57139 réponses à ce sujet

[monrapias]

There is a big difference between organic life and intelligent life. EDI was never organic life but she is definitely intelligent life.

intelligent life..... yes just as much as a computer.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

waldstr18 wrote...

@monrapias

you, sir, are a monster!

im gonna watch saturday morning cartoons now, where no one gets killed - no people, no animals, no transformers, no horrible space mutants. everyone is ah ah ah ah staying aliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiive.

For some reason I see this line "
you, sir, are a monster! " being said by Liara to Javik.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

monrapias wrote...

There is a big difference between organic life and intelligent life. EDI was never organic life but she is definitely intelligent life.

intelligent life..... yes just as much as a computer.

And this line "intelligent life..... yes just as much as a computer. " by Javik responding to Liara before calling her "Asari".

Modifié par LOST SPARTANJLC, 31 mars 2012 - 08:17 .

[Shooter__Andy]

Okay, after getting some feedback on my post, I'm editing and expanding it a bit (I'll bold the places I've changed)

My thoughts on IT v.1.1

I'll try to rate the arguments a bit, but obviously it's just my subjective opinion and shouldn't be viewed as fact. Anyway...

Moderate: It was pointed out multiple times already that the child at the beginning was running around unnoticed by anyone, opening doors that are closed and survived a direct hit of a Reaper's beam into the building he was in... but one thing bothers me even more than all that. Remember what he says to Shepard if you try to get him out of the duct? 
"You can't save me"
Alright, people just DON'T talk like that, especially children. Of course, it might be just overly dramatic writing, but what if it's not? If the IT is correct, then the child is the representation of everyone Shepard failed to save, appealing to his basic guilt complex. What would be better for him to say if he was trying to guilt Shepard into obedience?

Weak: ME2 and ME3 spent an awful lot of time pointing out that Shepard had absolutely no control chip in his/her brain with a very weak explanation for it. And while it indeed shows that TIM controlling Shepard in the ending, no matter if it was a dream or not, was possible through indoctrination. But that was pointed out already, what I'm trying to say is that what if TIM planned to control him/her this way all along, but up until final moments of ME2 it was just unnecessary and after that he couldn't have affect him/her because he underestimated his/her willpower? I mean, the man was obsessed with indoctrination and building "improved versions" of Shepard in ME3, wasn't he?

Solid: Neither Vigil, nor Javik and not even the Prothean VI in ME3 EVER state that Reapers "saved" Protheans through harvesting them, in fact we clearly see Collectors running around instead of being made into a Reaper. In ME2 it was theoretized by EDI that the Protheans were somehow incompatible with the "goo-ification" process, but never clarifies on why is that so (LINK TO A YOUTUBE VIDEO REQUIRED). So the entire specie of Protheans (except Javik) was not "saved", but destroyed with the remnants being warped and enslaved and then, in the end of ME2, even they were killed off. If the purpose of the Reapers was to "save" species, not destroy and use them to their own means, why is it never brought up by one of them? The simplest answer is that they don'tcare about "saving" anyone.
Same thing with Rachni, who are revealed to be more than 50,000 years old, and even back at the Prothean Empire they were smart and dangerous enough to be considered a threat and survive the attack of the Empire. Then they were indoctrinated by the Reapers at some point, but, again, NOT "ascended". In fact, if you kill their Queen, they re-create it only to be an asset of their own, not to save the species.
What's more, every bit of info we get until ME3 suggests that the process of creating a Reaper is NOT something made to "ascend" all sentient space-fairing species, which is why there is no, say, Asari or Quarian Reapers being made (I wonder if a Quarian Reaper would need a physical "firewall" to protect it from viruses...). It is stated that the Reapers make the capital ships like Harbringer or Sovereign out of the "best" species of the Cycle, yes, but they also turn others into Destroyers, which we never see here, so it looks like they only care about getting the best specie and ignoring all the rest, annihilating them. This might their way of evolving and improving themselves.
They try to destroy Quarians by improving Geth, they have never attacked non-human colonies to kidnap their population and goo-ify it, the PTSD asari states that they just indoctrinate and husk-ify everyone. There is no reports from Palaven about mass kidnappings, vorcha are basically annihilated (aren't they?), the strongest and the most pure-blood asari are just turned into foot-soldiers instead of getting their potent genetic material, even Morinth isn't interesting enough to the Reapers, the Reaper tries to prevent curing krogan genophage, ensuring they'll never be "ascended" as the original species, only as modified inferior ones...
Also note that while Shepard and Anderson theoretise that the Reapers were buildning another Human Reaper at the Citadel, this would contradict the entirety of ME2, where the subjects needed to be ALIVE to be processed into gray goo, but the bodies in the Citadel are obviously dead, making it absolutely pointless for them to be stored here except to create nightmare imagery. So, apparently, they just said "screw this. we need to destroy the resistance first and then BS around with all this stuff, otherwise we might actually be stopped".
One would think that it would be a very good moment, if the Reapers actually are trying to preserve the organic species by making Reapers out of them, to one of them to show Shepard that he destroys the species they were trying to save/saved already. Every Reaper he destroyed? The essense of entire species died with it. Every specie he put on the brink of extinction to stop them, like Batarians or Quarians? They're dead forever, but they could've been saved. But no, this doesn't happen and isn't even implied by any of the Reapers. Instead, they themselves do everything to destroy them without ever trying to "save" anyone.
In short, it seems that the claims of "salvation through destruction" meant something else than Reaper-fying every sentient space-fairing race of the Cycle originally.

