57139 réponses à ce sujet

[lex0r11]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

[...]

No you play as Kai Leng, that would be awwwesome.

(Sorry had to do that >.>)

Also, someone is trying to keep me away from this thread! I have almost all monday off and my internet dies for several hours..

Modifié par lex0r11, 07 mai 2012 - 11:05 .

[HellishFiend]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

From what I remember of bits he told me about his game. Default male Shepard, paragon, did Every side mission, may have missed some Normandy conversation reputation gains, chose the Geth and watched Tali die (she's exiled by default which sucked and means you can't make peace with them), and he did enough multiplayer to get his readiness rating to about 97%. Was 100% but decay set in. I personally think killing the geth is better in the long run, since Tali doesn't die that way and you gain more conversation points. Then again it is a renegade point gain I think....

Thanks.  I dont relish the thought of doing all the sidequests with a default Shepard (I'm planning on doing a minimal playthrough using n7 multiplayer assets to unlock synthesis), so hopefully we can get some confirmation from your friend if that doesnt work for me. 

[MegumiAzusa]

balance5050 wrote...

Megumi Asuza posted a diagram of the shadows, anyone remember what page number that was on?

If anyone needs a collection of pictures I upload just go there:
http://thundermods.n...ern/Lilith/ME3/

[Vahilor]

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;

Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

But it is not possible if the light source is shining from the left, that the shadow points to the left side and vise versa... like you see on Anderson and TIM.

[Stigweird85]

Vahilor wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;

Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

But it is not possible if the light source is shining from the left, that the shadow points to the left side and vise versa... like you see on Anderson and TIM.

I can understand where the argument is coming from, personally though this is on the Nah pile as far as IT goes.

[HellishFiend]

bigstig wrote...


I can understand where the argument is coming from, personally though this is on the Nah pile as far as IT goes.

Suit yourself, but I personally feel it is a fairly moderate piece of evidence when combined with the camera shot that highlights the opposing shadows and hides Shepard. 

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;

Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

But it is not possible if the light source is shining from the left, that the shadow points to the left side and vise versa... like you see on Anderson and TIM.

I can understand where the argument is coming from, personally though this is on the Nah pile as far as IT goes.

I will agree...the moment someone finds a picture of similar out of place shadows somewhere else in the series.

[MaximizedAction]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

There are no multiple light sources. Only shadows that point in different directions. There is a difference between the two. If there were multiple light sources (or even a single light source), the shadows would change orientation as the characters moved. Instead, we have a console shadow that points in one direction, an Anderson shadow that points in another, and a TIM shadow that points in yet another. As I said in a previous post, Anderson and TIM's shadows appear to remain fixed in 45 degree angles away from Shepard's perspective, regardless of their position on the platform, indicating they are not actually caused by a light source. The camera angle used at one point in the scene (where you cant see Shepard) seems to explicitly highlight this. As I also said in that post, I think the opposing 45 degree angles on the shadows are possibly intentionally analogous to the positioning of dialog tree options in a similar fashion as the crucible choices. 

Was just thinking about that myself. If you make the shadows out to be arrows pointing towards the console, and then take into account the positions of the three choices... Anderson's shadow is pointing towards destroy, while TIM's shadow is pointing towards control.

These interpretations for the obviously weird shadows are among the coolest I've seen, yet.

HellishFiend wrote...

While we're on the subject of music,
has anyone pointed out before that all of the musical ambiance notes
and tones you hear in the dream sequences seem to be exclusively from
the piano tracks Leaving Earth and An End Once and for All? They all
seem to be the same note, tone, and/or octave as one of the staple notes
you hear in those tracks.

It's hard for me to describe
accurately since I'm not very familiar with music terminology, but
hopefully you guys get what I mean.

I've started wondering about the Mansell piano piece.

It plays while leaving Earth - duh! -, in a slowed down version in all dreams and in a varied form as "An End Once and For All" - notice where the capital letters are! - but it is in the same note as "Leaving Earth"

All are in the same key, up until at the very last seconds of "An End" does a violent dissonance set it - weird for a end-track. Resembles the "dissonance" of the story, which seemed consistent right until the ending where it seems to break the flow and makes a 180°.

