55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Nightingale]

Simon_Says wrote...

Let's move on shall we?

I've been thinking about what I posted earlier. And a new question dawned on me.

What is the thematic purpose of Shepard's death and resurrection? It's nothing that was required to set up the plot of Mass Effect 2. With an apathetic council that is doubtful of Shepard anyway, there's no need for Shepard to die in order to 'go rogue' and work with Cerberus.

Is it to make Shepard cybernetic? Well then why didn't they just go the Human Revolution route? Not to mention that Shepard's cybernetics are not really a major plot point throughout either 2 or 3. They're brought up from time to time but they're not used extensively. Unlike, say, indoctrination.

The only reason seems to be to make Shepard into a Christ/Gandalf type allegory. Yet then again what's the ultimate point of that? It made sense in the Matrix with its themes of the interplay between inevitability vs free choice. But it doesn't appear to make sense in a series where the protagonist isn't a Chosen One of some sort*.

Thoughts?

*No, Shepard isn't a chosen one. They weren't picked out by fate, destiny or some other Power That Is to serve a special purpose in the grand order of things. There was no prophecy or anything similar. Shepard is just a talented grunt who, through virtue of their own talent and circumstance and nothing else, happened to be placed in the right place and the right time. Shepard isn't given a mission from God to fight the reapers, they just took it upon him/herself to fight because no one else realized the threat. Basically, Shepard is the hero who entered the story from the bottom-up instead of from the top-down.

I think it started out as a plot-device to have an excuse not only to skip ahead two years, but also make it plausible that s/he'd be able to survive some of the stuff s/he does. It was probably a good excuse for the scars to make a more visible difference between Paragon and Renegade, too. Perhaps later in development it went beyond that (to show Shepard as more than just an average human or otherwise) and it happened to work out well for the (literal) end of ME3; the reason Shepard can add her energy to the Crucible for Synthesis is because s/he is partly synthetic. It works out for Destroy too, since the "Catalyst" tells Shepard, because s/he is partly synthetic, there is a good chance she will be killed.

Edit: Just fixing referring Shepard as "she" instead of being vague. I play as FemShep, so...sorry

Modifié par DrTsoni, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:24 .

[Nightingale]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

It's oddly quiet right now. So...nothing interesting? Surely we have something to speculate about between now and SDCC

Edit: Nevermind, got a couple ninja while I was posting!

You just missed the fun. We dressed Byne up like a turkey and sent him in, banging a pot and pan together, to run a troll out from under the bridge that runs between here and the main part of the forums.

What? Oh man, I would've liked to see that!

BansheeOwnage wrote...
Did you change your avatar? DrTsoni's avatar is not Liara? I don't... I don't understand

Ha, yeah, I did. I guess it is a bit confusing...Sorry?

[masster blaster]

RampantAndroid wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Guys. Guys.

Stop talking to the troll. I hate to use the term but in this case, this is most definitely a troll. Rampant comes here, and calls IT trash. It's not even that he/she believes that IT isn't what Bioware intended. No, it's just trash, and we should be ashamed for indulging in it. And he/she'll be coming back to rub it in our faces.

This. In Indoc Theory Speculation Central.

Rampant, I'll address you here and now: If you can't respect Indoc Theory or its supporters, then you're in the wrong place. Simple as that. You surely have better things to do than get into an internet slugmatch with people you know you're never going to persuade. You'll have better things to do than rub it in our faces if Bioware ever actually goes out of its way to shut IT down (which, no, they haven't). If you're not going to change your tune or leave, you'll prove nothing but that you're a git.

And you missed the part where I said that I cannot believe that Bioware would do this, and enumerated why. But I'm not going to be swayed to believe in IT until Bioware releases DLC to that effect (which, let's reiterate: I would bet heavily against) and I know all to well that people won't bother to change their mind on IT either. Debating in here is no better than putting a republican and liberal in the same room. No one wins.

My intent has NOT been to insult, my intent has been to point out that IT, from where I sit, makes no sense. Either from a plot standpoint or from a strategic business standpoint. But ultimately, time will tell, either by DLC appearing (or not appearing) to address IT, a new game that follows ME3 chronologically, or someone in Bioware coming along and making a statement about it (and all they've done here is said to use headcanon, really.)

I think this quote is where I also draw some of my thinking from:
"The extended cut is really more about taking the things that are there and making them shine even more, rather than trying to change and adapt what's there to reach out to a broader audience that's looking for something that was never intended," said lead writer Mac Walters[/b].