Weak: Note how it was stated in ME3 that the indoctrination husk-ifycation works through the adrenaline, so it makes sense that the indoctrination kicked into full gear at the most climactic moment.

Weak: Also of note is that there are a few interesting similarities between the travel into the Geth collective and the final sequence. Remember how the gun was chosen as the symbolic means of destroying the Reaper influence because Shepard is just so familiar with it? Or that the images were made not from the "memories" of the collective, but from Shepard's? And the floating platforms...

Weak: The inability to contact any of the people left behind, even Admiral Hackett, is certainly weird. I mean, you're making a decision that changes the fate of the entire Galaxy, wouldn't you want to ask something who's not gonna faint from blood loss anytime now?

Weak: Also you are unable to use any of your abilities. It is somewhat understandable for stuff like biotic and tech powers, but what about Adrenaline Rush or stuff like that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for some points that seem to contradict the IT and my possible counter-points to them:

Point: Why is there a clipshow after the Red ending? If you won, wouldn't the images stop?
Counter-point: This one is pretty tough to explain without going meta (meta-explanation: the whole IT deal would be IMMEDIATELY obvious). My guess would be that at that point Shepard has difeated infoctrination attempt but is still dying/unconscious in the London rubble, which is why he/she gasps as if waking up. So the images might not even be the indoctrination, just the same stuff you see in the dreams or in near-death experiences. It certainly evokes the imagery of Eden, your loved ones and friends (which starts to come though at the moment you've picked the ending, for some reason it's just Joker and Liara though, but I'll talk about it later). So even the stuff you see after the Control/Synthesis choice is just your own dream, based on the idoctrination, but not directly caused by it. That also explains the following point:

Point: Why even show a clipshow if you've chosen the Control/Synthesis? Shepard's fully indoctrinated, no need to show them anything more, right?
Counter-point: As in the previous entry, I think this is something that is not directly cause by the indoctrination, just by the fact that Shepard is still dying, even if he/she chose to become indoctrinated. The only diffence being that after that he/she can either wake up from it being him/herself... or not.

Point: Why are there two "bad" endings?
Counter-point: Another diffiicult one. Really, there can be multiple explanations, but none are supported properly by any facts, so they're just assumptions. I myself think that:
a. The Catalyst knew that Shepard would want his/her "own" way. I mean, the supposedly "good" Control was the goal of TIM, your Arch-Nemesis at this point.
b. The Synthesis and Control MIGHT be actually different. There are different possible outcomes: Shepard can become indoctrinated like TIM or Saren, he/she can be the victim of ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL like what happened to Saren's corpse or the Collectors, he/she can become just a husk or something like that, he/she can become a Reaper, or become the main "ingridient" for a new Human Reaper (Harbringer wanted his/her corpse pretty badly, right?) etc. I'm not sure what means what, but the possibilities certainly are there.