"Leaving Earth" has two Reaper growls in it and ends with a single piano note that resembles a Reaper growl.

The Dream tune - aka slowed down "Leaving Earth" - also fades out with a loooooong piano note that now, since stretched artificially, now sounds even more like a Reaper growl - imo in the same note as the "Leaving Earth" growls.

"An End once and For All" has no Reaper growls, but has a very humble "Mass Effect/Hero" melody worked in, in about the same point, where the Reaper growls are in the "Leaving Earth".

What do all these story points where "Leaving Earth" plays in common? The Child is in these scenes.
So does the melody represent the tragic theme for ME3? Not neccessarily, since there is another one: it plays when Ash gets beat up on Mars and during the fall of Thessia.
The Child that represents the tragedy of Earth? Then why play it at the end in an even more tragic-ified variation, where we 1) supposedly know that the child isn't a real child, hence not so tragic after all and 2) supposedly saved Earth?
It might represent Shepard's tragedy of having to leave Earth and at the end having to sacrifice her/himself. But then, the omni-present Reaper growl might hint at something else:

TL;DR:
I think, Leaving Earth is not only the tragic theme for Shepard, Earth and humanity, but might also serve as some sort of indoctrination theme.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 07 mai 2012 - 11:29 .

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

TL;DR:
I think, Leaving Earth is not only the tragic theme for Shepard, Earth and humanity, but might also serve as some sort of indoctrination theme.

Yeah, that's essentially what I was getting at. Assuming we're right about all the other things, then it stands to reason that the notes and tones from Leaving Earth being played during the dream sequences is intentional for just that purpose. 

[Arian Dynas]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Oh hi guys, How's it goin?

Oh hai golfergai! Yew arr looking especially beotefull and sexee todaeh.

YOU ARE TEARING ME APART INDOCTRINATION THEORY!

/Wiseau

Destructorlio wrote...

whateverman7 wrote...

aight, i didnt read this whole thread, just came to the last page to put my 2cents:

Welcome to the rabbit hole, friend. That's a pretty good summary of IT, but, if you have a few spare days available, I highly recommend trawling through this thread, you'll find a LOT more things to consider. 

A really good, comprehensive trawl of the evidence can be found on a blog linked right here in this thread, but I can't find it! Also it misses some of the major evidence, like the cubemap and the dream_foliage filename.

An apropos metaphor, considering the red pill lets you go further down said rabbit hole.

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

blooregard wrote...

The indoctrination theory isn't just a group...its an idea and ideas don't die so easily.

Like Cerberus?

Hmm, which to go with?

"You can't murder an idea!"

Or 

"Ideas are bulletproof"?

SubAstris wrote...
*snip*
Prove it

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH OUR TIME YOU STUPID WANKER!? I'LL TELL YA THIS, IT AIN'T PLAYING PARCHEESI!

[MegumiAzusa]

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:

http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;
Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

In computer graphics for games you have only about 3 light sources available:

A directional light, you only set up the direction of the light, not the actual source, this would cause all shadows to point in the exact same direction. It is to simulate the sun.
A point light, you set the source and the maximum radius in which the light affects things. This would cause all shadows to point away from the source.
A spot light, like a point light you set a source, but in addition you also set a direction and a dihedral angle so that only objects in that cone are affected.

All in all: you need at least two light sources to create shadows that point in different directions. Also Sheps shadow has a third direction, meaning they need at least three light sources. In addition you have to manually set the object to cast only a shadow for one light source, if nothing is set it either casts shadows for each light source or only for the first in the chain. Meaning: it was set on purpose to have shadow pointing into different directions.
Also note the main light source, baked into the geometry is completely different from any of these as the shadow of the console is super long compared to the characters shadows.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 07 mai 2012 - 11:39 .

