55528 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

D.Sharrah wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I'm just getting caught up in all these posts popping about about why I should trust the Embodiment of the reapers Catalyst kid. I just find it strange that people can throw out everything previous and trust this little rogue AI.

It's not really about trust/distrust. People just need to analyse what he actually says and whether we know what he says is true or not given prior knowledge, rather than just to assume him to be evil because he is associated with the Reapers.

The problem with that is part of your analysis of a statement is whether or not you trust the source.  I have never personally met anyone from the Taliban...but if I did, would you say that I was being unfair if I didn't necessarily trust every word they said?  That's w/o placing a label on whether or not the individual is "good" or "evil"...I have had friends that are really "good" people - but you couldn't trust what they say...if that makes sense.

When I mean "trust" I mean "his words seem to be align with what we already know and don't contradict anything that happens afterwards"

Please explain this in more detail...because I just don't see it.

For example, Catalyst says A will happen not B, B happens

How is this explaining your statement?  If anything that proves he is deceptive!  Look at the bolded - if you were trying to support your statement, it should be "...says A will happen not B, and A happens".  Are you confusing yourself?!

Sorry, you're very correct, because we were talking about distrust I assumed that

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Or it could mean that life would be worse, but not impossible, without synthetic, akin to someone saying that there would be no electricity in your life.

Considering that Shepard is heavily rebuild with synthetics among other things with his spinal column beeing held together with synthetic parts as shown in ME2 and even more synethtic parts must be present in Shepards arms and body as he exhibits supernatiral strength and toughness (the M-300 Claymore Shotgun breaks a mans arm with the recoil yet Shepard can use it and he goes toe to toe with a Yagh in hand to hand) removing the synthetics from Shepard would with little doubt kill him.

It has never been shown that Shepard would die without synthetics.

[zigamortis]

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Or it could mean that life would be worse, but not impossible, without synthetic, akin to someone saying that there would be no electricity in your life.

Considering that Shepard is heavily rebuild with synthetics among other things with his spinal column beeing held together with synthetic parts as shown in ME2 and even more synethtic parts must be present in Shepards arms and body as he exhibits supernatiral strength and toughness (the M-300 Claymore Shotgun breaks a mans arm with the recoil yet Shepard can use it and he goes toe to toe with a Yagh in hand to hand) removing the synthetics from Shepard would with little doubt kill him.

It has never been shown that Shepard would die without synthetics.

But he would die in a massive explosian followed by exposure to the vacuum of space and then finaly atmospheric re-entry and impact.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Or it could mean that life would be worse, but not impossible, without synthetic, akin to someone saying that there would be no electricity in your life.

Considering that Shepard is heavily rebuild with synthetics among other things with his spinal column beeing held together with synthetic parts as shown in ME2 and even more synethtic parts must be present in Shepards arms and body as he exhibits supernatiral strength and toughness (the M-300 Claymore Shotgun breaks a mans arm with the recoil yet Shepard can use it and he goes toe to toe with a Yagh in hand to hand) removing the synthetics from Shepard would with little doubt kill him.

It has never been shown that Shepard would die without synthetics.

Did I ever say it was?

My post served to point out that from what we see of Shepard´s rebirth and from what we can conclude based on what we see (M-300 Claymore is one part, going hand to hand with yagh a creature standing taller than a Krogan with natural armor and resisting sedation in Arrival) it is safe to say that Shepards body went through some pretty heavy changes.

Hell he is enough Synthetic that he could be hacked on Project Overlord, that alone should say volumes of how many Synthetic parts in him. We have seen that his eyes are Synthetic and the glow of his Synthetic parts can be seen through the scars he aquire should you go Renegade.

That means large parts of his skull is Synthetic and now try imagining stripping it all away.

Even if he survived he would most likely collapse completely as synthetic parts in arms and legs seize to function. His spinal column might shatter or break as it is shown with considerbale synthetic parts, he would go blind and whatever functions the synthetic parts in his skull serve would seize.

And that is just the parts we can logically conclude.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:04 .