Point: What about the Stargazer scene?
Counter-point: Honestly, I have no clue. It can be interpreted in any way. It might contradict TIM if you decide that it means that Normandy's crew has st up on this planet for real and that the Stargazer and his victim the child are their descendants, but it might as well mean that up to this point it was all part of the story and he'll tell the ACTUAL ending now...
Really, the purpose of it is at the very least questionable even at face value.

Point: Why can you die at the hands of TIM?
Counter-point: If we take the idea that Anderson is Shepard's willpower, then after the indoctrination "kills" it, Shepard can actually die just because of losing his will to live, unless he/she does takes control of the situation. And Reapers won't need to resurrect him/her - remember how Saren told that if you lose your will to resist you become useless to them, since your mental facilities drop down radically?

Point: Why can we lose if the EMS is too low?
Counter-point: Not really sure here. There's a lot of polarizingly different explanations, up to and including that because your EMS is low, you had spent almost no time being indoctinated and you actually WIN. This is a difficult moment in the IT, but it can potentially be explained or at least handwaved. And really, when you consider that if you take the ending at face value your EMS affects stuff it can't possibly affect in any way, like the choices you can make or the destructiveness of the Red Blast, or whether Shepard stays alive or not... Yeah, this idea doesn't seem that improbable in comparison.

Point: Why can't I get the "best" ending, according to IT, if I haven't played ME2 and 1?
Counter-point: Well, you can't  keep your Shepard alive even if we take the ending at face value. So, really, it's a question to the developers, not the IT.

Point: Why is "Destroy" the only option if your EMS is too low? (I know it was answered in other people's posts already, but this question just keeps popping up)
Counter-point: Again, there can be different interpretations. It might mean that Shepard actually was LESS indoctrinated since you've spent less time flying around getting assets. It might mean that even the "Destroy" ending doesn't break the indoctrination, since you haven't proven your rseolve by getting everything you could've gotten. It might mean that it breaks indoctrination because Reapers don't think you're willing to do everything you NEED to do to destroy them (if you've dstroyed the Collector base, that is, otherwise they indoctrinate you forcefully just to be safe). Pick your poison. But tell me one thing - why is "Destroy" ending only possible if your EMS is too low if the IT is false? How is having more ships in your fleet affects the possibilities you're given? If the link between this and IT is weak, than with the original ending it's just non-existant.

----------------------------------------------
And now some points that I think MIGHT be important but I am not sure what to make of them:

1. After you choose what you do with the Reapers, the cutscene breaks to show still images of Joker and Liara. Why them? Why not, say, your LI? Is there any meaning to it?
2. What about the Stargazer scene, really? Why the hell is it even in there? I mean, Buzz Auldrin is a really cool person to have in your sci-fi game, but... is that it? Couldn't they've gotten him to narrate the epilogue or someting? Something that makes SENSE? Because really, the pic about him telling the story of "alien sex, violence and destruction of the entire species" to a kid points out how ridiculous this is. And remember - it can't be "just a dream" - Shepard isn't dreaming at this point, he/she gasps for air BEFORE that.
3. Can you lose if you wait in the choice scene for too long? If so, doesn't it prove IT right? Because even if the fleets are destroyed... it doesn't mean that you lose. But if you wait for too long while lying unconscious, you might die or get found.

Modifié par Shooter__Andy, 31 mars 2012 - 08:19 .

[Lyria]

Gilgamesh117 wrote...

I do think the Indoc/edi relation is plausible, it does explain some holes, also it explains joker new profound feelings towards her. Do people in the ME world rly have relations with robots? Can AI's love? Can they feel, can they dream of ELECTRIC SHEEP?!

 *edited for inability to read*

Its more the subject matter than EDI herself.

Modifié par protognosis, 31 mars 2012 - 08:25 .

[nyrocron]

Had no time to read everything for the last two days, so what I say may already have been posted.

@waldstr18: (if you still insist on the red-only ending invalidating indoc.) it is by far not the same ending as with high EMS as earth gets destroyed and Shepard is not alive. And that does not have to mean that earth is literally destroyed by the explosion, it can be seen symbolic, just like the other sequences. Earth will be destroyed by the reapers, there is no hope. Shepard tries to resist but fails.

