57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Big G13]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

[Arian Dynas]

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

[Hawk227]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Indoctrination, the Reaper IFF, the Derelict Reaper, Object Rho, the Nascent Reaper, ect. are examples of Chekov's Guns. Seemingly unimportant plot devices, that, big shocker, turn out to be important.

The Star Gazer scene, the Normandy Crash, the "Beings of Light" are Red Herrings seemingly important plot devices that are, in fact only there to build suspense and to trick the reader.

Nice!  I'm not sure about the IFF and derelict reaper (they were legitimately important to ME2 plot) but Object Rho is a great Chekov's gun. Prolonged exposure to Reaper Artifact in Act 1, Indoctrinated in act 3! For some reason this never occured to me.

[spotlessvoid]

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

[Roxy Lalonde]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

But I'm not talking about whether or not the game lets you save the boy. I'm talking about how when the game lets you choose what you're about to say, Shepard is interrupted and says the exact same thing regardless of your choice - even when one of the choices was very contradictory to Shepard's auto-attitude. And the child is being very decisive with his words, too. "You can't save me."

[Hawk227]

Arian Dynas wrote...

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

I was thinking this same thing today too! What if IT is like the ultimate easter egg? Great minds and all that...

[Hawk227]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

But I'm not talking about whether or not the game lets you save the boy. I'm talking about how when the game lets you choose what you're about to say, Shepard is interrupted and says the exact same thing regardless of your choice - even when one of the choices was very contradictory to Shepard's auto-attitude. And the child is being very decisive with his words, too. "You can't save me."

A reaper bzzz affecting his response to the maybe-reaper-projection. That is interesting. 

[Roxy Lalonde]

Hawk227 wrote...

A reaper bzzz affecting his response to the maybe-reaper-projection. That is interesting. 

I smell indoc ~ 

I was considering doing a quick narrative analysis of that particular scene - although I'm sure it's been done many times before, what with .. well, IT existing - because the writing of it has peaked my interest since the demo. It just seems so.. not out-of-place, per se, but.. singular. It's a very interesting scene to me. 

[BleedingUranium]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Any new comer that hasn't bothered playing at least me2 can't be that heavily in the story. I mean who starts at the end of a trilogy? The new players are primarily game play driven, and Bioware only cares about their narrative experience to the extent it progresses them through single player and on to multiplayer. Anyone hooked would also potentially go back and start from ME1, possibly buying DLC as well.

That last part is totally me. I had only really heard about Mass Effect and didn't know anything about it until about three weeks before ME3, when there was the Demo. My brother convinced me to download it and now I have all three, as well as all the plot DLC.

I love the series, such a deep and complex universe, with deep characters and all that stuff we all here know. Stuff like the Codex, which I looked at all of, did all the side missions, etc. I've always liked deep, complex, and meaningful stories, whether they be movies, games, books, or whatever, and this is by far the best game series for that. Period.

Which is why  doesn't work for me...

[Arian Dynas]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

But I'm not talking about whether or not the game lets you save the boy. I'm talking about how when the game lets you choose what you're about to say, Shepard is interrupted and says the exact same thing regardless of your choice - even when one of the choices was very contradictory to Shepard's auto-attitude. And the child is being very decisive with his words, too. "You can't save me."

It could also be interpreted as reaper will forcing itself on him, if he is curt, then it's them saying "Be nice and show respect", if he is kind, then he is already receptive and requires nothing else.

[Big G13]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

That is an interesting point. It does, however, make me ask why I am so upset about the ending. If my choices throughout 3 games has had little or no effect on the basic winning or losing of the game then the ending, as is, perfectly reflects that.

[spotlessvoid]

Arian Dynas wrote...

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

Quite likely, although I think the literal ending is more than placating a portion of the fanbase. It's the vehicle by which indoctrination is carried out. It serves the single most important purpose, the full on attempt at indoctrinating the player, and by extension Shepard.

I think you are right in suggesting the end was meant to be sufficient enough, for new players and people only interested in the fps aspect, to stand on it's own. I think Bioware may have overestimated their die hard fans ability to realize IT was the plan, and the level of rage that ensued, given how obvious so much of the evidence during the series and especially the end seems in retrospect.