[niravital]

Thanks @Vaya and @Lokanaiya, I thought it popped there but obviously my mistake

[Chriz Tah Fah]

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

Aint that first in ME3? The M-300 Codex entry I refer to is from ME2 and dont remember if it has one in 3. Possibly the M-300 has been redesigned in the six months taht have passed to allow everyone to use it.

Edit: Juts looked it over, indeed the M-300 was redesigned between ME2 and 3 allowing anyone to use it.

But in ME2 only Shepard and Grunt could wield the weapon.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:31 .

[Vaya]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

Going by ME2 both the claymore and the widow were clearly not meant to be usable by a "normal" human. In ME3 the entry on the Armali sniper units makes it clear that they required cybernetic implants in order to use the widow.

Added: Just saying that alowing your squadmates to use weapons they shouldn't be able to use is most likely a gameplay compromise, rather than a lore retcon.

Modifié par Vaya, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:35 .

[Either.Ardrey]

Vaya wrote...

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

Going by ME2 both the claymore and the widow were clearly not meant to be usable by a "normal" human. In ME3 the entry on the Armali sniper units makes it clear that they required cybernetic implants in order to use the widow.

Plus, the weapon description in ME3 for the Widow describes how it's been adapted to not kill its user. The same could have happened with the Claymore.

@Chriz - Thane's info in Shadow Broker (plus maybe some of Grunt's dialogue) tells us that Quarians are tougher than they look, harder to kill than flimsy humans.

Modifié par Either.Ardrey, 08 juillet 2012 - 09:35 .

[Arian Dynas]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

Aint that first in ME3? The M-300 Codex entry I refer to is from ME2 and dont remember if it has one in 3. Possibly the M-300 has been redesigned in the six months taht have passed to allow everyone to use it.

Edit: Juts looked it over, indeed the M-300 was redesigned between ME2 and 3 allowing anyone to use it.

But in ME2 only Shepard and Grunt could wield the weapon.

It explicitly states in the Claymore's description that since the events of ME2, the manufacturer took to heart some of the many complaints about the overbuilt weapon, redisigning it to be useable by everyone, lowering it's kickback and increasing stability at the cost of power.

[niravital]

So a 2-hour tedious skinning work just gone through the window.
In times like this I hate Maya.

I feel like blasting some reapers.
origin ID "niravital" if anyone wanna join.

[HellishFiend]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Tali can use the M-300 Claymore ^.^

Quarians are of slighter build and height than humans. This is visibly shown and stated throughout the Mass Effect games. This could be pure oversight by Bioware by allowing all useable weapons to be used by everyone. The M-98 widow can also be used by pretty much everyone that uses a sniper. Seeing how not all of your squadmates are bigger than you, or more synthetic than you but are still albe to use the weapons voids that point for me.

Aint that first in ME3? The M-300 Codex entry I refer to is from ME2 and dont remember if it has one in 3. Possibly the M-300 has been redesigned in the six months taht have passed to allow everyone to use it.

Edit: Juts looked it over, indeed the M-300 was redesigned between ME2 and 3 allowing anyone to use it.

But in ME2 only Shepard and Grunt could wield the weapon.

I'd say that's fairly compelling evidence that Shep is highly reliant on his synthetic components. And that's just one example, too. 

[Either.Ardrey]

niravital wrote...

So a 2-hour tedious skinning work just gone through the window.
In times like this I hate Maya.

I feel like blasting some reapers.
origin ID "niravital" if anyone wanna join.

ouch. Were you using Paint Weights or Set Weights by Vertex?

[Arian Dynas]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Honestly, I'm confused. How is Reject Shepard being indecisive? He's not, at all. He just staying true to the themes of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. It's the only ending where he does this, actually. He's not just rejecting the Reapers themselves, he's rejecting everything the Reapers are and everything they stand for, and choosing to never, ever compromise with the Reapers at all. Destroy involves accepting, at least on some level, that Starbibger is telling the truth, and you never argue with him at all. You just accept what he says as truth.

