55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Lokanaiya]

As much as I would like to get to page 1776 by the end of tomorrow, that doesn't mean that we should feed the trolls! Just pointing that out...

[MaximizedAction]

twitter.com/JessicaMerizan/status/220013144565751808
"it's assumed that the Catalyst is appearing as something familiar to Shepard because it's an AI and likely has no form."

If the Catalyst hasn't been inside of Shepard's head, then at least some Reaper must've observed them interacting at some point.

Besides, out of all the things familiar to Shepard it could've appeared as, it's this damn kid.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:37 .

[Leonia]

This might just be nit-picking but.. why does Hackett say "Someone is trying to open the arms" instead of Shepard? Clearly he knows it is Shepard as he will say "Holy ****, she made it" beforehand but when announcing it to the fleet he only says "someone". Maybe it's nothing but that really irritated me.

[EpyonX3]

Schachmatt wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I have already addressed and acknowledge this. However, just because something isn't to be taken at face value
doesn't mean it shouldn't be clear. If I tell a sarcastic joke, then it is obviously not to be taken at face value, but my intention should be clear nonetheless if it is to be effective.

There's a difference between a sarcastic joke and a person which is supposed to be indoctrinated. The joke is meant to be noticed, in case of indoctrination the indoctrinated person is not to be supposed to notice the effect. What's the point in playing an indoctrinated character if you know he is? One would certainly never choose an option that would harm him or others.

I disagree. Indoctrinated individuals know something is up but are in denial of that change. Not only that but their actions are radically different. If Shepard is in the process, he'd be less willing to destroy the reapers throughout the game and more willing to allow the cycle to continue. This isn't something that can happen in the last ten minutes of the game. This would be rapid indoctrination which would kill Shepard anyway.

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

[EpyonX3]

leonia42 wrote...

This might just be nit-picking but.. why does Hackett say "Someone is trying to open the arms" instead of Shepard? Clearly he knows it is Shepard as he will say "Holy ****, she made it" beforehand but when announcing it to the fleet he only says "someone". Maybe it's nothing but that really irritated me.

He's speaking to all ships in the fleet. Who it is on the Citadel is not important. What's important is that some one made it. Not to mention that there are probably still some who still think of Shepard as a traitor for joining cerberus in ME2.

[Ravereth]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

something is not right in red either:
before:
*snip*
after:
*snip*
As you can see they spontaneously teleport to the front (they were backing up)
there is lots of stuff missing, like the Mako that should be right behind them

Maybe my eyesight is failing me, but i can't see anything missing there 

[EpyonX3]

MaximizedAction wrote...

twitter.com/JessicaMerizan/status/220013144565751808
"it's assumed that the Catalyst is appearing as something familiar to Shepard because it's an AI and likely has no form."

I was going to post something similar a day or two ago. Legion pretty much says the same thing in the geth server.

[Leonia]

EpyonX3 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

This might just be nit-picking but.. why does Hackett say "Someone is trying to open the arms" instead of Shepard? Clearly he knows it is Shepard as he will say "Holy ****, she made it" beforehand but when announcing it to the fleet he only says "someone". Maybe it's nothing but that really irritated me.

He's speaking to all ships in the fleet. Who it is on the Citadel is not important. What's important is that some one made it. Not to mention that there are probably still some who still think of Shepard as a traitor for joining cerberus in ME2.

But Shepard's the sole reason there is a fleet, she's even calling the shots when they first arrive in system so it's not like people don't know who she is. What's the harm is saying her name? It would at least let the Normandy know that Shepard was successful.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

The only part of ME3 that I think 100% failed from a storytelling perspective was Kai Leng. Who wrote the script for this guy? He's not threatening, interesting, mysterous, funny... He's just annoying!

And yes, I don't even rate Starbinger as a 100% failure from a literal perspective. Kai Leng is the scrappy of ME3, that annoying boss fight, the wasted potential for a true anti-Shepard.

Kai Leng is kind of frivolous though (and you get to kill him) so it's alright in the end. The Catalyst and the Crucible plot devices are really bad and there's no way to get around and avoid them

[EpyonX3]

leonia42 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

This might just be nit-picking but.. why does Hackett say "Someone is trying to open the arms" instead of Shepard? Clearly he knows it is Shepard as he will say "Holy ****, she made it" beforehand but when announcing it to the fleet he only says "someone". Maybe it's nothing but that really irritated me.

He's speaking to all ships in the fleet. Who it is on the Citadel is not important. What's important is that some one made it. Not to mention that there are probably still some who still think of Shepard as a traitor for joining cerberus in ME2.

