57139 réponses à ce sujet

[byne]

iggy1eco wrote...

byne wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...


Don't feel bad.  I support synthesis too.  It has a lot of potential for all life, provided it's not a brutal, freedom stealing procedure like building a Reaper.  Even if IT proves true, my IT side is still not convinced that control and synthesis are outright *bad*, but that all 3 options have pros and cons about breaking free from indoc

Alright, now I really must sleep haha

I don't know. As long as the brain is 100% functional and we're 100% capable of free will, I guess I don't have any problem with cyborgs =p

I killed Saren for wanting Synthesis, I cant see any reason to change my mind about that. Synthesis' underlying message is basically 'diversity is bad, make everyone the same' and I have a serious problem with that.

Saren messed with the wrong synthetics and the wrong doctor, that's why he had it coming. Add the natural hate for humans and love for power, you have a thrall of rage and a pawn to Soverign =p However, besides supporting 100% free will and diversity, I think synthesis shouldn't be a problem as long it is "free willing" individually. Each individual would be to blame if it would go right or wrong, and an individual choice. That's my reaction to it if brought to real life standards, though.

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

[Bill Casey]

iggy1eco wrote...

Saren messed with the wrong synthetics and the wrong doctor, that's why he had it coming.

Unlike Shepard, whose doctor is a glowing dead kid who says he controls all of the Reapers...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 03 mai 2012 - 05:47 .

[TheConstantOne]

iggy1eco wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Yeah, say what you will about IT, but Synthesis is for bleeping bleepholes. Never, never will I choose to fundamentally violate every organism in the galaxy.

Yeah, I wouldn't choose it for me though. The "problem" with it is, Shepard would be merging an organic into a synthetic against pretty much everyones will. I guess most would rather fight to the death against the reapers than be turned into something they didn't want to, even if it had all but upgrades.

I'd rather have the possibility to choose between adding some more resilient vertebras on my free will than anyone else choosing it for me. I guess it would be a better acomplishment being proud of being organic and learn how to manage our free will than unwilingly have synthetic eyes. Synthesis should be a choice to improve or heal health conditions. But now here it's just me thinking if synthesis was as true and resorcefull in real life xD

Besides, the Universe demands diversity, and diversity it's good. Organics love it, organics demand it, not just in DNA, but in the way we see things and do things

Alright, I've been forced to comment one more time.  If I don't the moment is lost.  I'm essentially going to address everyone on the synthesis topic, not just who I'm quoting.

Firstly, I don't see merging synthetic and organic life as removing diversity and free will.  In fact, given its improvements, I see such a future as giving everyone more potential to grow in more possible directions.  I see it as *increasing* not *decreasing* diversity.

Secondly, I won't argue that synthesis isn't a violation of others' choices.  It most definitely is.  While I find the prospect appealing, not everyone will.  But I felt morally obliged to save as many lives as I could and I wasn't confident that my will could control the entire Reaper collective forever.  So I chose to make one single choice for everyone so that they might live.  It wasn't a crippling disease I was inflicting them with, after all.  Is it a violation of freedom? Yes. I accept that.  But leaders have to make tough calls without consensus all the time...this one was Shepard's to bear.  Mind you, if I saw synthesis as lessening diversity or enslaving *anyone* I would have refused it.

But, anyway, this is a topic that we will all never reach complete agreement on.  I've given as good a defense of synthesis (taken in the literal sense) as I can.  Even if bioware intended synthesis to be the "best" ending, I don't think there is one definitely good ending.  There are morally questionable things with all of these endings.  It's a question of what you think is the lesser evil

[iggy1eco]

byne wrote...

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Be the catalyst's point of view it would be good having part synthetic because he says that it also would end up the wars between synthetics and organics, which I find it not likely, and more just a theory of his. It thinks that it will end all wars and all, which again I find it not possible unless you're programmed for peace.