Arian, you say that the reason Starbinger is mad in Reject is because Shepard is "going against his own character." Well, why would this matter to Harbinger? If it felt this, it would mean Shepard had its respect and it was mad Shepard was betraying that respect, which doesn't fit with anything Harbinger said about how we don't matter. Wouldn't it be angrier if Shepard resisted its greatest weapon? Again, if Harbinger was angry that Shepard was refusing to play ball or betraying his own ideals, that would mean that Harbinger had some sort of respect for Shepard, which he doesn't at all. Shepard is just some insignificant speck of dust that struggles against the wind, but in less than half a millenium, he and everything he knows or cares about will be gone, erased, and the Reapers will once again reign supreme, as we... They have for billions of years.

Ahem. Sorry. Looks like I got a bit carried away there adopting Harbinger's perspective.... 0.o

Anyways, something else that just occured to me, out of the three choices we have two that have tempted iconic people and another that everybody believes is the ONLY way to defeat the Reapers. Sound familiar? Remember that the Reapers are masters of manipulation and trickery.

I'd say that Reject has at least an equal chance of breaking indoctrination, if not greater. The only reason I say Destroy is still in the running for breaking indoc at all is the breath scene...

I disagree completely.

Destroy is the goal we have had for 3 years, since Shepard first saw the Reapers, killing the Reapers was our goal both Paragon AND Renegade, defend humanity from this unholy threat and garuntee us victory, that was our mission.

Destroy is the personification of that. Destroy is ignoring everything the Catalyst tells you ("Focus on the mission." - Shepard) and going straight for the goal, don't stop and consider what he tells you, which is a major factor in Control, since you must believe he is correct that you will be able to Control the Reapers.

In Synthesis, you must swallow THAT load of complete horse**** he feeds you, as well as not question it the whole way round.

Reject requires you to listen to him, to consider that he is telling you the truth, yet you end up lacking the conviction to follow through with your original end goal because now they tacked on a consequence you don't like.

Reject isn't giving up, it's being a constentious objector and opting out.

Simply put Shepard, ALL Shepards are not that kind of person, Shepard is a man of action, he does things descisively, he can punch out a Batarian or threaten to shoot him, there is no neutral option between Paragon and Renegade, and there is no neutral option in ME3, Shepard MUST feel strongly one way or another.

Reject is Shepard trying to be Kirk and look for a 3rd option, only to find out there isn't always a third option out.

Shepard is polarizing by his very nature, Renegade and Paragon are both extremes, yes they both remain heroes, but they are far extremes from oneanother, and the only way to play a "neutral" Shepard, which by the way doesn't have any kind of benefit throughout the games (It is far better to pick one and go with it and dabble in the other than it is to play the middle field.) is to choose an equal quantity of both options.

Harbinger is angry at Shepard compromising his own ideals and personality not out of appreciation or adversarial respect, he's angry because Shepard has been broken, he discarded one of the very personality traits that Harbinger wanted out of him. Harbinger WANTS Shepard's mind, he WANTS Shepard to BE Shepard, if he didn't care about having Shepard exactly as Shepard is then he would force his way in with fast indoctrination, destroying the things about Shepard that made him who he is. Shepard as Shepard is a valuable asset to them. A Shepard who has compromised himself is a Shepard they have no use for.

Harbinger has no cares about Shepard beating this indoctrination attempt, as far as Harbinger is concerned they can try again later, Harbinger is patient and sly, and is perfectly willing to wait for another opportunity to come along.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:00 .

[HellishFiend]

Reject isn't even Shepard's action or words, it's the player's. The blatant, glaring stare at the camera/player by Shepard is indicative of that option being a direct response to the players' demand for it, followed by BW's response through Starbinger. After Shep deals his blusterous yet ultimately shallow diatribe, he is allowed no more lines, and can only look on in horror as the game/story comes crashing down around him.

"Fine, you want to be that way? You lose. Good day, sir."

Modifié par HellishFiend, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:04 .

[Arian Dynas]

HellishFiend wrote...

Reject isn't even Shepard's action or words, it's the player's. The blatant, glaring stare at the camera/player by Shepard is indicative of that option being a direct response to the players' demand for it, followed by BW's response through Starbinger. After Shep deals his blusterous yet ultimately shallow diatribe, he is allowed no more lines, and can only look on in horror as the game/story comes crashing down around him.