[Arian Dynas]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

Quite likely, although I think the literal ending is more than placating a portion of the fanbase. It's the vehicle by which indoctrination is carried out. It serves the single most important purpose, the full on attempt at indoctrinating the player, and by extension Shepard.

I think you are right in suggesting the end was meant to be sufficient enough, for new players and people only interested in the fps aspect, to stand on it's own. I think Bioware may have overestimated their die hard fans ability to realize IT was the plan, and the level of rage that ensued, given how obvious so much of the evidence during the series and especially the end seems in retrospect.

Really, much like the Reapers themselves, all of Bioware's problems here stemmed.. from underestimating us. 

[Vahilor]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

Quite likely, although I think the literal ending is more than placating a portion of the fanbase. It's the vehicle by which indoctrination is carried out. It serves the single most important purpose, the full on attempt at indoctrinating the player, and by extension Shepard.

I think you are right in suggesting the end was meant to be sufficient enough, for new players and people only interested in the fps aspect, to stand on it's own. I think Bioware may have overestimated their die hard fans ability to realize IT was the plan, and the level of rage that ensued, given how obvious so much of the evidence during the series and especially the end seems in retrospect.

The main problem here is that a lot of people don't believe in IDT and even with IDT (and without any further explanation and gameplay) it is hard to figure out for a lot of people.
And to tell the truth.. without more explanation an gameplay IDT is only a reason to bear the horrible endings. They are still totally unsatisfing like they are.
When I beat a game and in the case of Mass Effect  a Series I want somthing as reward from an ending.. when I invest a lot of money, efford and time in it, I want somthing that it was worth for in the end and not a dumb star child, som color explosions and millions of plot wholes.
I want at least the chance for a good anding, all in between and a bad ending.
And as great IDT is, I don't want to have to think 90% of the ending myself.. cause that is what we have at the moment.. you have to make up 90% headcanon to what could have happen.

[spotlessvoid]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

But I'm not talking about whether or not the game lets you save the boy. I'm talking about how when the game lets you choose what you're about to say, Shepard is interrupted and says the exact same thing regardless of your choice - even when one of the choices was very contradictory to Shepard's auto-attitude. And the child is being very decisive with his words, too. "You can't save me."

Same team!

Was playing Devils advocate then countering the argument in response to Big G13. I agree with your point and apologize for failing to make my post clear on that. Just pointing out the usual retort from anti IT people about lazy writing and Biowares ham fisted attempt etc. being thematically inconsistent.

Your point of it fitting with IT is right of course

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Gonna repost an idea I came up with while discussing the IT a few pages back.

One of my primary problems in Mass Effect 3 was that the Reapers did not try to shut down the Mass Relay network the moment they got there and others have expressed the same question. Especially once we know they take the Citadel and bring it to Earth.

I thought of this and I came up with this idea: What if the Citadel was closed before the Reapers even got to it by C-Sec or similar?

We know from Mass Effect 1 that the Reapers signal to the Keepers had been disrupted and Sovreign needed Saren on the Citadel to prevent them from closing the arms and help connect Sovreign to the Citadel.

So if the Reapers dropped out of the relays near the Citadel in ME3 the Citadel defense force could possibly hold them of long enough to seal the station with the Reapers still outside.

This would explain several small things in the ending.

Firsty of it would explain why the Relay network has not been shut down as the Reapers simply cant get into the Citadel. Secondly it explains the pupose of moving it earth and the beam leading into it, because if the Citadel was closed from the inside the Reapers would need such a beam to send ground troops onto the Citadel to take it back.

This would mean that during the final assault there is potentially a massive battle playing out on the Citadel between Reaper forces and C-sec as well as citizens giving a logical reason as to how your Citadel assets could play into the final battle.

There is off course no evidence to back this up beyond the fact that it explains a few plot holes, but it is an interesting thought is it not?

[Hawk227]

Big G13 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

That is an interesting point. It does, however, make me ask why I am so upset about the ending. If my choices throughout 3 games has had little or no effect on the basic winning or losing of the game then the ending, as is, perfectly reflects that.

I think I can answer that, with another post from that thread I linked last night.