Anyway, have fun.

But do you remember what Shepard said to hackett after your little chat with the Councile in the beggining of the game/ Shepard said that the council does not believe the Crucible will work, but Hackett says that

"But all we got is just theroys right now and we need to prove the Councile that we have a fighting chance."

I think htat"s what's going on here because we are trying to prove to the Literalist that we are right but you are saying it"s just a theory but he have evidnce that it will work and sometimes theorys can become fact so ya we might be wrong in the long run, but at least Bioware gave us credit for our hard work and he of all people tried to see through the illusion of the Ending instead of excepting what we see but what we don"t see that they want us to see.

So if you don"t like IT then WHY are you where. i think it's because deep down you are hoping that IT is true but you don"t want to get your hopes up as do a lot of others but hay when in doubt all we have is hope and without a future we have no hope we might as well be machines programmed to be told what to do.

[Auralius Carolus]

Simon_Says wrote...

Let's move on shall we?

I've been thinking about what I posted earlier. And a new question dawned on me.

What is the thematic purpose of Shepard's death and resurrection? It's nothing that was required to set up the plot of Mass Effect 2. With an apathetic council that is doubtful of Shepard anyway, there's no need for Shepard to die in order to 'go rogue' and work with Cerberus.

Is it to make Shepard cybernetic? Well then why didn't they just go the Human Revolution route? Not to mention that Shepard's cybernetics are not really a major plot point throughout either 2 or 3. They're brought up from time to time but they're not used extensively. Unlike, say, indoctrination.

The only reason seems to be to make Shepard into a Christ/Gandalf type allegory. Yet then again what's the ultimate point of that? It made sense in the Matrix with its themes of the interplay between inevitability vs free choice. But it doesn't appear to make sense in a series where the protagonist isn't a Chosen One of some sort*.

Thoughts?

*No, Shepard isn't a chosen one. They weren't picked out by fate, destiny or some other Power That Is to serve a special purpose in the grand order of things. There was no prophecy or anything similar. Shepard is just a talented grunt who, through virtue of their own talent and circumstance and nothing else, happened to be placed in the right place and the right time. Shepard isn't given a mission from God to fight the reapers, they just took it upon him/herself to fight because no one else realized the threat. Basically, Shepard is the hero who entered the story from the bottom-up instead of from the top-down.

Shepard's death and return have puzzled me for a long time, as they make very little narrative sense traditionally. Basically, the only form that the events secure are as plot devices to get Shepard to work for Cerberus. That event, in turn, gives the player new lore potential and access to the Terminus Systems. But really, it is fairly insignificant from what has been revealed so far.

As to "Fate", there is actually an undertone of this right from the first moments of ME1, as the camera observes the back of Shepard's head. TIM, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have commented on the astounding nature of Shepard and his/her impact on events. He is, interestingly, a parallel to Hawk in DA2 who is shown as one of few who "embrace destiny and do not show their fear".

[Andromidius]

Simon_Says wrote...

What is the thematic purpose of Shepard's death and resurrection? It's nothing that was required to set up the plot of Mass Effect 2. With an apathetic council that is doubtful of Shepard anyway, there's no need for Shepard to die in order to 'go rogue' and work with Cerberus.

Is it to make Shepard cybernetic? Well then why didn't they just go the Human Revolution route? Not to mention that Shepard's cybernetics are not really a major plot point throughout either 2 or 3. They're brought up from time to time but they're not used extensively. Unlike, say, indoctrination.

Well, I can think of a few things...

1/ To put Shepard 'in debt' with Cerberus.  Though Shepard didn't need to die - just be seriously injured and then rescued.

2/ To add in self-doubt about whether Shepard really is Shepard and not a really good copy.

3/ To give a good reason to have the badass renegade scarring.

4/ To foreshadow the choice Shepard needs to make about Synthesis.  Or to give Shepard a reason to have empathy/understand of Synthetics

Honestly Shepard never needed to die at the start of ME2.  Near-death would have given exactly the same result, only without crazy pseudo-scientific explainations as to how they brought Shep back from a pile of charred meat.

[Auralius Carolus]

Rifneno wrote...


Also, that possum picture you posted. Both hilarious and adorable. Kudos, sir.

Well, it is funny but... the opossum is dead, unfortunately. I noticed the blood running out of its nose not long after I linked it.