"Fine, you want to be that way? You lose. Good day, sir."

Exactly, Reject isn't an action Shepard would take. He has the means to end this war right now with far less losses than if it went on, and all he has to do is sacrifice (one of the major themes of the story) two groups whom have already indicated a willingness to BE sacrificed to Destroy the Reapers. Shepard as a character would take at least one of the options.

[MaximizedAction]

Arian Dynas wrote...
Destroy is the personification of that. Destroy is ignoring everything the Catalyst tells you ("Focus on the mission." - Shepard) and going straight for the goal, don't stop and consider what he tells you, which is a major factor in Control, since you must believe he is correct that you will be able to Control the Reapers.

Destroy is an option offered by the Catalyst. By it's very definition you can't ignore the Catalyst by choosing it, as he already offered it to you, no matter what the implications or the connotation given is. It is his initiative, just like Synth and Control.

Refuse is the only one that the player, actively, has to find by really wanting it.

Before having seen Refuse, I'd have agreed with you. Now...things are a bit different -- even though we get the breath scene only with Destroy.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:15 .

[jgibson14352]

another thought, if the endings were to be taken literally, as the real, final ending, why wouldnt anybody choose synthesis? you would honestly have to be a horrible person to not have that be your number one choice. its an instant utopia, jump into a beam and BOOM instant perfection. the only reason anybody would consider control is if they had a god complex, and besides, the reapers would also protect all life in the synthesis endings right? i mean, the cycle stopped, the reapers are going to have to serve a purpose if theyre still there.
the star child outlines destroy as the worst choice, hands down. you commit genocide on a peaceful people, and everything is normal. or, chose synthesis and everything is perfect. period.
it doesnt make any sense, why bioware would think these are "morally ambiguous" decisions

[Andromidius]

jgibson14352 wrote...

another thought, if the endings were to be taken literally, as the real, final ending, why wouldnt anybody choose synthesis? you would honestly have to be a horrible person to not have that be your number one choice. its an instant utopia, jump into a beam and BOOM instant perfection. the only reason anybody would consider control is if they had a god complex, and besides, the reapers would also protect all life in the synthesis endings right? i mean, the cycle stopped, the reapers are going to have to serve a purpose if theyre still there.
the star child outlines destroy as the worst choice, hands down. you commit genocide on a peaceful people, and everything is normal. or, chose synthesis and everything is perfect. period.
it doesnt make any sense, why bioware would think these are "morally ambiguous" decisions

Because you've just made a choice that's impacted the lives of trillions of other beings without their consent.  And you've entrusted all those existances into the hands of the creatures that only recently wanted to liquify every organic being and turn them into more of themselves.

Literal happy ending or not, that's the very definition of unethical behaviour and foolish trust.

[Andromidius]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
Destroy is the personification of that. Destroy is ignoring everything the Catalyst tells you ("Focus on the mission." - Shepard) and going straight for the goal, don't stop and consider what he tells you, which is a major factor in Control, since you must believe he is correct that you will be able to Control the Reapers.

Destroy is an option offered by the Catalyst. By it's very definition you can't ignore the Catalyst by choosing it, as he already offered it to you, no matter what the implications or the connotation given is. It is his initiative, just like Synth and Control.

Refuse is the only one that the player, actively, has to find by really wanting it.

Before having seen Refuse, I'd have agreed with you. Now...things are a bit different {smilie}-- even though we get the breath scene only with Destroy.

Yeah, that breath scene... Causes issues with most people's interpretations. Its just such a big and unavoidable deal.

[jgibson14352]

Andromidius wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

another thought, if the endings were to be taken literally, as the real, final ending, why wouldnt anybody choose synthesis? you would honestly have to be a horrible person to not have that be your number one choice. its an instant utopia, jump into a beam and BOOM instant perfection. the only reason anybody would consider control is if they had a god complex, and besides, the reapers would also protect all life in the synthesis endings right? i mean, the cycle stopped, the reapers are going to have to serve a purpose if theyre still there.
the star child outlines destroy as the worst choice, hands down. you commit genocide on a peaceful people, and everything is normal. or, chose synthesis and everything is perfect. period.
it doesnt make any sense, why bioware would think these are "morally ambiguous" decisions

Because you've just made a choice that's impacted the lives of trillions of other beings without their consent.  And you've entrusted all those existances into the hands of the creatures that only recently wanted to liquify every organic being and turn them into more of themselves.