But me being and Indoctrinist (is that how you say it?) I believe the catalyst was just making a ridiculous excuse to turn everyone into a husk.

[BleedingUranium]

iggy1eco wrote...

byne wrote...

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Be the catalyst's point of view it would be good having part synthetic because he says that it also would end up the wars between synthetics and organics, which I find it not likely, and more just a theory of his. It thinks that it will end all wars and all, which again I find it not possible unless you're programmed for peace.

But me being and Indoctrinist (is that how you say it?) I believe the catalyst was just making a ridiculous excuse to turn everyone into a husk.

What Synthesis does:



(How do you link youtube vids at a certain time?)

[iggy1eco]

TheConstantOne wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

clennon8 wrote...

Yeah, say what you will about IT, but Synthesis is for bleeping bleepholes. Never, never will I choose to fundamentally violate every organism in the galaxy.

Yeah, I wouldn't choose it for me though. The "problem" with it is, Shepard would be merging an organic into a synthetic against pretty much everyones will. I guess most would rather fight to the death against the reapers than be turned into something they didn't want to, even if it had all but upgrades.

I'd rather have the possibility to choose between adding some more resilient vertebras on my free will than anyone else choosing it for me. I guess it would be a better acomplishment being proud of being organic and learn how to manage our free will than unwilingly have synthetic eyes. Synthesis should be a choice to improve or heal health conditions. But now here it's just me thinking if synthesis was as true and resorcefull in real life xD

Besides, the Universe demands diversity, and diversity it's good. Organics love it, organics demand it, not just in DNA, but in the way we see things and do things

Alright, I've been forced to comment one more time.  If I don't the moment is lost.  I'm essentially going to address everyone on the synthesis topic, not just who I'm quoting.

Firstly, I don't see merging synthetic and organic life as removing diversity and free will.  In fact, given its improvements, I see such a future as giving everyone more potential to grow in more possible directions.  I see it as *increasing* not *decreasing* diversity.

Secondly, I won't argue that synthesis isn't a violation of others' choices.  It most definitely is.  While I find the prospect appealing, not everyone will.  But I felt morally obliged to save as many lives as I could and I wasn't confident that my will could control the entire Reaper collective forever.  So I chose to make one single choice for everyone so that they might live.  It wasn't a crippling disease I was inflicting them with, after all.  Is it a violation of freedom? Yes. I accept that.  But leaders have to make tough calls without consensus all the time...this one was Shepard's to bear.  Mind you, if I saw synthesis as lessening diversity or enslaving *anyone* I would have refused it.

But, anyway, this is a topic that we will all never reach complete agreement on.  I've given as good a defense of synthesis (taken in the literal sense) as I can.  Even if bioware intended synthesis to be the "best" ending, I don't think there is one definitely good ending.  There are morally questionable things with all of these endings.  It's a question of what you think is the lesser evil

Y U R NOT SLEEPING? xD

Welcome back and yeah, I agree, it's a long topic and hard to agree. Again, that's our diversity at work =p In the end, by your explanation, it depends on "how synthetic" everyone would be or how each individual interpretation of synthesis. Anyways, I respect your POV Have a good night mate!

Modifié par iggy1eco, 03 mai 2012 - 05:57 .

[byne]

BleedingUranium wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

byne wrote...

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Be the catalyst's point of view it would be good having part synthetic because he says that it also would end up the wars between synthetics and organics, which I find it not likely, and more just a theory of his. It thinks that it will end all wars and all, which again I find it not possible unless you're programmed for peace.

But me being and Indoctrinist (is that how you say it?) I believe the catalyst was just making a ridiculous excuse to turn everyone into a husk.

What Synthesis does:



(How do you link youtube vids at a certain time?)

Right click on the video and select 'copy video url at current time'

[iggy1eco]

BleedingUranium wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

byne wrote...

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Be the catalyst's point of view it would be good having part synthetic because he says that it also would end up the wars between synthetics and organics, which I find it not likely, and more just a theory of his. It thinks that it will end all wars and all, which again I find it not possible unless you're programmed for peace.