Live opossums, however, are cute. Most people just don't know that they aren't at all serious about using all those teeth to rip you a new one.

Modifié par Auralius Carolus, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:28 .

[masster blaster]

Andromidius wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

What is the thematic purpose of Shepard's death and resurrection? It's nothing that was required to set up the plot of Mass Effect 2. With an apathetic council that is doubtful of Shepard anyway, there's no need for Shepard to die in order to 'go rogue' and work with Cerberus.

Is it to make Shepard cybernetic? Well then why didn't they just go the Human Revolution route? Not to mention that Shepard's cybernetics are not really a major plot point throughout either 2 or 3. They're brought up from time to time but they're not used extensively. Unlike, say, indoctrination.

Well, I can think of a few things...

1/ To put Shepard 'in debt' with Cerberus.  Though Shepard didn't need to die - just be seriously injured and then rescued.

2/ To add in self-doubt about whether Shepard really is Shepard and not a really good copy.

3/ To give a good reason to have the badass renegade scarring.

4/ To foreshadow the choice Shepard needs to make about Synthesis.  Or to give Shepard a reason to have empathy/understand of Synthetics

Honestly Shepard never needed to die at the start of ME2.  Near-death would have given exactly the same result, only without crazy pseudo-scientific explainations as to how they brought Shep back from a pile of charred meat.

Well I think the Illusive Man wanted to make sure Shepard was the same and safe it"s because the TIM knew that he was infected with the Reapers control over him so we wanted Shepard to be save because he knew that once the Reapers reached the galaxy then he will no longer be the same person as he once was before. Also Shepard is that AVATAR of this cycle and even the Catalyst was impressed by Shepard " your are the inbodyment of all of the past cycles" but what I really think about what he meant was that Shepard represtents all the Reapers fight to exstingwish and will do anything to stop Shepard no matter what the cost.

[Simon_Says]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

As to "Fate", there is actually an undertone of this right from the first moments of ME1, as the camera observes the back of Shepard's head. TIM, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have commented on the astounding nature of Shepard and his/her impact on events. He is, interestingly, a parallel to Hawk in DA2 who is shown as one of few who "embrace destiny and do not show their fear".

Still, the Hero "heard the call of destiny" and answered it, not that the Hero was given that destiny and had to fulfill it. Essentially, Shepard is a hero because they're awesome, not awesome because they're a hero. In fact, Saren and TIM are more like Chosen Ones. While the circumstances of being 'chosen' didn't have much to do with fate or prophecy, once chosen during the events of Evolution they were both given power and purpose by the reapers.

Actually makes sense considering the whole plot is basically "plucky human beats the odds fighting evil gods." Could be that the point of Shepard's death/resurrection then is to make Shepard more like the enemy, thematically. This could then culminate with, well, becoming the enemy in the series climax (Control/Synthesis) or sticking to roots (Destroy/Reject).

Score 1 for IT?

Modifié par Simon_Says, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:37 .

[masster blaster]

Ownaholic wrote...

I'll just leave these here.
When Anderson says "They're controlling you", he looks directly at the camera (which is currently Shepard's POV) upon saying the word "You".
You can see this in video form here.

oh and I like to point out that this is still in the EC so it"s not a glitch so it has to be on purpose.

[jgibson14352]

Andromidius wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

What is the thematic purpose of Shepard's death and resurrection? It's nothing that was required to set up the plot of Mass Effect 2. With an apathetic council that is doubtful of Shepard anyway, there's no need for Shepard to die in order to 'go rogue' and work with Cerberus.

Is it to make Shepard cybernetic? Well then why didn't they just go the Human Revolution route? Not to mention that Shepard's cybernetics are not really a major plot point throughout either 2 or 3. They're brought up from time to time but they're not used extensively. Unlike, say, indoctrination.

Well, I can think of a few things...

1/ To put Shepard 'in debt' with Cerberus.  Though Shepard didn't need to die - just be seriously injured and then rescued.

2/ To add in self-doubt about whether Shepard really is Shepard and not a really good copy.

3/ To give a good reason to have the badass renegade scarring.