Literal happy ending or not, that's the very definition of unethical behaviour and foolish trust.

yes but its the same as giving a toddler a vaccination. they may scream and cry against it, but its for their own good to prevent any future suffering. from the cutscenes, everybody was happpy with synthesis, didnt look like anybody felt anything.

[HellishFiend]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...
Destroy is the personification of that. Destroy is ignoring everything the Catalyst tells you ("Focus on the mission." - Shepard) and going straight for the goal, don't stop and consider what he tells you, which is a major factor in Control, since you must believe he is correct that you will be able to Control the Reapers.

Destroy is an option offered by the Catalyst. By it's very definition you can't ignore the Catalyst by choosing it, as he already offered it to you, no matter what the implications or the connotation given is. It is his initiative, just like Synth and Control.

Refuse is the only one that the player, actively, has to find by really wanting it.

Before having seen Refuse, I'd have agreed with you. Now...things are a bit different -- even though we get the breath scene only with Destroy.

I disagree, sir. I postulate that the Catalyst offers you not a set of actions to choose from, but rather a set of moralistic guidelines and principles to choose from. Picking Destroy is sticking with the morals and principles that have been thematically presented as harmonious with the prosperity of organics and their synthetic children, while Control/Synth are.....not. Picking refuse is simply refusing to side with any of the presented principles. And that is no way to continue the story. 

[comrade gando]

CoolioThane wrote...

Quick question:

Would any IT-ers (and non) be happy with the following:

- IT never confirmed
- Each DLC adds a bit more to the refuse ending
- Eventually leading to a conventional victory with all DLC

I think I would.

I will be good with whatever they pull as long as it involves a lot of ass kicking, boss fighting harbinger like we should have in the first place, and beating the reapers once and for all. and an ending that reflects my choices. I don't care if ronald mcdonald flies in from outer space and nukes all the reapers then gives everyone free happy meals, as long as it ends well.

[TJBartlemus]

boeloe wrote...
Are you referring to the 'Dis' part in  Leviathan of Dis"? Because the overarching theme for the cluster Hades Gamma, seems to be Dante's Divine Comedy where Dis is a city and also a different name for lucifer.

But I'm not convinced that Leviathan DLC is about Leviathan of Dis at all.

Sup guys? Got a hair cut and loving my new doo. 

I believe that there is a couple lines in the leaked DLC info that connects the "Dis" in the codex and the Reaper. be back after I find it.

EDIT - Here it is. Lines between Shepard and Jondum Bau:

Unused line from main game file BIOGame_INT.tlk from conversation with Jondum Bau about the Alliance raid on Batarian research facility: 

Right, the Leviathan of Dis. I've got my own sources. 

Currently, Shepard instead asks him ]The batarians had Reaper technology?

Modifié par TJBartlemus, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[HellishFiend]

jgibson14352 wrote...

another thought, if the endings were to be taken literally, as the real, final ending, why wouldnt anybody choose synthesis? you would honestly have to be a horrible person to not have that be your number one choice. its an instant utopia, jump into a beam and BOOM instant perfection. the only reason anybody would consider control is if they had a god complex, and besides, the reapers would also protect all life in the synthesis endings right? i mean, the cycle stopped, the reapers are going to have to serve a purpose if theyre still there.
the star child outlines destroy as the worst choice, hands down. you commit genocide on a peaceful people, and everything is normal. or, chose synthesis and everything is perfect. period.
it doesnt make any sense, why bioware would think these are "morally ambiguous" decisions

Destroy, as presented, is in harmony with the themes of the Mass Effect trilogy. The game goes out of it's way to show that both Organics and Synthetics are more than willing to sacrifice themselves for what they believe in, and would gladly die if it meant the defeat of the Reapers. 

Have you seen Choose Wisely with the new annotations that I added? If not, check it out. It does a better job of explaining. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 08 juillet 2012 - 10:25 .