But me being and Indoctrinist (is that how you say it?) I believe the catalyst was just making a ridiculous excuse to turn everyone into a husk.

What Synthesis does:



(How do you link youtube vids at a certain time?)

Yeah, Reaper synthesis makes dead organics spit "fire balls" through your mouth haha Also...make good fart jokes!

[byne]

TheConstantOne wrote...

Secondly, I won't argue that synthesis isn't a violation of others' choices.  It most definitely is.  While I find the prospect appealing, not everyone will.  But I felt morally obliged to save as many lives as I could and I wasn't confident that my will could control the entire Reaper collective forever.  So I chose to make one single choice for everyone so that they might live.  It wasn't a crippling disease I was inflicting them with, after all.  Is it a violation of freedom? Yes. I accept that.  But leaders have to make tough calls without consensus all the time...this one was Shepard's to bear.  Mind you, if I saw synthesis as lessening diversity or enslaving *anyone* I would have refused it.

If any game or movie ended with someone saying "Black people will always rebel and attack white people, so you need to turn everyone into mexicans" people would be crying racism, but somehow claiming synthetics will always rebel and attack organics is all fine and dandy.

[Hawk227]

TheConstantOne wrote...

[snip]

Firstly, I don't see merging synthetic and organic life as removing diversity and free will.  In fact, given its improvements, I see such a future as giving everyone more potential to grow in more possible directions.  I see it as *increasing* not *decreasing* diversity.

[snip]

Even if it doesn't homogenize (I think it does) the galaxy, it is absolutely decreasing diversity. Right now we have plants, animals, insects, fungi, bacteria, viruses, synthetics, and organic/synthetic hybrids. After synthesis, we have semisynthetic plants, semisynthetic animals, semi synthetic insects, semisynthetic fungi, semisynthetic bacteria, and semisynthetic viruses. That's 8 types of life before, and 6 types of life after synthesis.

How would it allow "everyone more potential to grow in more possible directions"?

"Geth build our own future. The heretics ask the Old Machines to give them the future." - Legion

[BleedingUranium]

byne wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

byne wrote...

Fundamentally altering everyone in the galaxy whether or not they like it and turning them half-synthetic is pretty messed up no matter how you look at it.

How do you think Javik will feel about being half-robot? What about Morrigan Admiral Xen?

I cant imagine they'd be pleased.

Also the catalyst's "Synthetics are bad, so make everyone part synthetic and everything will be good' argument is about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Be the catalyst's point of view it would be good having part synthetic because he says that it also would end up the wars between synthetics and organics, which I find it not likely, and more just a theory of his. It thinks that it will end all wars and all, which again I find it not possible unless you're programmed for peace.

But me being and Indoctrinist (is that how you say it?) I believe the catalyst was just making a ridiculous excuse to turn everyone into a husk.

What Synthesis does:



(How do you link youtube vids at a certain time?)

Right click on the video and select 'copy video url at current time'

[iggy1eco]

iggy1eco wrote...

He isn't even listed in the credits =/

But the voice actor is Nicholas Boulton, yeah. Nicholas voiced Coats, while Simon Templeman from Dragon age origins, voiced Admiral Han'Gerrel Vas Neema and Dr.Gavin Archer.

[Hawk227]

byne wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

What Synthesis does:



(How do you link youtube vids at a certain time?)

Right click on the video and select 'copy video url at current time'

It's that easy!? This whole time I've been adding #t=xmyys at the end of the URL before putting it in the link.

[KellanC]

byne wrote...

TheConstantOne wrote...