[paxxton]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:

http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;
Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

In computer graphics for games you have only about 3 light sources available:

A directional light, you only set up the direction of the light, not the actual source, this would cause all shadows to point in the exact same direction. It is to simulate the sun.
A point light, you set the source and the maximum radius in which the light affects things. This would cause all shadows to point away from the source.
A spot light, like a point light you set a source, but in addition you also set a direction and a dihedral angle so that only objects in that cone are affected.

All in all: you need at least two light sources to create shadows that point in different directions. Also Sheps shadow has a third direction, meaning they need at least three light sources. In addition you have to manually set the object to cast only a shadow for one light source, if nothing is set it either casts shadows for each light source or only for the first in the chain. Meaning: it was set on purpose to have shadow pointing into different directions.
Also note the main light source, baked into the geometry is completely different from any of these as the shadow of the console is super long compared to the characters shadows.

Creating a light source and litting an object in CG doesn't guarantee shadows. You have to explicitly render them.
 I think there are lights in ME3 that don't cast shadows - just make the scene look brighter in places. Maybe this is why character faces have strange black spots on them?

Modifié par paxxton, 07 mai 2012 - 11:51 .

[MegumiAzusa]

MaximizedAction wrote...

I've started wondering about the Mansell piano piece.

It plays while leaving Earth - duh! -, in a slowed down version in all dreams and in a varied form as "An End Once and For All" - notice where the capital letters are! - but it is in the same note as "Leaving Earth"

All are in the same key, up until at the very last seconds of "An End" does a violent dissonance set it - weird for a end-track. Resembles the "dissonance" of the story, which seemed consistent right until the ending where it seems to break the flow and makes a 180°.

"Leaving Earth" has two Reaper growls in it and ends with a single piano note that resembles a Reaper growl.

The Dream tune - aka slowed down "Leaving Earth" - also fades out with a loooooong piano note that now, since stretched artificially, now sounds even more like a Reaper growl - imo in the same note as the "Leaving Earth" growls.

"An End once and For All" has no Reaper growls, but has a very humble "Mass Effect/Hero" melody worked in, in about the same point, where the Reaper growls are in the "Leaving Earth".

Seriously Leaving Earth 0:19-0:50 is about the same as An End Once and For All 0:56-1:12, minus the growls. There is another note added after the growls that isn't in AEOaFA, but other that that, could be the same track.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 07 mai 2012 - 11:51 .

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Okay just got another one for the IT.

During the conversation with james when you invite him up if you follow the Paragon dialogue line Shepard says "The right choice is usualy not the easy one."

Yes it is minor and yes we have heard it before, but hearing Shepard outright say this and then thinking about the ending where the easy choice is most certainly not Destroy if taken at face value...

You are first assuming destroy is the best option. James wouldn't have even know this! It could easily applies to all options anyway

Destroy is the only option that does not compromise the beliefs of Shepard and everyone allied with Shepard, even the Geth and EDI. Everyone agrees the Reapers should be wiped out except the Reapers themselves. Even someone who does not follow IT should see this with ease, if not here is a video summing up it all (which I by the way allready aksed you to watch, but is pretty clear you did not)



And hey i dident say it was irrefutable proof, I said it was just another minor point in that direction. And no James does not know about destroy, but Bioware, the ones who write the dialogue do. Ever heard the term foreshadowing?

But in the impossibilities of the ending...well lets see...the Catalyst says that Synthesis combines Synthetic and Organic material into a new DNA...DNA, remember that for what comes. Synthetic Material in this context is metal and machines. I am well aware not all synthetic material is inorgnic, but in context of Synthesis, we are talking non organic life.

Here is the kicker then. Metal, non organic material does not have a DNA, it does not evolve on its own. That is one of the fundamenal reason the endings when taken litterally are impossible. There is no DNA to combine from the Synthetic material making the Starkids entire line self contradictory. You cannot two things when one of the things does not have what you aim to combine!

Then there is the entire Shepard breath scene and why it within context of a litteral ending is impossible, but that has been discussed to death. Even so i am sure you will make the usual claim Shepard is on the Citadel and somehow ignore that that would require him to survive an explosion more powerful than a Supernova.

