55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Tirian Thorn]

TSA_383 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Okay, just for the sake of argument:

Can anyone think of anything outside the end sequence / child weirdness that could have a non-literal interpretation?

I think that when Shepard using the restroom, that it is really Bioware’s statement on America’s foreign policy. 

I think that when Shepard is eating a hoggie that it’s really a jab at the greed in corporate America.

When the relays explode and the Normandy is racing away it is really about our struggle against the inevitable and the triumph of the human spirit… 
 
 
But seriously, I think the endings are really the only parts that were intended to be open to interpretation.  

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:50 .

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

kenudigit wrote...

Let it go it did not happen. I know you all want it to be an indoc but it did not happen live with it.

This. People are in denial in this thread that it's so upsetting to see.

If anything, the dlc makes the IT theory improbable as hell. The IT theory makes it easy to address the plot holes that were created in the original ending. Bioware filled those in with new conversations, and gave joker a reason to leave the sol relay. How does the IT theory tie in with that? Or synthesis/control endings where the reapers actually HELP organics as synthetics/organics work together? 

We've already discussed these issues.

Joker and his reason to exit sol system is not very relevant to if IT is correct or not. It's was just one more plothole, and now it's gone. But it doesn't change anything of importance.

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?

It doesn't disprove any of IT, it just begs the question of why it was done.

I don't really know what you are referring to, since it's parts of the complete post... but, "why it was done" is often answered with IT, or could be at least, as opposed to a question mark if IT is incorrect.

I was referring to why BW changed the endings so that there was a much more plausible reason for why Joker left the Sol system

[MaximizedAction]

TSA_383 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Okay, just for the sake of argument:

Can anyone think of anything outside the end sequence / child weirdness that could have a non-literal interpretation?

Even because the child is practically omnipresent in ME3 it's hard to find something OTHER than him.
From a theoretical point of view, everything can be put under a non-literal interpretation, simply because all fiction and especially science fiction are translated stories from the real world. But I know what you mean.

The Rannoch destroyer, for example.

On a sidenote, yesterday I played the Geth concensus level for the first time (yeah, I skipped that mission the first time) and the fades to white are so...there. I mean, once you notice them, it's hard to remember them being in the dream sequences, the beam run, the elevating platform.

And again, that being a coinscidence is bs, since Bioware put that weird mission there, they could've skipped it, or could've not put those white fade outs in. But they did. And the implications are there, and if they did not intend such an interpretation for the white fade outs, then they could've removed them via EC. They didn't. So that the interpretation is still legit.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:52 .

[niravital]

leonia42 wrote...

Ah, was going to suggest dream sequences but that's an obvious non-literal situation. Maybe the video logs at the Cerberus Base? But those seem relatively straightforward even if they don't go into too much depth.

There is a difference between dream sequences for the sake of nightmares (literal interpretation) and being part of an indoctrination process (something more to it).
I think it should count.

[Sammuthegreat]

niravital wrote...

Another weird thing about the kid in Vancouver.
When he goes aboard the ship, he STARES at Shepard.
Really, it's creepy.
No one else does that.

Yeah, I brought this up a while back - it's not just the expression, even his posture is aggressive, almost like he's challenging Shepard.

[Tirian Thorn]

SubAstris wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

This is where the description of "literalists" for people who take the endings at face-value isn't truly correct. For example there are very few "literalists "who believe that the dreams with the boy literally happened. Of course some elements are meant to be non-literal interpretations, that's obvious to everyone. This has no bearing on people who say that IT was not BW's original intention

In another post I said that I think BW will eventually clarify whether IT is true or not. They just aren’t ready to. 


Tully’s comments do NOT make IT true – just makes it possible and hopefully will silence a few of the jerks who’s only comments are that IT isn’t true with no rational thought-out  counters to IT.

Sub – you argue A LOT, but at least you ask good questions, have good rebuttals and you don’t seem to me to been a ****** about it. Thanks. 