Secondly, I won't argue that synthesis isn't a violation of others' choices.  It most definitely is.  While I find the prospect appealing, not everyone will.  But I felt morally obliged to save as many lives as I could and I wasn't confident that my will could control the entire Reaper collective forever.  So I chose to make one single choice for everyone so that they might live.  It wasn't a crippling disease I was inflicting them with, after all.  Is it a violation of freedom? Yes. I accept that.  But leaders have to make tough calls without consensus all the time...this one was Shepard's to bear.  Mind you, if I saw synthesis as lessening diversity or enslaving *anyone* I would have refused it.

If any game or movie ended with someone saying "Black people will always rebel and attack white people, so you need to turn everyone into mexicans" people would be crying racism, but somehow claiming synthetics will always rebel and attack organics is all fine and dandy.

All I can think of after reading this is what if when David Yates did the  last Harry Potter movie he had an artistic vision and decided that was how it ended.  Would've been the greatest day in my life when that would have came out.  

[BleedingUranium]

iggy1eco wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

He isn't even listed in the credits =/

But the voice actor is Nicholas Boulton, yeah. Nicholas voiced Coats, while Simon Templeman from Dragon age origins, voiced Admiral Han'Gerrel Vas Neema and Dr.Gavin Archer.

That's very interesting because both the other characters are quite likeable and then as the story progresses, become less so. Maybe "less good" is a better term, though they're certainly not villains. If Coats turns out to be indoctrinated, that's three for three.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 03 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[Auralius Carolus]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Or Pistol/SMG's Revolver Barrel V

EWWW

Assault Rifle Extended Barrel V: Compressed AR-15 Handguard w/ A-Frame Front Sight



Pistol High Caliber Barrel V: The Auto Mag .44 Barrel

http://ep.yimg.com/c...7_2205_94435232

Shotgun High Caliber Barrel V: Yankee Hill Phantom Flash Hider


^^^ Can't Escape a Gun Nut's eye ^^^

Oh, and if the voice actors/plot roles are the same then...

    

Loghain got a hair cut...

[Rifneno]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

He sounds like Simon Templeton, who's a Bioware regular. If so, then Loghain is fighting along side you. And if the Coats Theory is right, his character is doing exactly the same thing as in DA:O. How would that make me feel? PISSED OFF!

You'd be pissed off Simon Templeton is voicing a bad guy? Has he ever NOT? Really, did anyone play Overlord and not realize that Dr. Archer was going to be the real villain as soon as he opened his mouth and Simon Templeton's voice came out? Anyone?

byne wrote...

Last I looked on IMDB I couldnt find Major Coates on the ME3 cast list, which I thought was odd

It definitely is odd. A lot of much more minor characters are listed. Henry Lawson, Kahlee Sanders, Brynn Cole... Coates isn't listed, but Templeton does have "Additional Voices" by his name.

Oh, as I recall someone pondered a while back the possibility of Anderson being indoctrinated. I want to note there's either a plot hole or something up there. When Emily Wong was doing her final story on Twitter, the Reapers got her because they could track QEC transmissions coming from her equipment. That's the same way Anderson is keeping in touch with Shepard. The Reapers can't block QEC but they can apparently track it. So why is Anderson alive?

[Arashi08]

iggy1eco wrote...

ZerebusPrime wrote...

 So right after the infamous second "I was born in London" - "Really?" moment, Anderson gives Shepard an odd look and has an awkward pause before saying "The entire galaxy united... too bad it took the Reapers to bring us all together."
This is old news, but after rewatching it I couldn't help but think that the tone Anderson uses is deliberate, as though he's trying to tell us something.  Or perhaps he's trying to warn us of something he can't say directly, possibly because he's being watched?

And then Anderson gets corrected by a squadmate: it was Shepard who brought everyone together, to which Anderson replies:

"That's exactly what I meant."

Again, he uses added emphasis.  And then he says that no one could have done what Shepard has done - ok, Shepard's special, we know, we get it already.

REWIND!

Right before that sequence, we here that Admiral Anderson is apparently the reason anyone in the resistance is still alive.  Wow.  Well, ok, it's Anderson, after all.  He was the Shepard before there was a Shepard.  Makes sense that he could pull the resistance through this tough time.