4/ To foreshadow the choice Shepard needs to make about Synthesis.  Or to give Shepard a reason to have empathy/understand of Synthetics

Honestly Shepard never needed to die at the start of ME2.  Near-death would have given exactly the same result, only without crazy pseudo-scientific explainations as to how they brought Shep back from a pile of charred meat.

lets not forget, it also put Liara in the position shes in now. the comics would be significantlyh changed if it was a near death shepard she went after to rescue

[Nightingale]

Auralius Carolus wrote...
Shepard's death and return have puzzled me for a long time, as they make very little narrative sense traditionally. Basically, the only form that the events secure are as plot devices to get Shepard to work for Cerberus. That event, in turn, gives the player new lore potential and access to the Terminus Systems. But really, it is fairly insignificant from what has been revealed so far.

As to "Fate", there is actually an undertone of this right from the first moments of ME1, as the camera observes the back of Shepard's head. TIM, Garrus, Tali and Liara all have commented on the astounding nature of Shepard and his/her impact on events. He is, interestingly, a parallel to Hawk in DA2 who is shown as one of few who "embrace destiny and do not show their fear".

I agree with it being a plot device to get Shepard to work for Cerberus (after the way they're painted in sidequests in the first game, I doubt it would make sense otherwise if s/he's paragon) but I think it's gotta go further than that. There would have been better ways to alienate the crew from the first game without blowing up the Normandy...

As for your second point, I believe the Consort says something about it, as well. Shepard may be...different or special (or however you'd like to put it), but I don't think that's what Simon_Says means when he says (see what I did there?) s/he's not a "Chosen One," per se. Shepard even has the chance to ask Admiral Hackett in ME3 why he picked her/him. S/he may be an incredible leader and the reason they stand a chance, but s/he's not the only one that can fight back. Though I suppose that could be argued with the endings if taken from the literal stance.

[masster blaster]

Ravereth wrote...

Hey... wait, what about this whole saving organics stuff?

oh look EDI said this. So synthesis and Control the Reapers own gain.

[Simon_Says]

Should be noted that EDI is not infallible either. We don't know the basis for her observations concerning the reapers. Her statement there could be more ethos/pathos than logos. An exageration meant to enforce a point. Or it could be a joke.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:41 .

[Nightingale]

jgibson14352 wrote...
lets not forget, it also put Liara in the position shes in now. the comics would be significantlyh changed if it was a near death shepard she went after to rescue

...How did I not even think of that? Still, she may have ended up as the Shadow Broker in that situation anyway. The Collectors/Harbinger would still want Shepard so she'd still be fighting for him/her and the Shadow Broker would still take Feron. I doubt Cerberus would just share the information that they managed to save Shepard, and s/he would need to be in critical enough condition to make it believeable for Cerberus to be the only ones capable of saving him/her. Liara would then have reason to believe Shepard was dead, whether s/he actually was or not, and still be out for revenge. The same goes for the rest of the crew.

[BansheeOwnage]

masster blaster wrote...
*snip*

I think you're comparing the IT crowd to Shepard/Hackett and literalists to the council (who are probably slightly indoctrinated). That's pretty funny actually.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:47 .

[masster blaster]

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I'm really not sure why/how being indoctrinated would preclude being gooified and used to fuel a reaper....

Because indoctrinated folks decay and their genetic material is inadequate.

Paxxton yor a genues.

Guys think about it if Synthesis is the final evlolutoion then if Shepard is being Indoctriated and it"s funny because the Catalyst said they tried this before ( Saren) but it did not work so the Catalyst is impling we don"t control you so nothing bad is going to happen but what the player doesn't know is that we are being Indoctrinated and that if we pick Synthesis everyone get"s indoctrinated but they use Human DNA to substain the tissue/genetic material and Reaper coding to brodcast their signal, in which case that"s why we don"t see anyone fighting back the Reapers because the Reapers are using their codes to confuse the newly Synthesis races inorder to make more Reapers by using Human DNA to help increase their numbers again since the War with the Protheans and this cycle have done a great deal of damage to the Reaper race.

[BansheeOwnage]

masster blaster wrote...

paxxton wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I'm really not sure why/how being indoctrinated would preclude being gooified and used to fuel a reaper....

Because indoctrinated folks decay and their genetic material is inadequate.

Paxxton yor a genues.