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

But the amount of clues, from no interaction with or any else seeing or hearing the child at the beginning, to the mysterious tree from the dream that shows up after getting hit from harbinger.

But, The kid's behaviour itself is very much... unchild like.

First, he waits for Shepard to see him in the air duct.
Only then, he goes backwards as if to lure Shepard to come for him.
(why not look around and see that this soldier killed all the monsters, go out, hug him and stay close to him?)
When Shepard reaches for him, he says: "You can't help me."
His tone when he says that is very determined, as in stating a fact, and he looks straight at Shepard.
I can't imagine any child saying such a sentence in that tone.

And this is all scripted, not some game bugs.

Because he is scared.
Because he is scared. The kid's had his whole world turned upside down, he doesn't know who to trust. You can understand his reluctance.
What, while in the vent? I'm pretty sure he is looking out for his own safety first.
Because he is scared.
That's not really weird. Remember what the purpose of the scene is, to show a more human side to Shepard and to establish the guilt playing on his mind, "however hard you try, it's too bad knowing you can't save all of them", that's the thing plaguing Shepard's mind throughout ME3 and I would argue that is the reason for the dreams and his intense desire to see the end of conflict.

A child's world is being consumed by giant monsters.
A scared kid will be CRYING AS HELL and panicking like crazy, doesn't know what to do.
He wouldn't have cold philosophical conclusions to share.
He would search for his parents, asking ANY PERSON where they are, let alone a soldier.
and he wouldn't dissapear from the air duct.

then, bioware has a very odd perception of scared children.

Yeah, where exactly is he meant to go anyway? His basic instinct is to survive and hide from aggressors, which being in the vent does temporarily.
He doesn't know what to do, he is confused, he feels helpless; seeing him cry would look pathetic though.
Err, not sure what you mean
We don't even know he has parents with him, nothing is told about him. Again remember the purpose of the scene


Maybe they do. They have nothing really to go on. Unless BW shipped in a couple of kids, scared them enormously, noted what they did and then wrote that into the game

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

kenudigit wrote...

Let it go it did not happen. I know you all want it to be an indoc but it did not happen live with it.

This. People are in denial in this thread that it's so upsetting to see.

If anything, the dlc makes the IT theory improbable as hell. The IT theory makes it easy to address the plot holes that were created in the original ending. Bioware filled those in with new conversations, and gave joker a reason to leave the sol relay. How does the IT theory tie in with that? Or synthesis/control endings where the reapers actually HELP organics as synthetics/organics work together? 

We've already discussed these issues.

Joker and his reason to exit sol system is not very relevant to if IT is correct or not. It's was just one more plothole, and now it's gone. But it doesn't change anything of importance.

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?

It doesn't disprove any of IT, it just begs the question of why it was done.

I don't really know what you are referring to, since it's parts of the complete post... but, "why it was done" is often answered with IT, or could be at least, as opposed to a question mark if IT is incorrect.

I was referring to why BW changed the endings so that there was a much more plausible reason for why Joker left the Sol system

I think it was a serious plothole with no real explanation, and since it doesn't disprove the IT, if intended, there is no reason not to change it.
It also covers how your dead squad-mates were resurrected and stepped out of the Normandy on the forest planet.
The relays don't explode anymore.
I believe those were "mistakes", or at least not too important in BW eyes to keep, given the outrage that was going on.

[SubAstris]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

niravital wrote...

Another weird thing about the kid in Vancouver.
When he goes aboard the ship, he STARES at Shepard.
Really, it's creepy.
No one else does that.

Yeah, I brought this up a while back - it's not just the expression, even his posture is aggressive, almost like he's challenging Shepard.

You can't really be serious?

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

kenudigit wrote...

Let it go it did not happen. I know you all want it to be an indoc but it did not happen live with it.

This. People are in denial in this thread that it's so upsetting to see.