Also, did anyone notice how, slowly, more and more BioWare people are announced to come to PAX? I think something big is incoming.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

Shooter__Andy wrote...

Okay, after getting some feedback on my post, I'm editing and expanding it a bit (I'll bold the places I've changed)

My thoughts on IT v.1.1

I'll try to rate the arguments a bit, but obviously it's just my subjective opinion and shouldn't be viewed as fact. Anyway...

Moderate: It was pointed out multiple times already that the child at the beginning was running around unnoticed by anyone, opening doors that are closed and survived a direct hit of a Reaper's beam into the building he was in... but one thing bothers me even more than all that. Remember what he says to Shepard if you try to get him out of the duct? 
"You can't save me"
Alright, people just DON'T talk like that, especially children. Of course, it might be just overly dramatic writing, but what if it's not? If the IT is correct, then the child is the representation of everyone Shepard failed to save, appealing to his basic guilt complex. What would be better for him to say if he was trying to guilt Shepard into obedience?

Weak: ME2 and ME3 spent an awful lot of time pointing out that Shepard had absolutely no control chip in his/her brain with a very weak explanation for it. And while it indeed shows that TIM controlling Shepard in the ending, no matter if it was a dream or not, was possible through indoctrination. But that was pointed out already, what I'm trying to say is that what if TIM planned to control him/her this way all along, but up until final moments of ME2 it was just unnecessary and after that he couldn't have affect him/her because he underestimated his/her willpower? I mean, the man was obsessed with indoctrination and building "improved versions" of Shepard in ME3, wasn't he?

Solid: Neither Vigil, nor Javik and not even the Prothean VI in ME3 EVER state that Reapers "saved" Protheans through harvesting them, in fact we clearly see Collectors running around instead of being made into a Reaper. In ME2 it was theoretized by EDI that the Protheans were somehow incompatible with the "goo-ification" process, but never clarifies on why is that so (LINK TO A YOUTUBE VIDEO REQUIRED). So the entire specie of Protheans (except Javik) was not "saved", but destroyed with the remnants being warped and enslaved and then, in the end of ME2, even they were killed off. If the purpose of the Reapers was to "save" species, not destroy and use them to their own means, why is it never brought up by one of them? The simplest answer is that they don'tcare about "saving" anyone.
Same thing with Rachni, who are revealed to be more than 50,000 years old, and even back at the Prothean Empire they were smart and dangerous enough to be considered a threat and survive the attack of the Empire. Then they were indoctrinated by the Reapers at some point, but, again, NOT "ascended". In fact, if you kill their Queen, they re-create it only to be an asset of their own, not to save the species.
What's more, every bit of info we get until ME3 suggests that the process of creating a Reaper is NOT something made to "ascend" all sentient space-fairing species, which is why there is no, say, Asari or Quarian Reapers being made (I wonder if a Quarian Reaper would need a physical "firewall" to protect it from viruses...). It is stated that the Reapers make the capital ships like Harbringer or Sovereign out of the "best" species of the Cycle, yes, but they also turn others into Destroyers, which we never see here, so it looks like they only care about getting the best specie and ignoring all the rest, annihilating them. This might their way of evolving and improving themselves.
They try to destroy Quarians by improving Geth, they have never attacked non-human colonies to kidnap their population and goo-ify it, the PTSD asari states that they just indoctrinate and husk-ify everyone. There is no reports from Palaven about mass kidnappings, vorcha are basically annihilated (aren't they?), the strongest and the most pure-blood asari are just turned into foot-soldiers instead of getting their potent genetic material, even Morinth isn't interesting enough to the Reapers, the Reaper tries to prevent curing krogan genophage, ensuring they'll never be "ascended" as the original species, only as modified inferior ones...
Also note that while Shepard and Anderson theoretise that the Reapers were buildning another Human Reaper at the Citadel, this would contradict the entirety of ME2, where the subjects needed to be ALIVE to be processed into gray goo, but the bodies in the Citadel are obviously dead, making it absolutely pointless for them to be stored here except to create nightmare imagery. So, apparently, they just said "screw this. we need to destroy the resistance first and then BS around with all this stuff, otherwise we might actually be stopped".
One would think that it would be a very good moment, if the Reapers actually are trying to preserve the organic species by making Reapers out of them, to one of them to show Shepard that he destroys the species they were trying to save/saved already. Every Reaper he destroyed? The essense of entire species died with it. Every specie he put on the brink of extinction to stop them, like Batarians or Quarians? They're dead forever, but they could've been saved. But no, this doesn't happen and isn't even implied by any of the Reapers. Instead, they themselves do everything to destroy them without ever trying to "save" anyone.
In short, it seems that the claims of "salvation through destruction" meant something else than Reaper-fying every sentient space-fairing race of the Cycle originally.