And apparently Anderson will agree that winning this war is a matter of doing "whatever it takes," as also seen in the vid I've linked twice now.

Well, what if "whatever it takes" is delivering Shepard to the Reapers?

I know, Anderson as a traitor just sounds crazy.  The Reapers would have to be holding the entire planet's population hostage or something equally heinous to force a guy like that to work for them.  Oh wait.  So just for a moment, let us posit that Anderson may have been forced to make a deal with the Reapers: deliver Shepard to the beam in exchange for... who knows what.  Maybe the population of Switzerland.  We don't know.  In the same conversation, Anderson says that he had been avoiding contact with the Reapers until his men got to London.  We are meant to belive that "contact" means combat, but it can also mean talking.  But how would Anderson have ever come into that sort of contact with the Reapers?

Queue the warning sign mentioned yesterday with the Alliance symbol next to an arrow pointing to a lightning bolt, with Coats sitting right next to the lightning bolt.  Aside from whatever else the Reapers were doing in London, the other thing that makes London special (other than Anderson being born there) is that it's where Anderson would have come into contact with Major Coats, the Big Ben Sniper from the first trailer, the guy who was sniping husks until a spotlight was shone on him, indicating that his sniping position may have been less secure than advertised late in the game.  Maybe he limped out of sight... or maybe he was caught and turned into an agent of the Reapers with orders to worm his way into the resistance command structure.  Either way, he somehow fixes his leg by the time we see him in ME3.


I'd best stop here before I move out of speculation territory and into fanfic territory.  There's a lot happening behind the scenes that we just flat out don't know.  What I've positted above fits in with the London as a Trap narrative with Harbinger showing up at the end specifically to capture and indoctrinate Shepard.  It would also make Coats a candidate for Harbinger's missing mouthpiece in the game (surely he doesn't HAVE to use a reverbed voice when he controls someone).  That in turn would fit in with the Coats as a mole idea but take it one step further.

Any thoughts?

Just read it, still processing. However, the Reapers attacked Earth first and then Palaven and then Thessia. Am I right? Or maybe somewhat at the same time having the Local Cluster as a first target because it was the nearest to the galaxy "limits" having the Reapers come from Darkspace and catching up with a very near Mass Relay. However, a lot of time passes and while Thessia and Palaven, the most powerful military factions, are totally owned, Earth somehow seems to still "pretty" compared to the other factions, and maybe who's to blame is Harbinger cooking something up in London.

Coats was caught at the same time in reaper or invasion exposure as everyone else, even Anderson. Tactics to survive could be the same as Anderson's. We don't know nothing about him on the background really, besides fans asking for a name to an unamed badass character on screen, which leads to the story maybe being somewhat altered so he could be in it somehow. In my opinion, it seems a big change, unless they wanted to go down the Turncoat(e)s road all along. Besides that, a too perfect change.

Still, this way of interpreting the dialogue and making Coates someone who's also cooking something behind those "Don't shoot or you'll ****** it off" lines, makes sense. A part of me wants it to be right as much as it feels that Coates was just a cameo.

About Anderson turning on us, that would be quite a twist, but he pretty much kept the most alive and led the resistance in a fashion way. But I don't believe he was indoctrinated.

Technically they attacked Kar'shan, the Batarian homeworld first, then Earth was the first council world attacked.

[SubAstris]

Ser Issac wrote...


The entire theory follows that line of thought. It takes the idea that Coates must be up to no good and forces the theory onto every little moment involving him.

A bit like IT theory then. It is no surprise that many who are IT theorists also believe that, the logical processes, flawed as they are, to come to such a conclusion are the same

[BleedingUranium]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Or Pistol/SMG's Revolver Barrel V

EWWW

Assault Rifle Extended Barrel V: Compressed AR-15 Handguard w/ A-Frame Front Sight



Pistol High Caliber Barrel V: The Auto Mag .44 Barrel

http://ep.yimg.com/c...7_2205_94435232

Shotgun High Caliber Barrel V: Yankee Hill Phantom Flash Hider


^^^ Can't Escape a Gun Nut's eye ^^^

The rest are like that too.