If anything, the dlc makes the IT theory improbable as hell. The IT theory makes it easy to address the plot holes that were created in the original ending. Bioware filled those in with new conversations, and gave joker a reason to leave the sol relay. How does the IT theory tie in with that? Or synthesis/control endings where the reapers actually HELP organics as synthetics/organics work together? 

We've already discussed these issues.

Joker and his reason to exit sol system is not very relevant to if IT is correct or not. It's was just one more plothole, and now it's gone. But it doesn't change anything of importance.

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?

It doesn't disprove any of IT, it just begs the question of why it was done.

I don't really know what you are referring to, since it's parts of the complete post... but, "why it was done" is often answered with IT, or could be at least, as opposed to a question mark if IT is incorrect.

I was referring to why BW changed the endings so that there was a much more plausible reason for why Joker left the Sol system

I think it was a serious plothole with no real explanation, and since it doesn't disprove the IT, if intended, there is no reason not to change it.
It also covers how your dead squad-mates were resurrected and stepped out of the Normandy on the forest planet.
The relays don't explode anymore.
I believe those were "mistakes", or at least not too important in BW eyes to keep, given the outrage that was going on.

The fact is, they changed it. With IT, there was no need, because it was a dream. BW clearly wanted to bolster the face-value interpretation of the story therefore.

[Silhouett3]

SubAstris wrote...

Because he is scared.
Because he is scared. The kid's had his whole world turned upside down, he doesn't know who to trust. You can understand his reluctance.
What, while in the vent? I'm pretty sure he is looking out for his own safety first.
Because he is scared.
That's not really weird. Remember what the purpose of the scene is, to show a more human side to Shepard and to establish the guilt playing on his mind, "however hard you try, it's too bad knowing you can't save all of them", that's the thing plaguing Shepard's mind throughout ME3 and I would argue that is the reason for the dreams and his intense desire to see the end of conflict.

Want to play the psychiatrist ?

Guilt : the responsibility for wrongdoing

It is an emotion that requires social dynamics; belonging in a group/community, no matter how big/small that community is. It is simply the fact of having done wrong in that community. In ME for example, picking a fight in a Krogan community wouldn't cause feeling of guilt but sabotaging the genophage cure would.

Responsibility implies that one must have at least the opportunity to do better during the act of wrongdoing. Otherwise the harmful outcome wouldn't be anyone's fault. If you try your hardest and still can't save everyone, the plausible emotional impact after that experience would be anything but not guilt. Maybe disappointment, maybe sorrow but not guilt.

Shep doesn't feel guilty because he/s had to sacrifice either Ashley or Kaiden, because a mission that was crucial to protect the galaxy gave Shepard no other choice. Han Olar had selfishly let his scientist friend killed by Rachni in order to save himself and that's why he was trying to deal with his guilt. TIM doesn't feel guilt about countless people he sacrificed and experimented on for years because he doesn't even care to be a part of Alliance or Citadel governments/communities.

Now get back to the kid. Is it Shepard's responsibility to catch and save every random child in a battlefield as a military commander - no. Does Shepard even have an oppurtunity to save that kid as he dissapears in the blink of an eye - no. Is Shepard a hero known for helping common folk? Definitely no. Not to mention that the renegade Shep is designed to not care about those he/s left to die or kill single handedlyB)

So what did Shepard done wrong in that particular scene? Yes sir, nothing. Nothing at all.

And it had to be so.

Because if you enter the Catalyst's chamber with guilt tearing your insides apart, that state of mind would directly effect the ending choice and the outcome. Does The Catalyst seems to you like the person who would want that?

Modifié par Silhouett3, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:01 .

[paxxton]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

Let's look at the opening line after we make our choices;

Control: Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.
Synthesis: I am alive.
Destroy:The war is over. The Reapers have been defeated.

also

Control: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Synthesis: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Destroy: Shepard alive. Reapers dead.


Yeah...I only pick destroy.

