Ce sujet est fermé
Unschuld wrote...
Andromidius wrote...
Honestly, what's another lie to Bioware? They've told so many its impossible to keep count anymore.
From a literalist standpoint, at least.
Most of the "lies" I've heard from them are ambiguous/vague statements that were interpreted by fans to be lies.
plfranke wrote...
My point is this though, they have still neither confirmed or denied it while still managing to please a considerable amount of people at least to a point of holding them over. If they were to introduce an "option" to be indoctrinated later they would have a lot more success than if they had forced you to be indoctrinated now. They certainly wouldn't have made any money off of it, or at least not as much as they could in the long run.Auralius Carolus wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Also for those asking why Bioware would use resources to reinforce false endings... If Bioware's plan is to come up with the true ending at the end or even in the middle of a long chain of dlc it would make very little sense for them to alienate one side or the other of IT. A lot of IT believers would not buy dlc if they knew the ending should be taken literally. And a hell of a lot of literalists would not buy dlc if they knew the ending was IT. However, if Bioware could get both literalists and IT believers to buy dlc and then come up with a dlc where perhaps indoctrination could just be an option rather than something you're forced into (and I have some ideas on how they could pull that off) everyone would be satisfied and everyone would be buying dlc.
I've considered this, but playing "moderate" can have the opposite effect by satisfying almost no one. Right now, there seems to be a large push against IT- on these forums, on Youtube comments, on e-news, etc.- which suggests a large amount of alienation anyway.
Before I go, holy ****!Auralius Carolus wrote...
Jade8aby88 wrote...
a couple of weird things I noticed, When Shepard wakes up on the citadel, there's a strange sound.
Still doesn't clarify how Anderson got to the control panel first, let alone up the beam first. Hackett doesn't mention Anderson going into the Citadel, just Shepard.
If you reject the Catalyst, his voice goes like Harbinger.
All they had to do was show Shepard being reunited with her squad and this would all be over.
Yeah, I mentioned these earlier.
Now as to the voice changing, assuming that the IT is still valid, consider this explanation:
Indoctrination seems to be based off of Demonic Possession- the EMF presence, subtle progression leading to a violent takeover, seeing things and hearing voices, etc. Well for anybody who is experienced with Exorcisms, not every case is going to be overt and violent. Often in the cases of more clever and powerful entities, the host remains lucid the majority of the time, especially when being observed. However, this facade will usually break after prolonged pressuring and taunting, as the hostile nature finally reveals itself.
These outbursts are normally short but profane and sometimes violent, occasionally with a deepening of vocal pitch, sometimes- seemingly- with both vocal cords being utilized in-sync causing a strong, deep, rhythmatic tone. Often after the outburst, the former mood will return almost as if the outburst could be easily forgotten.
Sound familiar?
Auralius Carolus wrote...
These outbursts are normally short but profane and sometimes violent, occasionally with a deepening of vocal pitch, sometimes- seemingly- with both vocal cords being utilized in-sync causing a strong, deep, rhythmatic tone. Often after the outburst, the former mood will return almost as if the outburst could be easily forgotten.
Sound familiar?
Modifié par HellishFiend, 27 juin 2012 - 08:52 .
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."Unschuld wrote...
Andromidius wrote...
Honestly, what's another lie to Bioware? They've told so many its impossible to keep count anymore.
From a literalist standpoint, at least.
Most of the "lies" I've heard from them are ambiguous/vague statements that were interpreted by fans to be lies.
"post-ending"Auralius Carolus wrote...
plfranke wrote...
My point is this though, they have still neither confirmed or denied it while still managing to please a considerable amount of people at least to a point of holding them over. If they were to introduce an "option" to be indoctrinated later they would have a lot more success than if they had forced you to be indoctrinated now. They certainly wouldn't have made any money off of it, or at least not as much as they could in the long run.Auralius Carolus wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Also for those asking why Bioware would use resources to reinforce false endings... If Bioware's plan is to come up with the true ending at the end or even in the middle of a long chain of dlc it would make very little sense for them to alienate one side or the other of IT. A lot of IT believers would not buy dlc if they knew the ending should be taken literally. And a hell of a lot of literalists would not buy dlc if they knew the ending was IT. However, if Bioware could get both literalists and IT believers to buy dlc and then come up with a dlc where perhaps indoctrination could just be an option rather than something you're forced into (and I have some ideas on how they could pull that off) everyone would be satisfied and everyone would be buying dlc.
I've considered this, but playing "moderate" can have the opposite effect by satisfying almost no one. Right now, there seems to be a large push against IT- on these forums, on Youtube comments, on e-news, etc.- which suggests a large amount of alienation anyway.
Possibly, but as it stands- officially- they aren't releasing any post-ending DLC. That, in itself, is a foolish move IMO. For those who are dissatisfied with the endings, the likely reaction will be "why bother if it all sucks or doesn't add up in the end?"