[spotlessvoid]

Vahilor wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

It has occurred to me, they wanted people to be able to interpret the ending in many ways... since the newbies who came in on THIS game don't mind the ending for the most part, and the people whom played the previous 2 DO, what if their methods of interpretation are meant to be literal for newbies and Indoctrination for more dedicated fans? They expect the dedicated fans to pick it apart and be able to tell easily, but they fail to make it conclusive, muddying the waters with their other interpretation, leading to confusion. It would also explain why it is they didn't expect the EC to be needed or wanted. Newbies would be satisfied with the endings as is, while old timers would be able to see all the indoctrination stuff, since this could, potentially also work as a method of encouraging the new players to buy and play the other two in the series. After all, it's not as if they have had a problem logically contradicting themselves where writing in exceptions for n00bs is concerned.

Quite likely, although I think the literal ending is more than placating a portion of the fanbase. It's the vehicle by which indoctrination is carried out. It serves the single most important purpose, the full on attempt at indoctrinating the player, and by extension Shepard.

I think you are right in suggesting the end was meant to be sufficient enough, for new players and people only interested in the fps aspect, to stand on it's own. I think Bioware may have overestimated their die hard fans ability to realize IT was the plan, and the level of rage that ensued, given how obvious so much of the evidence during the series and especially the end seems in retrospect.

The main problem here is that a lot of people don't believe in IDT and even with IDT (and without any further explanation and gameplay) it is hard to figure out for a lot of people.
And to tell the truth.. without more explanation an gameplay IDT is only a reason to bear the horrible endings. They are still totally unsatisfing like they are.
When I beat a game and in the case of Mass Effect  a Series I want somthing as reward from an ending.. when I invest a lot of money, efford and time in it, I want somthing that it was worth for in the end and not a dumb star child, som color explosions and millions of plot wholes.
I want at least the chance for a good anding, all in between and a bad ending.
And as great IDT is, I don't want to have to think 90% of the ending myself.. cause that is what we have at the moment.. you have to make up 90% headcanon to what could have happen.

Patience, it's coming.

[Big G13]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

But I'm not talking about whether or not the game lets you save the boy. I'm talking about how when the game lets you choose what you're about to say, Shepard is interrupted and says the exact same thing regardless of your choice - even when one of the choices was very contradictory to Shepard's auto-attitude. And the child is being very decisive with his words, too. "You can't save me."

Same team!

Was playing Devils advocate then countering the argument in response to Big G13. I agree with your point and apologize for failing to make my post clear on that. Just pointing out the usual retort from anti IT people about lazy writing and Biowares ham fisted attempt etc. being thematically inconsistent.

Your point of it fitting with IT is right of course

My bad. I've been away for a few days and I am not familiar with your style.

[spotlessvoid]

Big G13 wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Somebody's probably mentioned this in the thread before, but I was discussing this with a friend of mine earlier and I was curious as to other people's readings of it:

In the beginning, when the boy is in the vent and Shepard's trying to get him out, there's a point where the dialogue wheel lets you choose whether to be kind or harsh to him. Whichever you choose, Shepard gets interrupted (if I recall, it's the sound of a Reaper? I can't quite remember) and turns back to him. They are then gentle with the boy, regardless of what you chose. I remember people complaining about this and saying it was just more railroading of Shepard's personality through auto-dialogue, but has this been considered as a possibility to fit IT?

I don't think that particular aspect of the scene has been discussed but that scene in general has been discussed at length. The fact that Anderson doesn't notice the boy, the Reaper interrupt, and the "Danger" poster next to the vent have all been brought up. If what you are saying is the case then I think the dialog choice having no impact on the scene is further evidence of the strangeness of that scene.

The argument against the lack of dialogue choice impact is that Bioware is showing there will be many no win situations. In reality there aren't. A very old Mordin sacrificing his life to cure the genophage (or not) is the only truly emotionally difficult decision that has both a hard choice to be made and a sense of finality.

The Virmire mission also pops up. So through three games their are really only two (that I can think of) memorable decisions with tragic consequences that can't be avoided.

Doesn't match thematically by my estimate

That is an interesting point. It does, however, make me ask why I am so upset about the ending. If my choices throughout 3 games has had little or no effect on the basic winning or losing of the game then the ending, as is, perfectly reflects that.

Yes except depending on your decisions, many choices do have grave consequences. I was just pointing out that Mass Effect doesn't have a history of forcing no win scenarios down the players throat. And the two I mentioned were logical and powerful. Except to those people who think the only tragedy at Virmire was not being able to leave both behind.

