NeoDobby wrote...
Yes, the achni are different. But there is no information that says that humans wouldn't see oily shadows in there dreams as part of an indoctrination process. The Rachni know how to communicate with humans/other races that rely on voice and visuals to communicat. The queen can take control of a body and either make the body understand Rachni signals to enable it to tranform it to speech (unlikely, because it uses dead bodies), or the queen knows enough about speech and how other races use it to communicate. There is a possibility that the queen used the phrase "oily shadows" to make us understand how it is to be in the process of indoctrination. Perhaps using her knowledge about us to determine how we would "see" that process in dreams. I know, this is a lot to infer from a bit of info, but thi explaination makes perfect sense for me
I'm not saying there is no possibility, just that it is more likely in the context that the Rachni is talking about suffering and death rather than indoctrination. Just have a look again at the dialogue
Yes, I know, the both sides of that conflict are very well explained. But who attacked first? The Quarians, who saw that their commands to shut down didn't work? Or the Geth, as a result of their will of self preservation? Your interpretation seems to be that the Geth attacked. It could be the other way around, though.
The whole Geth consensus mission is to show how the Geth are actually peaceful beings and it was actually the Quarians' fault for their conflict . I think it is made pretty clear that it was actions of organics that led the synthetics to behave in such a way; if the Quarians had not treated them like s***, then there would be a very good chance that the two races would have lived in harmony. This is what that mission strongly implies.
ple primarily, and if they can't get the story without referring to a comic, then they have failed.
I get what you mean, although I find it a little strange to allow resources and game mechanics into the interpretation, but not officially released content. I mentioned comics and books merely as an example what I would include into world canon. But when you look through our collected evidence, you'll find that most of it comes from the game itself.
Hmm, I'd like to know: What is your take on includung DLC into the interpretation? There are a lot of players who won't pay money for extra game content? I, for example, weigh every DLC and try to figure out if it is worth the money they want from me, after reading tests. I haven't played arrival, but I accept that we use information from it.
I agree with the comics and books being allowed into evidence, just see what I said to someone else a few posts back about my feelings on them in relation to the main plot.
I would take it with a great deal of skepticism. First, the fact is that DLC is meant to supplement the main plot of the game not carry it, which all the DLC (except Arrival if you support IT) does.The reasons for this are clear; not everyone wants to buy DLC because it can be ridiculously priced and others will not have access to the internet. I don't know how many people bought Arrival, but I know a lot didn't, and if Arrival is very important to IT, then you are essentially missing out on something massive, even key to understanding the plot. Now, many IT theorists might make the argument that the reason BW didn't include the actual ending was because of time restraints, however as far as I am aware, no such graet restraints existed for that DLC.
I could go on further about why Arrival actually does quite a lot to discredit IT, but it is getting late so that is all for now
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