Andromidius wrote...
Rachni.
Unschuld wrote...
BansheeOwnage wrote...
Ever played Crysis? Its signature Nanosuit has one.
Nope, but they're already real and widely in use.
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."Unschuld wrote...
Andromidius wrote...
Honestly, what's another lie to Bioware? They've told so many its impossible to keep count anymore.
From a literalist standpoint, at least.
Most of the "lies" I've heard from them are ambiguous/vague statements that were interpreted by fans to be lies.
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
Correct me if I'm wrong Hellish but isn't that one of the big problems with the whole Anderson walls moving thing? Sure we could speculate that this is really happening. However, we have nothing even close to this happening in established lore, therefore it isn't acceptable.HellishFiend wrote...
Logic has very specific limitations when it comes to speculating on literature. Within the confines of lore and canon, or in the context of the story itself, the full range of logic is applicable for drawing conclusions or speculations. But when you step outside of both the story and the lore/canon in order to draw up a speculation, logic is not on your side. If it were, you could come up with just about anything and slap a "valid speculation" label on it. The logical process has no foundation when it comes to fiction unless you use established lore and canon.
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
Andromidius wrote...
Honestly the whole 'Normandy picking up wounded squadmates' could have been avoided REALLY easily.
Have them wounded during the Mako crash, and the Normandy picks them up right before Harbinger lands.
Boom, plot hole removed! But they put it in the worst possible place... Which has to mean something...
Unschuld wrote...
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
That's... pretty damning. Hopefully someone grills them for answers at SDCC.
HellishFiend wrote...
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."Unschuld wrote...
Andromidius wrote...
Honestly, what's another lie to Bioware? They've told so many its impossible to keep count anymore.
From a literalist standpoint, at least.
Most of the "lies" I've heard from them are ambiguous/vague statements that were interpreted by fans to be lies.
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
As it stands, promoting 2 Vorcha from MP is of more value to the war effort than the Rachni. Just saying.
HellishFiend wrote...
As it stands, promoting 2 Vorcha from MP is of more value to the war effort than the Rachni. Just saying.
plfranke wrote...
Correct me if I'm wrong Hellish but isn't that one of the big problems with the whole Anderson walls moving thing? Sure we could speculate that this is really happening. However, we have nothing even close to this happening in established lore, therefore it isn't acceptable.HellishFiend wrote...
Logic has very specific limitations when it comes to speculating on literature. Within the confines of lore and canon, or in the context of the story itself, the full range of logic is applicable for drawing conclusions or speculations. But when you step outside of both the story and the lore/canon in order to draw up a speculation, logic is not on your side. If it were, you could come up with just about anything and slap a "valid speculation" label on it. The logical process has no foundation when it comes to fiction unless you use established lore and canon.
byne wrote...
HellishFiend wrote...
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
As it stands, promoting 2 Vorcha from MP is of more value to the war effort than the Rachni. Just saying.
But the vorcha are the perfect anti-Reaper troops! They shut down machines! Break fans!
Modifié par Starbuck8, 27 juin 2012 - 09:02 .
byne wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
BansheeOwnage wrote...
Ever played Crysis? Its signature Nanosuit has one.
Nope, but they're already real and widely in use.
Yes, they're real, but I doubt they'd implant a perfectly healthy soldier with one. Its usually used for people with arrythmia.
I doubt anyone is worried Shepard is going to die from arrythmia at any moment. This is Mass Effect, not Katawa Shoujo.
Andromidius wrote...
Unschuld
That's... pretty damning. Hopefully someone grills them for answers at SDCC.
We hoped for the same thing at another convention (name escapes me). The audience seemed pre-screened and didn't ask a single 'hard question'. Which caused a huge uproar on the forums, to say the least.
Modifié par Unschuld, 27 juin 2012 - 09:06 .
You're talking about pax and yeah I saw that it's amazing that they have been able to avoid answering for those statements.Andromidius wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
plfranke wrote...
"You'll get answers to everything. That was one of the key things. Regardless of how we did everything, we had to say, yes, we're going to provide some answers to these people."
Just to name a few, where is Shepard when taking the breath? Why did the Normandy crash? How did Anderson get to the control panel before me? How was TIM controlling both of us? And what made Hackett think we were there when they just said Hammer was wiped out and no one made it to the beam?
"The presence of the Rachni has huge consequences in Mass Effect 3. Even just in the final battle with the Reapers."
In my playthrough and many others I'm sure it literally would have made no difference whether the Rachni were there or not. They are shown in no cutscenes whatsoever not mentioned and have minimal war asset value.
That's... pretty damning. Hopefully someone grills them for answers at SDCC.
We hoped for the same thing at another convention (name escapes me). The audience seemed pre-screened and didn't ask a single 'hard question'. Which caused a huge uproar on the forums, to say the least.
Retour en haut