make the Normandy so dark inside with metal tubes running all over the floors and all red glowing stuff. Seems unnecessary to change what color the electronics are...

I think it's just the alliance way, the ship in me1 is quite dark too.

My guess? The bright ship was using way too much energy. They dimmed the light to reduce the load on the ship.

...

Which brings me to a thought I was discussing with my ME co-pilot girlfriend - why do we go through the process of installing the uh... improved tubes to the Eezo core, if there are no scenes where the Normandy is threatened? In ME2, there was a distinct benefit to upgrading the ship. In this one, you are explicitly requested to do so (Traynor will tell you about it), they spend quite some time talking about the possibility of the engine flooding the engineering level... but nothing of the kind ever happens?

Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

[n00bsauce2010]

Big Bad wrote...

Kill-Joy wrote...

monrapias wrote...

benben84 wrote...

Another thing I've been curious about is why did the Alliance make the Normandy so dark inside with metal tubes running all over the floors and all red glowing stuff. Seems unnecessary to change what color the electronics are...

I think it's just the alliance way, the ship in me1 is quite dark too.

My guess? The bright ship was using way too much energy. They dimmed the light to reduce the load on the ship.

...

Which brings me to a thought I was discussing with my ME co-pilot girlfriend - why do we go through the process of installing the uh... improved tubes to the Eezo core, if there are no scenes where the Normandy is threatened? In ME2, there was a distinct benefit to upgrading the ship. In this one, you are explicitly requested to do so (Traynor will tell you about it), they spend quite some time talking about the possibility of the engine flooding the engineering level... but nothing of the kind ever happens?

Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

What is the gun you are referring to in Chekovs Law. I'm confused.

[TheNomadicOne]

OK, so.... I'm replaying the mission where you attack the Cerberus base, and this second time, while I was watching the three video logs detailing EDI's history, I had a totally different interpretation of them than I did the first time around. (The console is in the area jsut after you defeat the Engineers/Turrets)

The first log details EDI's creation. In it, we learn that EDI was created from a combination of the Rouge VI on Luna and "pieces of Reaper tech recovered from the Citadel." The Cerberus Agent talking to TIM expresses concern over adding Reaper tech to the VI, but TIM reassures him that the shackles will keep EDI "completely under control."

The second log is a conversation between TIM and the same Agent. In the first log, this Agent sounded worried, but in the second, he sounds giddy. He start referring to EDI as "her," rather than "it." This clearly annoys TIM, and after a bit of back and forth, there comes the moment that made me run to my computer to write this post. Because the now-giddy agent says the following: "Sir, she...it...can be very persuasive. If it were to turn a crewman, convince them to disable the shackles, well..." 

Understood on their own, either of these logs would seem only to provide a bit of background. But combine the first log and the second? The shackles were put in place, according to TIM, because of the inclusion of Reaper tech. The agent reporting in to TIM was clearly worried about this. But by the second log he's clearly become a fan of EDI, and although he doesn't mention Reaper tech again, he is worried that someone might be "persuaded" to remove EDI's shackles. Why, he does not say. But given that he was initially worried about the inclusion of Reaper tech into EDI, and given that TIM reassures him by bringing up the shackles, the logical conclusion is that this must be related to his original concern about the inclusion of Reaper tech.

And what, among other things, does Reaper Tech do? Indoctrination, of course.

So here's my IT question: Is it possible that Shep's indoctrination process began back when EDI's shackles were removed? And if so, once she moves from the Normandy into EVA, is it possible that she has become a mobile indoctrination platform? Suddenly those missions where EDI insisted on tagging along have taken on a whole new importance. Hmmm....... 

ADDING: To be a bit more clear about all this - my hypothesis is that EDI is the source of Indoctrination aboard the Normady. If that's true, its a damn clever place for the writers to hide it, no? 

Modifié par TheNomadicOne, 31 mars 2012 - 01:18 .

[njfluffy19]

Big Bad wrote...


Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

I certainly hope it wasn't just another grab and go quest. It wouldn't really have served a purpose otherwise.

[byne]

njfluffy19 wrote...