I don't have time to respond fully and watch that video, but I will respond to your comments. The problem I see with you saying that is that Shepard's allies only want to destroy the Reapers before the choices. They see it as the only feasible way of ending the Reaper threat. This all changes however when the Catalyst comes into play and other options become available, that is control and synthesis aswell as destroy. We don't know how others would react when other options are on the table.

If that is the case, then Shepard being resurrected after falling from planetary re-entry is also impossible. Ergo, 95% of ME2 and all of ME3 is fake.

I know all about foreshadowing, however there is no clear evidence that it is foreshadowing IT here and not just reusing the common cliche of the "best way is not always the easy way".

How do you know this? It has already been stated by BW that all plot important characters on the Citadel survived, they must have survived the explosion aswell. Why not Shepard?

[MegumiAzusa]

paxxton wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:

http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;
Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

In computer graphics for games you have only about 3 light sources available:

A directional light, you only set up the direction of the light, not the actual source, this would cause all shadows to point in the exact same direction. It is to simulate the sun.
A point light, you set the source and the maximum radius in which the light affects things. This would cause all shadows to point away from the source.
A spot light, like a point light you set a source, but in addition you also set a direction and a dihedral angle so that only objects in that cone are affected.

All in all: you need at least two light sources to create shadows that point in different directions. Also Sheps shadow has a third direction, meaning they need at least three light sources. In addition you have to manually set the object to cast only a shadow for one light source, if nothing is set it either casts shadows for each light source or only for the first in the chain. Meaning: it was set on purpose to have shadow pointing into different directions.
Also note the main light source, baked into the geometry is completely different from any of these as the shadow of the console is super long compared to the characters shadows.

Creating a light source and litting an object in CG doesn't guarantee shadows. You have to explicitly render them.
 I think there are lights in ME3 that don't cast shadows - just make the scene look brighter in places. Maybe this is why character faces have strange black spots on them?

I know, but what I described is the default handling for UE3, the first light source in the chain is declared the standard and used if nothing else is set.
If you mean by black spots that the shadow isn't continuous but sometimes creates spots or lines that is because of how the shadow is calculated, the equation isn't perfect so it doesn't fill everything it should.

[SubAstris]

Arian Dynas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
*snip*
Prove it

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH OUR TIME YOU STUPID WANKER!? I'LL TELL YA THIS, IT AIN'T PLAYING PARCHEESI!

You must be joking, aren't you?

[estebanus]

Hi again! Sorry I hvan't been here for a while, but I had to write a few important tests at my university.

Anyway, anything new and/or exciting?

[paxxton]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

paxxton wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:

http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;
Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

In computer graphics for games you have only about 3 light sources available:

A directional light, you only set up the direction of the light, not the actual source, this would cause all shadows to point in the exact same direction. It is to simulate the sun.
A point light, you set the source and the maximum radius in which the light affects things. This would cause all shadows to point away from the source.
A spot light, like a point light you set a source, but in addition you also set a direction and a dihedral angle so that only objects in that cone are affected.

All in all: you need at least two light sources to create shadows that point in different directions. Also Sheps shadow has a third direction, meaning they need at least three light sources. In addition you have to manually set the object to cast only a shadow for one light source, if nothing is set it either casts shadows for each light source or only for the first in the chain. Meaning: it was set on purpose to have shadow pointing into different directions.
Also note the main light source, baked into the geometry is completely different from any of these as the shadow of the console is super long compared to the characters shadows.

Creating a light source and litting an object in CG doesn't guarantee shadows. You have to explicitly render them.
 I think there are lights in ME3 that don't cast shadows - just make the scene look brighter in places. Maybe this is why character faces have strange black spots on them?

I know, but what I described is the default handling for UE3, the first light source in the chain is declared the standard and used if nothing else is set.
If you mean by black spots that the shadow isn't continuous but sometimes creates spots or lines that is because of how the shadow is calculated, the equation isn't perfect so it doesn't fill everything it should.