But Shepard's the sole reason there is a fleet, she's even calling the shots when they first arrive in system so it's not like people don't know who she is. What's the harm is saying her name? It would at least let the Normandy know that Shepard was successful.

So what would be the implications of him not saying his name vs saying his name?

[Leonia]

It felt like he was trying to cover up that Shepard was on the Citadel, as to why he would do that.. no idea.

[SHARXTREME]

niravital wrote...

 So I keep thinking about the logic of the decisions and how it goes along with the IT.And I was wondering a lot about refusal, because in my opinion this is the pure indoctrination rejection, though we see Shepard and everyone else dying and he never wakes up.
But, and maybe it's forcing IT too much - Refusal ending really tells us that the catalyst's goal is to convince Shepard himself - it is personal and aimed at Shepard alone.

And in the last  TIM scene (renegade options):
Shepard says(something like this): - "So, what are you wasting time talking to us? Let us help you"
And TIM says: - "I need you to understand"   

That  would be consistent with IT, if Bioware ever decides to extend the ending again.

[Lokanaiya]

EpyonX3 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

This might just be nit-picking but.. why does Hackett say "Someone is trying to open the arms" instead of Shepard? Clearly he knows it is Shepard as he will say "Holy ****, she made it" beforehand but when announcing it to the fleet he only says "someone". Maybe it's nothing but that really irritated me.

He's speaking to all ships in the fleet. Who it is on the Citadel is not important. What's important is that some one made it. Not to mention that there are probably still some who still think of Shepard as a traitor for joining cerberus in ME2.

But Shepard's the sole reason there is a fleet, she's even calling the shots when they first arrive in system so it's not like people don't know who she is. What's the harm is saying her name? It would at least let the Normandy know that Shepard was successful.

So what would be the implications of him not saying his name vs saying his name?

It's something else to put on the list of odd, unexplained things.

[EpyonX3]

leonia42 wrote...

It felt like he was trying to cover up that Shepard was on the Citadel, as to why he would do that.. no idea.

Didn't want the reapers knowing who it was in case they were listening?

[Andromidius]

EpyonX3 wrote...

So what would be the implications of him not saying his name vs saying his name?

Missed morale boost.  Its something a savvy leader wouldn't pass up.  Shepard is known and respected among every fleet present (well...ignoring the Batarians perhaps), being told Shep has achieved their goal of reaching the Citadel would be a huge deal for them and maybe cause them to renew their efforts in the final moments of the battle.

As it is, its a weird oversight.  Either tell the fleet it was Shepard, or don't tell them at all!

[MaximizedAction]

leonia42 wrote...

It felt like he was trying to cover up that Shepard was on the Citadel, as to why he would do that.. no idea.

Or, from an IT perspective, Shepard not hearing his name mentioned is a sign of the loss personality or uncertainty about who he is.

Furthermore, dreaming that you died, might be the subconscousness (or the Reapers) telling him that he lost his former self. However, in the best Destroy, Shep's not certain about his own death, which might mean overcoming indoc.

Yes, cluthing at straws, but making sense is a process.[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:53 .

[Leonia]

It just makes me think of that small, forced conversation with Coats where he reminds Shepard of the effect a symbol can have on the troops. And really if the Reapers don't know Shepard is on the Citadel by that point then they are definitely holding the idiot ball. What does it matter even if they do know? As long as someone makes it to open those arms..

Modifié par leonia42, 03 juillet 2012 - 12:52 .

[Schachmatt123]

EpyonX3 wrote...

I disagree. Indoctrinated individuals know something is up but are in denial of that change. Not only that but their actions are radically different. If Shepard is in the process, he'd be less willing to destroy the reapers throughout the game and more willing to allow the cycle to continue. This isn't something that can happen in the last ten minutes of the game. This would be rapid indoctrination which would kill Shepard anyway.

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

Interesting you brought that up, that's exactly what I assumed in certain discussions on other boards, that people who denied IT with really weird arguments and/or rejected the whole idea with noticeble irrationality, are in some form of denial. As if they were knowing that there is something going on ... but can't stand the thought that Shepard could somehow be indoctrinated or is undergoing it - and outright rejected the idea.

However I have to disagree to the rest of your post. According to IT, Shepard is not indoctrinated but is undergoing indoctrination. The symptoms (s)he displays fits in perfectly within the game lore.

Modifié par Schachmatt, 03 juillet 2012 - 01:13 .

[MaximizedAction]

Schachmatt wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

I disagree. Indoctrinated individuals know something is up but are in denial of that change. Not only that but their actions are radically different. If Shepard is in the process, he'd be less willing to destroy the reapers throughout the game and more willing to allow the cycle to continue. This isn't something that can happen in the last ten minutes of the game. This would be rapid indoctrination which would kill Shepard anyway.