[Hawk227]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Gonna repost an idea I came up with while discussing the IT a few pages back.

One of my primary problems in Mass Effect 3 was that the Reapers did not try to shut down the Mass Relay network the moment they got there and others have expressed the same question. Especially once we know they take the Citadel and bring it to Earth.

I thought of this and I came up with this idea: What if the Citadel was closed before the Reapers even got to it by C-Sec or similar?

We know from Mass Effect 1 that the Reapers signal to the Keepers had been disrupted and Sovreign needed Saren on the Citadel to prevent them from closing the arms and help connect Sovreign to the Citadel.

So if the Reapers dropped out of the relays near the Citadel in ME3 the Citadel defense force could possibly hold them of long enough to seal the station with the Reapers still outside.

This would explain several small things in the ending.

Firsty of it would explain why the Relay network has not been shut down as the Reapers simply cant get into the Citadel. Secondly it explains the pupose of moving it earth and the beam leading into it, because if the Citadel was closed from the inside the Reapers would need such a beam to send ground troops onto the Citadel to take it back.

This would mean that during the final assault there is potentially a massive battle playing out on the Citadel between Reaper forces and C-sec as well as citizens giving a logical reason as to how your Citadel assets could play into the final battle.

There is off course no evidence to back this up beyond the fact that it explains a few plot holes, but it is an interesting thought is it not?

Well, theres actually a brief cutscene (start at 28:15) after you kill Kai Leng that shows the citadel closing over earth...

It's implied (stated?) that the citadel is Reaper harvesting plant, and the Reapers are using it to harvest Humans, with the beam as a way to send bodies up.

I've also seen it postulated that the IFF you get in ME2 can circumvent a closed relay so the Reapers shutting them down would be pointless (or imperceptible to the player).

[Arian Dynas]

BatmanTurian wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Now your getting to it. There is a reason for there intrest in humans and for some unknown reason in ME3 we only matter to the reapers just like any other race. Sovereign tried to kill off all other races in the galaxy with the rachni. Why would he do this if the reapers needed them to save/harvest?

The answer is that we will find out soon because I dont think that they would want Shepard to know and this is why it is not present in the game....they are tricking him/her...but like you said we will have to wait and see!

My pet theory is that humans are special because we possess all of the qualities of all of the other species in one package. We are destructive bastards like Krogan, intelligent and cunning like Salarians, diplomatic and possessing great ease in forging alliances like the Asari, clever merchants like the Volus, patient like the Elcor, great military tacticians like the Turians, and technically savvy and communal like the Quarians.

We are their worst nightmare, basically. It's why we make the other species crap bricks when they consider our place in the galaxy.

I like that, I like that alot. It fits, even with the old Dark Energy ending, we have what they want, genetic diversity, in reaper form, one might call it creativity. Mordin himself pointed it out, With other species you can makr resonable predictions and assumptions based on stereotypes, humans.. it's not so easy, and the assumptions are far less reasonable.

Big Bad wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

I agree to some extent.  I think based solely on in-game content, IT is a pretty solid explanation for the ending.  But once you factor in the real world consequences of IT, things seem somewhat hazier.

I am not sure which of these things I find to be more unlikely:

A) Despite how awesome and well-written the rest of the series (and the rest of ME3!) has been; and despite what Bioware said about the ending prior to the game's release; and despite the fact that the ending is both heartless and devoid of logic, reason or basis in the ME universe's lore, Bioware thought that the ending we got was satisfactory.

Bioware is pulling a long con.  They are weathering the ****storm they created because they believe (or initially believed before the game was released) that it will ultimately pay off once everything is revealed.


Both of those things seem very unlikely to me.  However, given the in-game evidence and the fact that I would really prefer A) to be the more unlikely scenario, I am going with IT until either it is revealed to be false or an acceptable alternative is put forward, though I have no idea what this alternative could possibly be.

Only want to point out that the writing for ME2 at least isn't that good when you think about it or, rather, the idea behind ME2 wasn't very good. I thought that the natural progression would be something like this: identify the threat (ME1); find a means to stop the threat (ME2); stop the threat (ME3). However, this is not what we have. In ME2 we waste time stopping the Collectors when we should have been searching for a means to stop the Reapers (i.e. searching for the plans for the Crucible).