Sometimes when characters are in a well lit room (like the one at the beginning when you first meet Ashley/Kaidan),. the faces can be strangely black. I think it has something to do with Spherical Harmonic Lighting or Number of Lights settings in the Configuration Tool. 

Modifié par paxxton, 07 mai 2012 - 12:05 .

[SS2Dante]

paxxton wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

On the Admiral Anderson: I worked on a free commercial game and I now work on a commercial game and I can tell you this when it comes to subtitles. They will be automated. If they were automated for me on a free commercial, then so too will they be automated for Bioware. So, the question is, why manually change the subtitles at the last minute? Why take that extra step and add on extra work unless you were trying to convey something?

Nah, debunked by paxxton. Apparently he's admiral anderson at the missile batteries briefly.

Really! was there a screenshot?

Ask him  Odd thing to make up though

This is the same person that thought the black wavy lines at the ending was a cloud of nanites. I would just like to see it myself is all.

Just play the game and provide a screen shot. That will settle it.

OK, it seems I made a mistake. I checked it on 2 different playthroughs and Anderson is referred to as Anderson near the Thanix missle launchers.

Lol, ok, so the point still stands? I'm gonna play through the Earth and London missions to double check, then I'll continue that conversation with Sub

[Arian Dynas]

SubAstris wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
*snip*
Prove it

WHAT DO YOU THINK WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH OUR TIME YOU STUPID WANKER!? I'LL TELL YA THIS, IT AIN'T PLAYING PARCHEESI!

You must be joking, aren't you?

Mmmm, mostly, the "anger" is all bluster, the thinking you are an obtuse twit, completely accurate.

[Stigweird85]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:

http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;
Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

In computer graphics for games you have only about 3 light sources available:

A directional light, you only set up the direction of the light, not the actual source, this would cause all shadows to point in the exact same direction. It is to simulate the sun.
A point light, you set the source and the maximum radius in which the light affects things. This would cause all shadows to point away from the source.
A spot light, like a point light you set a source, but in addition you also set a direction and a dihedral angle so that only objects in that cone are affected.

All in all: you need at least two light sources to create shadows that point in different directions. Also Sheps shadow has a third direction, meaning they need at least three light sources. In addition you have to manually set the object to cast only a shadow for one light source, if nothing is set it either casts shadows for each light source or only for the first in the chain. Meaning: it was set on purpose to have shadow pointing into different directions.
Also note the main light source, baked into the geometry is completely different from any of these as the shadow of the console is super long compared to the characters shadows.

I'll take your word for that as far as rendering goes(I haven't got the slightest clue about how games are programmed are made so won't pretend I do.

However as I've said, to me it's not IT proof.

The concept that the shadows seem to point to their choices(TIM control, Anderson destroy) that is interesting point and I could accept that but the progression of thought that is the shadows aren't right/possible which means this world isn't real OMG Indoctrination is true!

I like the IT, I believe that in all likelihood will feature in EC; however not everything odd will be evidence for IT just as not everything in the game that doesn't seem to imply IT is evidence against IT(I hope this makes sense, I found it hard to convery what I was meaning)

Personally I think we have to be careful, if you look hard enough at anything trying with an outcome in mind then you will find it. For example if someone plays a track backwards and says there is hidden message in it you may not hear what they hear but if the same person play the track and tells you beforehand that it says Join the Navy then you will hear that as you have been given their conclusion.

I'm confident that it someone sat down and went through all 3 games with as much detail and finesse as has been done when searching for clues to support IT then you would get similar levels of "evidence" we must remain objective and assess each piece of evidence on it's own merits rather than assume that anything weird supports IT.

Again I believe in IT,  but I think a few people are taking everything offered as evidence of IT when not everything will be

[Salient Archer]

Vahilor wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;

Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

But it is not possible if the light source is shining from the left, that the shadow points to the left side and vise versa... like you see on Anderson and TIM.

Watch this Vid .

It clearly shows their shadows are locked to a 45 degree angle (from Sheps POV) the entire conversation.