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

Interesting you brought that up, that's exactly what I assumed in certain discussions on other boards, that people who denied IT with really weird arguments and/or rejected the whole idea with noticeble irrationality, are in some form of denial. As if they were knowing that there is something going on ... but can't stand the thought that Shepard could somehow be indoctrinated or is undergoing it - and outright rejected the idea.

However I have to disagree to the rest of your post. According to IT, Shepard is not indoctrinated but is undergoing indoctrination.

Players under attempts of indoc. Fits perfectly within what BW intended in the first place: make the player feel what Shepard feels.

[Andromidius]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong.  And I'm sure you even know that, or would know that if you were paying attention.

Shepard's indoctrination follows the same pattern as 'regular' indoctrination - contact with Reaper artifact leads to exposure to indoctrination signals, over time the mind is broken down and the subject begins to see or hear things, has bizzare dreams and even starts forming shared memories with comrades.  Eventually the subject begins to see opposing the Reapers as a bad thing, doubts their old purpose and agenda, and eventually bows to the Reapers with supersitious devotion and comes under full Reaper control.

Shepard has had all these things happen to him/her, all bar the final stage.  Which may happen still based on player choice.

What do you think IT claims differently?

[SubAstris]

Schachmatt wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

I disagree. Indoctrinated individuals know something is up but are in denial of that change. Not only that but their actions are radically different. If Shepard is in the process, he'd be less willing to destroy the reapers throughout the game and more willing to allow the cycle to continue. This isn't something that can happen in the last ten minutes of the game. This would be rapid indoctrination which would kill Shepard anyway.

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

Interesting you brought that up, that's exactly what I assumed in certain discussions on other boards, that people who denied IT with really weird arguments and/or rejected the whole idea with noticeble irrationality, are in some form of denial. As if they were knowing that there is something going on ... but can't stand the thought that Shepard could somehow be indoctrinated or is undergoing it - and outright rejected the idea.

However I have to disagree to the rest of your post. According to IT, Shepard is not indoctrinated but is undergoing indoctrination.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that what Epyon is saying shouldn't be there. For example, on Virmire, Saren knows that something is up, hence why he studies indoctrination, but he isn't fully indoctrinated at that point.

[prettz]

EpyonX3 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

twitter.com/JessicaMerizan/status/220013144565751808
"it's assumed that the Catalyst is appearing as something familiar to Shepard because it's an AI and likely has no form."

I was going to post something similar a day or two ago. Legion pretty much says the same thing in the geth server.

Shepards mind was connected to the geth servers, so is that to say that Shepard is also connected to the AI somehow?

[Leonia]

SubAstris wrote..

Yes, but that doesn't mean that what Epyon is saying shouldn't be there. For example, on Virmire, Saren knows that something is up, hence why he studies indoctrination, but he isn't fully indoctrinated at that point.

Shepard hasn't exactly had any free time to set up research facilities for self-examination but the player can see things Shepard cannot.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Shepard's indoctrination according to IT is very different to what we know about indoctrination.

Sorry, but you're flat out wrong.  And I'm sure you even know that, or would know that if you were paying attention.

Shepard's indoctrination follows the same pattern as 'regular' indoctrination - contact with Reaper artifact leads to exposure to indoctrination signals, over time the mind is broken down and the subject begins to see or hear things, has bizzare dreams and even starts forming shared memories with comrades.  Eventually the subject begins to see opposing the Reapers as a bad thing, doubts their old purpose and agenda, and eventually bows to the Reapers with supersitious devotion and comes under full Reaper control.

Shepard has had all these things happen to him/her, all bar the final stage.  Which may happen still based on player choice.

What do you think IT claims differently?

I think what he is trying to say is that Shepard doesn't even consider anything but destroy to be an option right until the endings. If IT were true, you would expect some change from the start to the middle to the end in his feelings to the Reapers. You could argue that in the end he does, but from the start to the middle, does he really think that control is a good option? No. Furthermore, you would expect your squadmates to see the change in Shepard's personality and views during the final game, but they don't comment on it.

[SubAstris]

leonia42 wrote...

SubAstris wrote..

Yes, but that doesn't mean that what Epyon is saying shouldn't be there. For example, on Virmire, Saren knows that something is up, hence why he studies indoctrination, but he isn't fully indoctrinated at that point.

Shepard hasn't exactly had any free time to set up research facilities for self-examination but the player can see things Shepard cannot.

I'm not saying he can, but if IT were true, you would expect self-examination of some sort which gives an indication that things aren't exactly what they seem. That is sorely lacking