Guys think about it if Synthesis is the final evlolutoion then if Shepard is being Indoctriated and it"s funny because the Catalyst said they tried this before ( Saren) but it did not work so the Catalyst is impling we don"t control you so nothing bad is going to happen but what the player doesn't know is that we are being Indoctrinated and that if we pick Synthesis everyone get"s indoctrinated but they use Human DNA to substain the tissue/genetic material and Reaper coding to brodcast their signal, in which case that"s why we don"t see anyone fighting back the Reapers because the Reapers are using their codes to confuse the newly Synthesis races inorder to make more Reapers by using Human DNA to help increase their numbers again since the War with the Protheans and this cycle have done a great deal of damage to the Reaper race.

Lol!

[Auralius Carolus]

Simon_Says wrote...

Should be noted that EDI is not infallible either. We don't know the basis for her observations concerning the reapers. Her statement there could be more ethos/pathos than logos. An exageration meant to enforce a point. Or it could be a joke.

How many zetabytes of explicit images??

[Simon_Says]

I think DrTsoni is right in saying that even Liara's character arc would have been unnaffected if Shepard was just injured and not killed outright.

Of course for the longest time I believe there was much confusion and divided opinion over whether Shepard was dead or just "mostly dead". That was put to rest in the Cronos station when they confirmed that, yes, Shepard was dead. It's amazing such huge differences and questions could arise between a character being dead and mostly dead.

Was it confirmed before ME3? Because if it wasn't then we should probably look historically at ME2 as Shepard having only been mostly dead instead of dead outright. That would shift the question to "What purpose was there to deading Shepard in ME3." Probably an easier question to tackle.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:50 .

[masster blaster]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

masster blaster wrote...
*snip*

I think you're comparing the IT crowd to Shepard/Hackett and literalists to the council (who are probably slightly indoctrinated). That's pretty funny actually.

Yep that's what i was implying and it"s true would you believe somebody that maybe just maybe we can end this war with just this one weapon.

It's like IT we can end this with one Theory but would you believe in it or do you go were your heart takes you.

[Simon_Says]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

Should be noted that EDI is not infallible either. We don't know the basis for her observations concerning the reapers. Her statement there could be more ethos/pathos than logos. An exageration meant to enforce a point. Or it could be a joke.

How many zetabytes of explicit images??

All of them.

[masster blaster]

Simon_Says wrote...

Should be noted that EDI is not infallible either. We don't know the basis for her observations concerning the reapers. Her statement there could be more ethos/pathos than logos. An exageration meant to enforce a point. Or it could be a joke.

yes but the Geth could have turned on use in the Battle for Earth since they have the Reaper up grades but they made sure Legion made sure that the Reaeprs could not take over the Geth again and would give the Geth organic feelings and say I instead of WE.

Modifié par masster blaster, 03 juillet 2012 - 04:54 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Simon_Says wrote...

I think DrTsoni is right in saying that even Liara's character arc would have been unnaffected if Shepard was just injured and not killed outright.

Of course for the longest time I believe there was much confusion and divided opinion over whether Shepard was dead or just "mostly dead". That was put to rest in the Cronos station when they confirmed that, yes, Shepard was dead. It's amazing such huge differences and questions could arise between a character being dead and mostly dead.

Was it confirmed before ME3? Because if it wasn't then we should probably look historically at ME2 as Shepard having only been mostly dead instead of dead outright. That would shift the question to "What purpose was there to deading Shepard in ME3." Probably an easier question to tackle.

When is someone truly dead? Think about this seriously while I'm gone.

[Arian Dynas]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

I think DrTsoni is right in saying that even Liara's character arc would have been unnaffected if Shepard was just injured and not killed outright.

Of course for the longest time I believe there was much confusion and divided opinion over whether Shepard was dead or just "mostly dead". That was put to rest in the Cronos station when they confirmed that, yes, Shepard was dead. It's amazing such huge differences and questions could arise between a character being dead and mostly dead.

Was it confirmed before ME3? Because if it wasn't then we should probably look historically at ME2 as Shepard having only been mostly dead instead of dead outright. That would shift the question to "What purpose was there to deading Shepard in ME3." Probably an easier question to tackle.

When is someone truly dead? Think about this seriously while I'm gone.

Do you want the medical definition?

If so, a person is well and truly considered dead by the medical institution when all brain activity, as well as all somatic activity, have ceased.

[Andromidius]

BansheeOwnage wrote...
When is someone truly dead? Think about this seriously while I'm gone.

Technically its when your heart stops beating, I believe.  A lot of people can 'die' for a minute or two before being revived.

But truely dead?  I'd say when braindeath occurs.  The point of no return (by conventional science, at least).