This is especially evident when they switch sides and yet their shadows aren't subject to the room lighting at all.

This isn't physically (or virtually) possible without a lighting artist deliberately adding a locked lighting spot on each of those characters. It's either a rushed workaround for a shadow bug in the level design (doubtful for a key scene) or deliberate.

Modifié par Salient Archer, 07 mai 2012 - 12:11 .

[Stigweird85]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

bigstig wrote...

Vahilor wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

You would get multiple shadows is each light source had the same intensity and was pointed directly at the same object(at a sports arena one person has 4 shadows due to spot lights etc.

However;

Seeking Shadows by hiljainenmies, on Flickr
One major light source(sun) multiple objects casting shadows in different directions. It is not impossible.

But it is not possible if the light source is shining from the left, that the shadow points to the left side and vise versa... like you see on Anderson and TIM.

I can understand where the argument is coming from, personally though this is on the Nah pile as far as IT goes.

I will agree...the moment someone finds a picture of similar out of place shadows somewhere else in the series.

I'm looking for pictures at the moment, my first instinct about Shadows is on Virmire but I don't have access to an easy save and google doesn't have anything that I could use, when I find something I'll share it

[Rifneno]

liggy002 wrote...

Harbinger isn't a Prothean Reaper. He is likely far older than that. I could have sworn I saw him in Shepard's visions on Eden Prime when he was trying to recruit Javik. A huge Reaper was firing multiple lasers quickly at the Prothean City. I know who is known to do that.

No. All of it: no. Harbinger is not shown in the Prothean flashbacks. I just doublechecked to be positive. He's not there. Harbinger has two distinguishing features vs. other capital ships: his six glowing "eyes" and his lacking of a center tentacle. No capital ship in the flashbacks have the eyes, and they all have a center tentacle.

As for his age, there is literally nothing at all to go on. If they had some part of him, yes, they could probably put a rough date on it. But "we managed to get a good shot off on Harby and broke part of him off, we decided to carbon date it" is something that would probably come up. But no, all we have is one line in the codex stating that he's believed to be the oldest and largest Reaper. Believed is the key word. But hell, whoever wrote the codex isn't even sure which one he is! They said he's been "tentatively identified". And I'm supposed to believe there's some hard science behind their assumption of not only its age but also the age of every single other Reaper? From the same people that thought Sovereign was a goddamn geth vessel even though they had tons of its remains? Holy hell no. I want to learn 40 other languages so I can say "hell no" 41 different ways to that.

So I want to emphasize that for all the other people that are saying "no cuz harbie is the oldest": HELL. NO.

llbountyhunter wrote...

Im pretty sure it was stated that there was NO prothean reaper. That's why there were the collectors.

It was not stated. EDI said, and I quote,
"Probability suggests they attempted to create a Prothean Reaper and failed. Over time, they adapted the Protheans to suit their needs. Changed them, turned them into workers."
This the only thing that has ever suggested there is no Prothean Reaper. EDI, working on little knowledge of the Prothean-Reaper war, suggested that they probably tried and failed. Her logic seems to be based on the fact that they Reaperized some Protheans. But by that logic, husks mean that they aren't making a human Reaper.

I also want to pose this question: what about Javik's comments saying they sacrificed entire worlds by letting the Reapers harvest them while the Prothean Empire tried to recover and prepare? He said the Reapers were harvesting those worlds, not destroying them. "Harvesting" in this war typically means processing organics into toothpaste to make a new Reaper. You could argue it might mean re-purposing them into Collectors, but that still doesn't make any sense. If the Reapers were turning that world against them, it would be monumentally bad tactics to let them do it while you catch your breath. Regrouping while your enemy turns billions of your own people into their enslaved shock troopers makes about as much sense as using a cactus to practice fellatio. The only logical conclusion is that the Reapers were making Prothean soup for a new Reaper. And I have a really hard time believing that after all those cycles, they didn't know if a species wouldn't work as a Reaper until after it was complete.