Scope IV is a backwards ACOG with a poorly modeled Docter sight, as another example. They all look so dumb it has to be a joke.

Also, the pic for Stability Mod is that odd device that's seen everywhere in Mass Effect, like a weird stick thingy that fixes stuff. And Piercing Mod is the ME1 weapon locker on its side.

[Rifneno]

SubAstris wrote...

Ser Issac wrote...


The entire theory follows that line of thought. It takes the idea that Coates must be up to no good and forces the theory onto every little moment involving him.

A bit like IT theory then. It is no surprise that many who are IT theorists also believe that, the logical processes, flawed as they are, to come to such a conclusion are the same

How do you not burst into flames just by typing "logical process"?

[iggy1eco]

Arashi08 wrote...

Technically they attacked Kar'shan, the Batarian homeworld first, then Earth was the first council world attacked.

Yeah forgot about the Batarians =/ Yeah, basically that's how their main army was made of in the begining so makes sense. batarians were easy prey and cannon fodder to the next invasion. Still, since they had their eye on Shepard, makes sense Harbinger taking his sweet time on earth to cook something up.

Thanks for the heads up

Modifié par iggy1eco, 03 mai 2012 - 06:33 .

[Auralius Carolus]

Rifneno wrote...

You'd be pissed off Simon Templeton is voicing a bad guy? Has he ever NOT? Really, did anyone play Overlord and not realize that Dr. Archer was going to be the real villain as soon as he opened his mouth and Simon Templeton's voice came out? Anyone?

Well, Han'Gerrel was a good guy in ME2. And technically he's just trigger happy in ME3.

But it's less of a "Bad Guy" and more of "That character who's supposed to be a hero-going-on-legend then suspiciously pulls back his forces when the battle gets thick, who just happened to be voice acted by a guy who's character did the exact same thing in another game for the exact same company, and in which both characters, who do the exact same thing for the exact same company, share some physical resemblance" thing. 

*pants heavily*

Of course, that is assuming it's the same actor playing a Coats and Coats is actually a traitor.

[iggy1eco]

BleedingUranium wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

iggy1eco wrote...

He isn't even listed in the credits =/

But the voice actor is Nicholas Boulton, yeah. Nicholas voiced Coats, while Simon Templeman from Dragon age origins, voiced Admiral Han'Gerrel Vas Neema and Dr.Gavin Archer.

That's very interesting because both the other characters are quite likeable and then as the story progresses, become less so. Maybe "less good" is a better term, though they're certainly not villains. If Coats turns out to be indoctrinated, that's three for three.

I think "less good" it's the best term, however they have strong motivations and stronger ambitions. Actually I see them no different from a Renegade Shepard judging by the actions they took. Shepard just is more flexible.

[balance5050]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

You'd be pissed off Simon Templeton is voicing a bad guy? Has he ever NOT? Really, did anyone play Overlord and not realize that Dr. Archer was going to be the real villain as soon as he opened his mouth and Simon Templeton's voice came out? Anyone?

Well, Han'Gerrel was a good guy in ME2. And technically he's just trigger happy in ME3.

But it's less of a "Bad Guy" and more of "That character who's supposed to be a hero-going-on-legend then suspiciously pulls back his forces when the battle gets thick, who just happened to be voice acted by a guy who's character did the exact same thing in another game for the exact same company, and in which both characters, who do the exact same thing for the exact same company, share some physical resemblance" thing. 

*pants heavily*

Of course, that is assuming it's the same actor playing a Coats and Coats is actually a traitor.

Before realizing he might be a traitor, I wondered what purpose he served. He IS the one that suspiciously says "No one made it." and "We need to regroup."