Weak: Note how it was stated in ME3 that the indoctrination husk-ifycation works through the adrenaline, so it makes sense that the indoctrination kicked into full gear at the most climactic moment.

Weak: Also of note is that there are a few interesting similarities between the travel into the Geth collective and the final sequence. Remember how the gun was chosen as the symbolic means of destroying the Reaper influence because Shepard is just so familiar with it? Or that the images were made not from the "memories" of the collective, but from Shepard's? And the floating platforms...

Weak: The inability to contact any of the people left behind, even Admiral Hackett, is certainly weird. I mean, you're making a decision that changes the fate of the entire Galaxy, wouldn't you want to ask something who's not gonna faint from blood loss anytime now?

Weak: Also you are unable to use any of your abilities. It is somewhat understandable for stuff like biotic and tech powers, but what about Adrenaline Rush or stuff like that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for some points that seem to contradict the IT and my possible counter-points to them:

Point: Why is there a clipshow after the Red ending? If you won, wouldn't the images stop?
Counter-point: This one is pretty tough to explain without going meta (meta-explanation: the whole IT deal would be IMMEDIATELY obvious). My guess would be that at that point Shepard has difeated infoctrination attempt but is still dying/unconscious in the London rubble, which is why he/she gasps as if waking up. So the images might not even be the indoctrination, just the same stuff you see in the dreams or in near-death experiences. It certainly evokes the imagery of Eden, your loved ones and friends (which starts to come though at the moment you've picked the ending, for some reason it's just Joker and Liara though, but I'll talk about it later). So even the stuff you see after the Control/Synthesis choice is just your own dream, based on the idoctrination, but not directly caused by it. That also explains the following point:

Point: Why even show a clipshow if you've chosen the Control/Synthesis? Shepard's fully indoctrinated, no need to show them anything more, right?
Counter-point: As in the previous entry, I think this is something that is not directly cause by the indoctrination, just by the fact that Shepard is still dying, even if he/she chose to become indoctrinated. The only diffence being that after that he/she can either wake up from it being him/herself... or not.

Point: Why are there two "bad" endings?
Counter-point: Another diffiicult one. Really, there can be multiple explanations, but none are supported properly by any facts, so they're just assumptions. I myself think that:
a. The Catalyst knew that Shepard would want his/her "own" way. I mean, the supposedly "good" Control was the goal of TIM, your Arch-Nemesis at this point.
b. The Synthesis and Control MIGHT be actually different. There are different possible outcomes: Shepard can become indoctrinated like TIM or Saren, he/she can be the victim of ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL like what happened to Saren's corpse or the Collectors, he/she can become just a husk or something like that, he/she can become a Reaper, or become the main "ingridient" for a new Human Reaper (Harbringer wanted his/her corpse pretty badly, right?) etc. I'm not sure what means what, but the possibilities certainly are there.

Point: What about the Stargazer scene?
Counter-point: Honestly, I have no clue. It can be interpreted in any way. It might contradict TIM if you decide that it means that Normandy's crew has st up on this planet for real and that the Stargazer and his victim the child are their descendants, but it might as well mean that up to this point it was all part of the story and he'll tell the ACTUAL ending now...
Really, the purpose of it is at the very least questionable even at face value.

Point: Why can you die at the hands of TIM?
Counter-point: If we take the idea that Anderson is Shepard's willpower, then after the indoctrination "kills" it, Shepard can actually die just because of losing his will to live, unless he/she does takes control of the situation. And Reapers won't need to resurrect him/her - remember how Saren told that if you lose your will to resist you become useless to them, since your mental facilities drop down radically?