Simplification doesn't always lead to the best choice.

Modifié par paxxton, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:02 .

[Sammuthegreat]

SubAstris wrote...

Sammuthegreat wrote...

niravital wrote...

Another weird thing about the kid in Vancouver.
When he goes aboard the ship, he STARES at Shepard.
Really, it's creepy.
No one else does that.

Yeah, I brought this up a while back - it's not just the expression, even his posture is aggressive, almost like he's challenging Shepard.

You can't really be serious?

Entirely, or do you think that the way characters are animated is irrelevant?

Is it not entirely relevant that Shepard's posture at the end shows his weakened state? If that's relevant, then why not StarChild's?

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...

Yeah, where exactly is he meant to go anyway? His basic instinct is to survive and hide from aggressors, which being in the vent does temporarily.
He doesn't know what to do, he is confused, he feels helpless; seeing him cry would look pathetic though.
Err, not sure what you mean
We don't even know he has parents with him, nothing is told about him. Again remember the purpose of the scene


Maybe they do. They have nothing really to go on. Unless BW shipped in a couple of kids, scared them enormously, noted what they did and then wrote that into the game

If the child is afraid of Shepard, why does he go onboard a ship full of strangers and more soldiers?
Why not stay in the air duct until everyone has gone away? until it's quiet again? why leave?

I find his behaviour odd, that's all, and I think it was intended because there's a lot of it going on.
He seem VERY mature.

I believe at least some of BW staff have kids of their own.
It's not hard to imagine a lost kid in a theme park. Losing your parents alone is enough to have your world fall apart.

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...
The fact is, they changed it. With IT, there was no need, because it was a dream. BW clearly wanted to bolster the face-value interpretation of the story therefore.

I agree, it makes all of us keep speculating.
But it also doesn't disprove IT.

For me, what Bioware did with EC is giving both sides more to grasp. It's really a genious move if you think about it like that. And a whole lot of fans seem happy. Clearly a win.

[Lokanaiya]

1. Kill the quote pyramids, guys.

2. After a kid is chased by monsters like husks, even if he isn't crying (which is implausible itself) he's going to jump into the arms of the first human being he sees.

Quick way to make the scene more emotionally touching: Shepard tells him to come out and s/he'll help him. Kid comes out and asks Shepard in a small voice if s/he can help him find his parents. Anderson comes, sees kid, conversation is hushed and about the horrors of war, how it's the kids that are going to suffer the worst and there's only going to be more pain, etc. A bit later you get into a fight with husks and one gets behind you and gets the kid. Not perfect, in fact far from it, but better than creepy calm "You can't help me."

[SubAstris]

Silhouett3 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Because he is scared.
Because he is scared. The kid's had his whole world turned upside down, he doesn't know who to trust. You can understand his reluctance.
What, while in the vent? I'm pretty sure he is looking out for his own safety first.
Because he is scared.
That's not really weird. Remember what the purpose of the scene is, to show a more human side to Shepard and to establish the guilt playing on his mind, "however hard you try, it's too bad knowing you can't save all of them", that's the thing plaguing Shepard's mind throughout ME3 and I would argue that is the reason for the dreams and his intense desire to see the end of conflict.

Want to play the psychiatrist ?

Guilt : the responsibility for wrongdoing

It is an emotion that requires social dynamics; belonging in a group/community, no matter how big/small that community is. It is simply the fact of having done wrong in that community. In ME for example, picking a fight in a Krogan community wouldn't cause feeling of guilt but sabotaging the genophage cure would.

Responsibility implies that one must have at least the opportunity to do better during the act of wrongdoing. Otherwise the harmful outcome wouldn't be anyone's fault. If you try your hardest and still can't save everyone, the plausible emotional impact after that experience would be anything but not guilt. Maybe disappointment, maybe sorrow but not guilt.