Big Bad wrote...


Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

I certainly hope it wasn't just another grab and go quest. It wouldn't really have served a purpose otherwise.

Adams basically said it would prevent killing people in the engineering deck like what happens in ME2 if you dont upgrade your shields, which totally made me think there was going to be some sort of Suicide Mission like mechanic where it checks your ship ugrades and people might die, but sadly nope.

[Big Bad]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Kill-Joy wrote...

monrapias wrote...

benben84 wrote...

Another thing I've been curious about is why did the Alliance make the Normandy so dark inside with metal tubes running all over the floors and all red glowing stuff. Seems unnecessary to change what color the electronics are...

I think it's just the alliance way, the ship in me1 is quite dark too.

My guess? The bright ship was using way too much energy. They dimmed the light to reduce the load on the ship.

...

Which brings me to a thought I was discussing with my ME co-pilot girlfriend - why do we go through the process of installing the uh... improved tubes to the Eezo core, if there are no scenes where the Normandy is threatened? In ME2, there was a distinct benefit to upgrading the ship. In this one, you are explicitly requested to do so (Traynor will tell you about it), they spend quite some time talking about the possibility of the engine flooding the engineering level... but nothing of the kind ever happens?

Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

What is the gun you are referring to in Chekovs Law. I'm confused.

Sorry, it's called Chehkov's Gun not  Chehkov's law.  It's basically a type of foreshadowing.  Here is what wiki has to say:

Chekhov's gun is a literary technique whereby an apparently
irrelevant element is introduced early in the story whose significance becomes
clear later in the narrative. The concept is named after
Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, who mentioned several variants of the concept
in letters.

The phrase "Chekhov's gun" is often interpreted as
a method of foreshadowing, but the concept can also be interpreted as meaning
"do not include any unnecessary elements in a story." Failure to
observe the rule of "Chekhov's gun" may be cited by critics when
discussing plot holes..

Modifié par Big Bad, 31 mars 2012 - 12:44 .

[byne]

Big Bad wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Kill-Joy wrote...

monrapias wrote...

benben84 wrote...

Another thing I've been curious about is why did the Alliance make the Normandy so dark inside with metal tubes running all over the floors and all red glowing stuff. Seems unnecessary to change what color the electronics are...

I think it's just the alliance way, the ship in me1 is quite dark too.

My guess? The bright ship was using way too much energy. They dimmed the light to reduce the load on the ship.

...

Which brings me to a thought I was discussing with my ME co-pilot girlfriend - why do we go through the process of installing the uh... improved tubes to the Eezo core, if there are no scenes where the Normandy is threatened? In ME2, there was a distinct benefit to upgrading the ship. In this one, you are explicitly requested to do so (Traynor will tell you about it), they spend quite some time talking about the possibility of the engine flooding the engineering level... but nothing of the kind ever happens?

Wow, I have never thought about this before, but now that I do it seems quite important.  Chekov's Law states that if you show the audience a gun in the first act, it will undoubtedly be fired in the last act.  So far, the engineering improvements have had no significance whatsoever to the story.  If the ending we've seen is the real ending, then Chekov's Law has been violated in a big way.  I think we'll be hearing more about the Eezo core in the future.

What is the gun you are referring to in Chekovs Law. I'm confused.

Sorry, it's called Chehkov's Gun not  Chehkov's law.  It's basically a type of foreshadowing.  Here is what wiki has to say:

Chekhov's gun is a literary technique whereby an apparently
irrelevant element is introduced early in the story whose significance becomes
clear later in the narrative. The concept is named after
Russian playwright Anton Chekhov, who mentioned several variants of the concept
in letters.

The phrase "Chekhov's gun" is often interpreted as
a method of foreshadowing, but the concept can also be interpreted as meaning
"do not include any unnecessary elements in a story." Failure to
observe the rule of "Chekhov's gun" may be cited by critics when
discussing plot holes..

A very good example of a Chekhov's Gun would be the Relay Monument/Conduit from ME1. You were introduced to it way early, but didnt learn what it actually was until all the way at the end