Point: Why can we lose if the EMS is too low?
Counter-point: Not really sure here. There's a lot of polarizingly different explanations, up to and including that because your EMS is low, you had spent almost no time being indoctinated and you actually WIN. This is a difficult moment in the IT, but it can potentially be explained or at least handwaved. And really, when you consider that if you take the ending at face value your EMS affects stuff it can't possibly affect in any way, like the choices you can make or the destructiveness of the Red Blast, or whether Shepard stays alive or not... Yeah, this idea doesn't seem that improbable in comparison.

Point: Why can't I get the "best" ending, according to IT, if I haven't played ME2 and 1?
Counter-point: Well, you can't  keep your Shepard alive even if we take the ending at face value. So, really, it's a question to the developers, not the IT.

Point: Why is "Destroy" the only option if your EMS is too low? (I know it was answered in other people's posts already, but this question just keeps popping up)
Counter-point: Again, there can be different interpretations. It might mean that Shepard actually was LESS indoctrinated since you've spent less time flying around getting assets. It might mean that even the "Destroy" ending doesn't break the indoctrination, since you haven't proven your rseolve by getting everything you could've gotten. It might mean that it breaks indoctrination because Reapers don't think you're willing to do everything you NEED to do to destroy them (if you've dstroyed the Collector base, that is, otherwise they indoctrinate you forcefully just to be safe). Pick your poison. But tell me one thing - why is "Destroy" ending only possible if your EMS is too low if the IT is false? How is having more ships in your fleet affects the possibilities you're given? If the link between this and IT is weak, than with the original ending it's just non-existant.

----------------------------------------------
And now some points that I think MIGHT be important but I am not sure what to make of them:

1. After you choose what you do with the Reapers, the cutscene breaks to show still images of Joker and Liara. Why them? Why not, say, your LI? Is there any meaning to it?
2. What about the Stargazer scene, really? Why the hell is it even in there? I mean, Buzz Auldrin is a really cool person to have in your sci-fi game, but... is that it? Couldn't they've gotten him to narrate the epilogue or someting? Something that makes SENSE? Because really, the pic about him telling the story of "alien sex, violence and destruction of the entire species" to a kid points out how ridiculous this is. And remember - it can't be "just a dream" - Shepard isn't dreaming at this point, he/she gasps for air BEFORE that.
3. Can you lose if you wait in the choice scene for too long? If so, doesn't it prove IT right? Because even if the fleets are destroyed... it doesn't mean that you lose. But if you wait for too long while lying unconscious, you might die or get found.

As far as the Stargazer scene goes , it could be he told the child that Shepard's LI spent the night with him/her until morning.I doubt he's going to tell the kid Shepard had sex with crewmate/LI for a few hours(then he's got to explain sex).

Modifié par LOST SPARTANJLC, 31 mars 2012 - 08:25 .

[Shooter__Andy]

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...
As far as the Stargazer scene goes , it could be he told the child that Shepard's LI spent the night with him/her until morning.I doubt he's going to tell the kid Shepard had sex with crewmate/LI for a few hours(then he's got to explain sex).

Obviously, but still, that's NOT a story I would tell to a child... Hence the rating.

In any way, my point was that it really feels out of place and pointless. I can add this scene to basically any work of fiction. Like, say, Star Wars: "Can I hear another story about the Skywalker?". Why would you need this scene at all? What's the significance of it?

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

Shooter__Andy wrote...

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...
As far as the Stargazer scene goes , it could be he told the child that Shepard's LI spent the night with him/her until morning.I doubt he's going to tell the kid Shepard had sex with crewmate/LI for a few hours(then he's got to explain sex).

Obviously, but still, that's NOT a story I would tell to a child... Hence the rating.

In any way, my point was that it really feels out of place and pointless. I can add this scene to basically any work of fiction. Like, say, Star Wars: "Can I hear another story about the Skywalker?". Why would you need this scene at all? What's the significance of it?

I agree , he would have been better used as a character that Shepard talks to or side quest.

[nyrocron]

Shooter__Andy wrote...

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...
As far as the Stargazer scene goes , it could be he told the child that Shepard's LI spent the night with him/her until morning.I doubt he's going to tell the kid Shepard had sex with crewmate/LI for a few hours(then he's got to explain sex).