Shep doesn't feel guilty because he/s had to sacrifice either Ashley or Kaiden, because a mission that was crucial to protect the galaxy gave Shepard no other choice. Han Olar had selfishly let his scientist friend killed by Rachni in order to save himself and that's why he was trying to deal with his guilt. TIM doesn't feel guilt about countless people he sacrificed and experimented on for years because he doesn't even care to be a part of Alliance or Citadel governments/communities.

Now get back to the kid. Is it Shepard's responsibility to catch and save every random child in a battlefield as a military commander - no. Does Shepard even have an oppurtunity to save that kid as he dissapears in the blink of an eye - no. Is Shepard a hero known for helping common folk? Definitely no. Not to mention that the renegade Shep is designed to not care about those he/s left to die or kill single handedlyB)

So what did Shepard done wrong in that particular scene? Yes sir, nothing. Nothing at all.

And it had to be so.

Because if you enter the Catalyst's chamber with guilt tearing your insides apart, that state of mind would directly effect the ending choice and the outcome. Does The Catalyst seems to you like the person who would want that?

In many ways, yes, Shepard's emotion of guilt is irrational, and you should take that up with BW. They said they wanted a more personal Shepard, one who felt real emotion when people died. This is not only shown by the kid but also others who have died (shown by the whispers of Mordin, Ashley etc in your dreams). Because you have to remember that the child is a symbol of all of humanity, and BW have said it themselves. Shepard is meant to be one of the guardians of humanity, and to see it fall, that's a heavy burden for anyone to take.

Admittedly the comparison with Ashley/Kaiden is flawed. Both are soldiers and very well know the risks of being in their situation; the child on the other hand doesn't.

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
The fact is, they changed it. With IT, there was no need, because it was a dream. BW clearly wanted to bolster the face-value interpretation of the story therefore.

I agree, it makes all of us keep speculating.
But it also doesn't disprove IT.

For me, what Bioware did with EC is giving both sides more to grasp. It's really a genious move if you think about it like that. And a whole lot of fans seem happy. Clearly a win.

Don't you think it is wrong though that BW are just pandering to the mob rather than going with the strength of their convictions and having a DLC that proves IT conclusively?

[SubAstris]

Sammuthegreat wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Sammuthegreat wrote...

niravital wrote...

Another weird thing about the kid in Vancouver.
When he goes aboard the ship, he STARES at Shepard.
Really, it's creepy.
No one else does that.

Yeah, I brought this up a while back - it's not just the expression, even his posture is aggressive, almost like he's challenging Shepard.

You can't really be serious?

Entirely, or do you think that the way characters are animated is irrelevant?

Is it not entirely relevant that Shepard's posture at the end shows his weakened state? If that's relevant, then why not StarChild's?

Because it's no way near that clean cut

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Yeah, where exactly is he meant to go anyway? His basic instinct is to survive and hide from aggressors, which being in the vent does temporarily.
He doesn't know what to do, he is confused, he feels helpless; seeing him cry would look pathetic though.
Err, not sure what you mean
We don't even know he has parents with him, nothing is told about him. Again remember the purpose of the scene


Maybe they do. They have nothing really to go on. Unless BW shipped in a couple of kids, scared them enormously, noted what they did and then wrote that into the game

If the child is afraid of Shepard, why does he go onboard a ship full of strangers and more soldiers?
Why not stay in the air duct until everyone has gone away? until it's quiet again? why leave?

I find his behaviour odd, that's all, and I think it was intended because there's a lot of it going on.
He seem VERY mature.

I believe at least some of BW staff have kids of their own.
It's not hard to imagine a lost kid in a theme park. Losing your parents alone is enough to have your world fall apart.

I'm not scaring he is actually scared of Shepard, just that he doesn't think Shepard can help when there are a load of 2km tall beasts just outside the window destroying everything in sight.

His place has just been blown up, the Reapers are near. He wants to get somewhere where he is safer.

Undoubtedly some of them do have kids. I'm just saying the purpose of the scene is to establish guilt. You can't have a happy ending to his arch. He is destined to die.