Gotta disagree with you completely on this one.  I really enjoyed ME2.  Just because the story didn't follow your notion of what a natural progression is supposed to be doesn't mean that it is poorly written.

 

Agreed, completely.

Hawk227 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

OdanUrr wrote...


@balance5050: You're saying Bioware planned this since ME1?[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

How are you deriving that from what I said?

I'm not deriving, I'm asking because I'm not sure. Hence the smiley.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/uncertain.png[/smilie]

I think they had it planned since "The arrival"

+1

I think that they were sketching out where they wanted to go in ME3, and thought "we've indoctrinated all these other characters, what would it be like to indoctrinate shepard? How would that work?" 

They Final Hours App pretty much tells us this happened. They realized the straightforward mechanic of the player losing control of Shepard didn't work (fact), and hatched the "Player-Indoctrination" mechanic(speculation).

Arrival was billed as the connection between ME2 and ME3. While it was being made, the rest of the team was working on ME3. In this connecting DLC, Bioware knocked shepard out with Object Rho and then subjected him to 2 days in its presence. That's a pretty strong lead in to IT theory. But if the ending is literal, that whole DLC was basically discarded (shepard never indoctrinated, exploding relays no longer go Supernova). All thats left is a sick batarian in the docks hating on you for blowing up Aratotht.

 

Didn't even notice until you pointed that out, but yeah, with the ending as it stands, they not only render ME1 pointless, they render ME2 and The Arrival pointless too. Seems pretty hard to swallow that they would completely invalidate 2/3rds of the series, especially when The Arrival was being worked on at the same time as ME3 and was billed as a lead in.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Hawk227 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Gonna repost an idea I came up with while discussing the IT a few pages back.

One of my primary problems in Mass Effect 3 was that the Reapers did not try to shut down the Mass Relay network the moment they got there and others have expressed the same question. Especially once we know they take the Citadel and bring it to Earth.

I thought of this and I came up with this idea: What if the Citadel was closed before the Reapers even got to it by C-Sec or similar?

We know from Mass Effect 1 that the Reapers signal to the Keepers had been disrupted and Sovreign needed Saren on the Citadel to prevent them from closing the arms and help connect Sovreign to the Citadel.

So if the Reapers dropped out of the relays near the Citadel in ME3 the Citadel defense force could possibly hold them of long enough to seal the station with the Reapers still outside.

This would explain several small things in the ending.

Firsty of it would explain why the Relay network has not been shut down as the Reapers simply cant get into the Citadel. Secondly it explains the pupose of moving it earth and the beam leading into it, because if the Citadel was closed from the inside the Reapers would need such a beam to send ground troops onto the Citadel to take it back.

This would mean that during the final assault there is potentially a massive battle playing out on the Citadel between Reaper forces and C-sec as well as citizens giving a logical reason as to how your Citadel assets could play into the final battle.

There is off course no evidence to back this up beyond the fact that it explains a few plot holes, but it is an interesting thought is it not?

Well, theres actually a brief cutscene (start at 28:15) after you kill Kai Leng that shows the citadel closing over earth...

It's implied (stated?) that the citadel is Reaper harvesting plant, and the Reapers are using it to harvest Humans, with the beam as a way to send bodies up.

I've also seen it postulated that the IFF you get in ME2 can circumvent a closed relay so the Reapers shutting them down would be pointless (or imperceptible to the player).

Oh dident remember that scene.

Though i do know about the implied Reaper Harvesting, but unless Anderson actually got a man through the beam and back he would logically have no idea what is going on up there beyond speculation.

And teh Reaper IFF circumventing the shut down would make sense I guess since there is actually a Codex stating the Salarians incoperated a copy of the IFF and the Normandys stelath system in their fleet upgrading it to even work with Dreadnoughts...yeah stealth Dreadnoughts.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 18 avril 2012 - 08:57 .

[AresCrusader]

There is absolutely no credible evidence to support the IT apart from wishful thinking. Get over it guys, the game is what it is.

[Arian Dynas]

AresCrusader wrote...

There is absolutely no credible evidence to support the IT apart from wishful thinking. Get over it guys, the game is what it is.

...

Who wants this one? It's getting late and though it might be easy to eat trolls for breakfast, they're not very good for you.