Obviously, but still, that's NOT a story I would tell to a child... Hence the rating.

In any way, my point was that it really feels out of place and pointless. I can add this scene to basically any work of fiction. Like, say, Star Wars: "Can I hear another story about the Skywalker?". Why would you need this scene at all? What's the significance of it?

The only significant thing I see in it is the "one more story" part.

[LOST SPARTANJLC]

nyrocron wrote...

Shooter__Andy wrote...

LOST SPARTANJLC wrote...
As far as the Stargazer scene goes , it could be he told the child that Shepard's LI spent the night with him/her until morning.I doubt he's going to tell the kid Shepard had sex with crewmate/LI for a few hours(then he's got to explain sex).

Obviously, but still, that's NOT a story I would tell to a child... Hence the rating.

In any way, my point was that it really feels out of place and pointless. I can add this scene to basically any work of fiction. Like, say, Star Wars: "Can I hear another story about the Skywalker?". Why would you need this scene at all? What's the significance of it?

The only significant thing I see in it is the "one more story" part.

Ok , that but it would have been better if his voice faded quietly but he started talking about The Shepard again

[Shooter__Andy]

nyrocron wrote...

The only significant thing I see in it is the "one more story" part.

And then we got a textscreen saying the same thing for those who went on a toilet-break?

[N7xELITE]

 http://ts2.mm.bing.n...da6375dd587021b

[N7xELITE]

 http://ts2.mm.bing.n...7b5b2e3b3ec0eca

[legaldinho]

Meawhile, in another thread, we've had a very difficult discussion about the dreams, the second (after tuchanka) in particular.

http://social.biowar...ndex/10654432/1

This has led to a very fine youtube vid by one of the posters, which is here:



Worth viewing in its entirety, but from 7.50 onwards, in the final approach to the kid, you can see just how harbinger/ some reaper filter is applied in the amplified whispering sounds.

Creepy for sure, and evidence to support that the dreams are to do with indoctrination, maybe.

Modifié par legaldinho, 31 mars 2012 - 10:14 .

[schneeland]

@legaldinho:

Thanks for keeping us updated on that. This could indeed be another hint at indoctrination.
I also didn't notice the "reaper sounds" (at 2:16 and 4:05) before, but then I also didn't spend so much time in the dream sequences.

Quick question: whose voice is that at 3:43? (I do not recognize it, yet I played with German voices only).

[legaldinho]

schneeland wrote...

@legaldinho:

Thanks for keeping us updated on that. This could indeed be another hint at indoctrination.
I also didn't notice the "reaper sounds" (at 2:16 and 4:05) before, but then I also didn't spend so much time in the dream sequences.

Quick question: whose voice is that at 3:43? (I do not recognize it, yet I played with German voices only).

That's ashley williams, she must be dead in that guy's playthrough.

[schneeland]

@legaldinho:

Ok. Thanks. I suspected that, but wasn't really sure.

Anyway - I am really keen to hear what Bioware will tell us at PAX.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Probably mentioned already but when you're making your choices out of the 3 at the end there's this... choir? hymm? Some kind of "doom" sounding humming whenever you get up the ramp on the blue side, or close enough to the green, but when you go to the red side (up the ramp but not all the way to the power junction) the "doom" hum becomes a more "triumph" or "hopeful" hum... I'm probably describing that wrong but that's the best I can do at the moment.

Mentioning this because of the video legaldinho linked, when Shepard finally reaches out to the boy in the dream you can hear the same "doom" hum/choir. Something else to add to the board.

[BinaryHelix101]

schneeland wrote...

@legaldinho:

Ok. Thanks. I suspected that, but wasn't really sure.

Anyway - I am really keen to hear what Bioware will tell us at PAX.

The people at PAX will be mostly community managers, and I doubt they have anything more for us than another statement from the devs or a 'no comment on the ending thing'.

[Logistics00]

I've been following this thread for what seems like days at this point, but long story short, you have another convert to the IT. It just fills in too many plot holes to be ignored. I've read a good portion of the posts, but I haven't been able to wade through the entire thing.