[niravital]

leonia42 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

Javik especially woudln't let anyone stop him, hell none of the crew would.

A bit off topic but in that evac sequence I notice the person who tells Joker to leave can vary, are Garrus and Liara the only ones that do that? For me it was Liara but I might want to see Garrus giving orders.. for science..

Ashley.

She was my LI, but I took Gerrus and Liara to the beam.

[Rosewind]

niravital wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

Javik especially woudln't let anyone stop him, hell none of the crew would.

A bit off topic but in that evac sequence I notice the person who tells Joker to leave can vary, are Garrus and Liara the only ones that do that? For me it was Liara but I might want to see Garrus giving orders.. for science..

Ashley.

She was my LI, but I took Gerrus and Liara to the beam.

I took Kaidan and Liara with me and kaidan gave in evently but liara didnt say a word, guess cause kaidan is my LI and LI take president over the other squad member.

Edit: Garrus gave the order for me cause liara was with me.

Modifié par Rosewind, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:29 .

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...
Don't you think it is wrong though that BW are just pandering to the mob rather than going with the strength of their convictions and having a DLC that proves IT conclusively?

I think that would be the last ME3 DLC.

SubAstris wrote... 
I'm not scaring he is actually scared of Shepard, just that he doesn't think Shepard can help when there are a load of 2km tall beasts just outside the window destroying everything in sight.

His place has just been blown up, the Reapers are near. He wants to get somewhere where he is safer.

Undoubtedly some of them do have kids. I'm just saying the purpose of the scene is to establish guilt. You can't have a happy ending to his arch. He is destined to die.  

 

This fits perfectly also in IT as it fits outside of it.
It's a matter of opinion, not proof.

I tried to explain why I think the way I do and why I find it supporting the IT.
I understand the counter arguments but this is how I feel.
I hope you understand mine as well now

[Lokanaiya]

Subastris, you seem to be assuming a kid would be rational in that situation. They wouldn't. A kid would be frantic, desperate, and scared half to death. It doesn't matter that there are giant monsters outside. Isn't this person a soldier like in the vids? Soldiers are so *strong.* And s/he beat up those monsters that were chasing me earlier, he can keep me safe. All I have to do is get in his/her arms and all the scary stuff that can hurt me will go away, like whenever I had a nightmare and Mommy and Daddy held me and comforted me until I wasn't scared anymore. All I have to do is go with the nice soldier and everything will be alright.

I'm not to good at this stuff, but you get the point, right?

[Silhouett3]

SubAstris wrote...

In many ways, yes, Shepard's emotion of guilt is irrational, and you should take that up with BW. They said they wanted a more personal Shepard, one who felt real emotion when people died. This is not only shown by the kid but also others who have died (shown by the whispers of Mordin, Ashley etc in your dreams). Because you have to remember that the child is a symbol of all of humanity, and BW have said it themselves. Shepard is meant to be one of the guardians of humanity, and to see it fall, that's a heavy burden for anyone to take.

Admittedly the comparison with Ashley/Kaiden is flawed. Both are soldiers and very well know the risks of being in their situation; the child on the other hand doesn't.

What? The point is the Catalyst, not Shepard. Why do you think it is the form Catalyst took instead of some Reaperish/cuttlefishy thing?

The child is just what Bioware said he is. A face for humanity. He is nothing but something symbiotic and stays symbiotic as dreams went on. Only something symbiotic like that would be a factor to manipulate Shepard in the end. Both the kid's dissappearance in the vent and the Catalyst taking his form are crucial, calculated events to get a desired outcome. A non-personalized entity like him triggers thoughts about the future, not the past. If the child be instead someone personally important to Shepard enough to invade Shep's dreams 3 times, he would cease to be symbiotic and become a person. Sorry, you can't have them both at the same time

Modifié par Silhouett3, 05 juillet 2012 - 02:39 .