That's what makes this cycle different. Now we have some of soveriengs tech (the reapers still have incredibly strong shields though), didn't lose the citadel on the first strike and gave the species A fighting chance. Putting this together I'd say there a moderate chance a conventional victory if we stay united.

That's like saying if 500 cavemen got ahold of an AK-47, they'd have a moderate chance of defeating the US military.

God. I'm not trying to be condescending or offending, really, but where the hell do you guys keep getting this idea?! I just don't get it. They've been pounding it into our heads for three full games that we can't beat them in a toe-to-toe fight. Sovereign was holding off the entire Arcturus fleet and the entire Citadel fleet including the Destiny Ascension until Shepard killed his avatar and he was dead in the water. That destroyer on Rannoch took the concentrated fire of the entire Migrant Fleet and they only disabled him, they didn't blow him to smithereens. And it was just a destroyer, not even a capital ship. Even with that incredibly massive unified fleet we don't see one single capital ship destroyed. NOT ONE. We see one lose a couple of tentacles before it blasts a frigate into the next world. And another thing people never factor in: "if we had a unified fleet..." leaves out the fact that the Reapers are also spread out all over the galaxy. If you had a fleet that really threatened the Reapers, they'd unify themselves too. They wouldn't stay divided for conquering. They gathered a pretty significant fleet of capital ships at Earth for that big battle, but it's far from their full fleet. There's only two reasons they'd only do that. Either they're stupid, which they're not, or they know that the fleet they have there is all they need.

HellishFiend wrote...

Did you start with a fresh character on veteran? ME1's difficulty is fairly brutal if you dont follow the difficulty progression.

Even if you do. Insanity is... well, insanity. Even at lvl 50 with colossus armor, I was getting one-shotted by geth snipers and the like. Well, kind of. I think technically it was 2 of them but the bastards loved to work in tandem and fire at pretty much the same time.

I think the part I hated most was the Benezia fight. Biotics were incredibly cheap in that game. Didn't matter how much protection you had against them, you'd still just go paralyzed and slowly fall over. Which is all but an "I win" button for enemies that can potshot you during it on insanity.

byne wrote...

On an unrelated note, I was playing Dragon Age: Origins earlier, and I played Darkspawn Chronicles, just for the hell of it.

After they release DLC fixing the endings of ME3, they should release a Darkspawn Chronicles-esque DLC that assumes Shepard died at the end of ME2, and you play as some indoctrinated soldier and just screw up everyone's day.

I'd play that. Maybe I would be able to kill the Dalatrass finally.

While it would be fun to kill the Dalatrass, I doubt we'll see another DLC like that for any BW game. As I understood it, it sold poorly and got pretty bad reviews. People just don't care for non-canon content I guess.

EpyonX3 wrote...

I agree. It's too bad too, those people are more likely to be manipulated by others than they think. I'm an american christian, or at least I'm trying to be one. The bible is a book you really have to sit down and read. Most Americans would rather it be told to them instead. At that point, they listening more to interpretations sprinkled with random quotes.

I stay away from those churches.

... Damnit. I'm biting my tongue so hard I taste blood. Damnit. Okay, gotta say it. Sorry, I know I shouldn't. But sitting down and reading it in English is still having someone tell it to you. The original sure wasn't in English, and most of the translations are awful.

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris never has a point.

Post of the day.

[MegumiAzusa]

Salient Archer wrote...

Watch this Vid .

It clearly shows their shadows are locked to a 45 degree angle (from Sheps POV) the entire conversation.

This is especially evident when they switch sides and yet their shadows aren't subject to the room lighting at all.

This isn't physically (or virtually) possible without a lighting artist deliberately adding a locked lighting spot on each of those characters. It's either a rushed workaround for a shadow bug in the level design (doubtful for a key scene) or deliberate.

This is actually not entirely true. TIM's shadow at his entrance is about correct to the level lightning (the general x/y direction)

This should make it even more clear that his shadow setting deliberately changes.

Modifié par MegumiAzusa, 07 mai 2012 - 12:22 .