Anyway, I did have a few points I was hoping to make...assuming no one else has done so.

1.
One thing I haven't seen addressed is one of the final romance dialogs with Liara. I haven't been able to find an actual transcript, but from the youtube clip http://www.youtube.c...?v=kaxMZLt9S-o:

--
Liara:
It would be easy for a single ship to get lost up there...wouldn't it?

Shepard:
Yeah...it would.

Liara:
To find some place very far away. Where you could spend the rest of your life...in peace and happiness.

Shepard:
And now, there's no place I'd rather be. (Paragon dialog option).

Liara:
Neither would I. Whatever happens out there, I'm glad we're doing this Shepard.
--

This would provide a bit more rationale for Shepard to conjure up a mysterious paradise planet that his crew manage to crash land on during the ending sequence. I've tried reviewing the other romances to see if anything similar is addressed, but so far no luck.

2.
Another thing that occurs to me is the sheer importance placed by Bioware on the Citadel Defense Force. Throughout the game you are given a great many more missions, dialog debate choices, and fetch quests then any other faction gets that modify War Assets. I'm sure part of this is just due to the design choice of making the Citadel the only Hub world in the game. However, the amount of War Assets you get for all the effort is relatively paultry. I'm about 2/3rd through my 2nd run, and I'm currently standing at about 115, compared to say the Krogan at 875. I don't believe the low score was sheerly due to dumb choices on my part, most update listings to War Assets are positive with the strange exception of C-Sec focusing on small crimes, when I specifically choose the other debate option, not sure if that's a bug. In any case, it seems a waste to spend all that time compared to the actual payoff - unless this plays out during the upcoming revised ending.

I'm speculating that your choices throughout the game influence the relative difficulty you have in making your way through the actual real Citadel and presumably the final confrontation, in whatever form that takes.

[nyrocron]

BinaryHelix101 wrote...

schneeland wrote...

@legaldinho:

Ok. Thanks. I suspected that, but wasn't really sure.

Anyway - I am really keen to hear what Bioware will tell us at PAX.

The people at PAX will be mostly community managers, and I doubt they have anything more for us than another statement from the devs or a 'no comment on the ending thing'.

And some other important BW people were announced, as I said earlier, I think something big is incoming.

Modifié par nyrocron, 31 mars 2012 - 11:52 .

[Fulgrim88]

My major gripe with this theory (apart from the almost religious zeal with which some claim it to be "fact") is that accepting it has a whole bunch of very unpleasant implications.

It's accepting that what shockinly little choice there was to begin with, is in fact no choice at all. It's picking destroy (aKa major genocide), or picking "GAME OVER - you've been indoctrinated"

What's worse though, is that it's accepting that Bioware deliberately delivered an unfinished game, charging 60-80 bucks (and would expect praise for a later DLC after months of, again, deliberate misinformation)

I refuse to stand for this

Modifié par Fulgrim88, 31 mars 2012 - 11:53 .

[nyrocron]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

My major gripe with this theory (apart from the almost religious zeal with which some claim it to be "fact") is that accepting it has a whole bunch of very unpleasant implications.

It's accepting that what shockinly little choice there was to begin with, is in fact no choice at all. It's picking destroy (aKa major genocide), or picking "GAME OVER - you've been indoctrinated"

What's worse though, is that it's accepting that Bioware deliberately delivered an unfinished game, charging 60-80 bucks (and would expect praise for a later DLC after months of, again, deliberate misinformation)

I refuse to stand for this

In my opinion it is genius. Opinions differ.

[Ravel1992]

BinaryHelix101 wrote...

schneeland wrote...

@legaldinho:

Ok. Thanks. I suspected that, but wasn't really sure.

Anyway - I am really keen to hear what Bioware will tell us at PAX.

The people at PAX will be mostly community managers, and I doubt they have anything more for us than another statement from the devs or a 'no comment on the ending thing'.

I think PAX will be the best moment for them to tell something about ending(exactly month after premiere).

I really have hope that the ending is still hidden somewhere between 4GB of data that wasnt instal yet.




offtop:
this is REALLY COOL: 
http://www.youtube.c...v=fzHqQbz78-s#! 

Modifié par Ravel1992, 31 mars 2012 - 12:32 .