55528 réponses à ce sujet

[byne]

Lord Goose wrote...

You only had it aboard shortly during ME2, so not
really enough time for indoctrination to start, it is
specifically stated multiple times to still be present on board
after the refit, and is a Reaper device thats entire purpose is
to transmit signals.

Just to note, it s possible to complete about 60% of the game after you acquire IFF. Your crew will die, though, but it is legitimate way to complete ME2.

Also, wasn't IFF software, rather than hardware? Salarian First Fleet managed to copy algorith and made their ships invisible to the Reapers for a short time.

I think the IFF itself is hardware. You pick something up on the Derelict Reaper after all.

Also, I dont really understand how the salarians manage to use the Reaper IFFs, unless they're also using AIs aboard their ships. I dont remember her exact words, but EDI said something about how she had to devote a lot of time to tracking the evolution of the IFF algorithms in order to be able to keep it up to date enough to fool the Reapers.

Or something. I havent heard that conversation in a while. It was her talking with Adams I believe.

[FellishBeast]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

byne wrote...

Grayson actually had Reaper tech in him though. Shepard doesnt.

You don't know that. TIM actually pulled off a miracle with Project Lazerus. Never before did anyone manage to bring back a human being to life. It's obvious that super-advanced tech was used to resurrect Shepard. It could very well be that super-advanced tech is reaper tech.

Also, you asking us to name someone who has overcome indoctrination through means other than suicide is a pointless request, as we arent saying that Shepard is indoctrinated, we're saying the Reapers are trying to indoctrinate her.

Theres a very big difference between the two.

The codex states that indoctrination has to be done very carefully over a very long period of time. During that period, the Reaper or the indoctrination device has to constantly feed the mind of the victim with suggestions.
Rapid indoctrination is possible, but it will shatter the mind of the indoctrinated person, leaving little more than a simple drone, a husk.

So, with that knowledge, how do you fit that with the IT? Do you think Shepard was already under the influence of indoctrination before the end of ME3? If that's indeed true, than who or what was feeding Shepard's mind  all the time and how?

How do you explain renegade Shep's red eyes if he isn't indoctrinated? You need to check your facts and stop grasping at straws. 

And you need to stop trying to troll me. Trolling is my job, not yours. Now stop grasping at straws and get your facts straight! 

My facts are straighter than a dog's pajamas.

[byne]

Uncle Jo wrote...

byne wrote...

Do they still hold off on putting your name up in destroy even if your EMS isnt high enough to get the breath scene? After the EC lowered the EMS needed to get the breath scene, I dont have any chars with low enough EMS

Your name is added to the memorial wall when you don't have enough EMS in the destroy ending.

Well now the scene where they dont put your name up makes even less sense.

[Priss Blackburne]

Sombrero Bandit wrote...

Shepard wasn't under any form of Reaper control. From what i read symptoms include headaches and hallucinations, feelings of being watched or paranoia, and viewing the Reapers as a sort of "God". From ME to ME3 Shepard resisted as much as he could and probably has the strongest mindset out of anyone in thd whole game. But then again he meets most of the requirements so I could be wrong

honestly I think it's hard to tell what symptions Shepard is manifesting as I don't think all of them may be apparent to the player as Shepard. Joker even makes a comment about how Shepard is acting like a robot almost. But that could be the stress of the war going on as easily as feeling the effects of indoctrination.

[Andromidius]

Sombrero Bandit wrote...

Shepard wasn't under any form of Reaper control. From what i read symptoms include headaches and hallucinations, feelings of being watched or paranoia, and viewing the Reapers as a sort of "God". From ME to ME3 Shepard resisted as much as he could and probably has the strongest mindset out of anyone in thd whole game. But then again he meets most of the requirements so I could be wrong

That point is that Shepard is undergoing indoctrination attacks, not that Shepard is indoctrinated.  That only happens if you 'fail' at the end.

[The Heretic of Time]

byne wrote...

Well, given that Miranda was in charge of project Lazarus, I'd figure she'd have noticed any unfamiliar tech that had been implanted in Shep. She pushed for a control chip to be installed in Shep, and TIM said no, claiming he didnt want to alter Shep's personality in any way. If he planned to insert Reaper tech that he knows has a high probability of not only altering Shep's personality, but even possibly causing her to turn against him, you'd think he'd have been all for a control chip.

Perhaps. What you say does make sense, but keep in mind TIM believed he had the reaper tech under control. He also used reaper tech to fix a dying Kai Leng and at some point TIM even implanted himself with reaper tech.

So it could very well be that TIM indeed used reaper tech for Project Lazerus, just as he used reaper tech to fix Kai Leng and he also used reaper tech to improve himself.

Miranda might have known all along about the reaper tech, but didn't say anything to Shepard.


I do not necessarily support this assumption, all I'm saying that it is possible. 

I figure it was something aboard the Normandy. Theres that infamous line from James about hearing an odd hum. I think its possible that either the IFF, EDI, or even something snuck aboard by an indoctrinated agent during the refit is causing it.

If that is indeed the case, shouldn't everyone on the Normandy be indoctrinated by the end of ME3? And shouldn't someone like Javik or Mordin notice this right away? Especially Javik should be smart enough to detect reaper indoctrination right away.

I don't think it's very likely that the Normandy contained any indoctrination device. Keep in mind that James Vega was in the engine room with a lot of noise and humming. The strange hum he heared was probably nothing out of the ordinary.

From what we know, Shep only starts getting those dreams once she gets on the Normandy, and more shadows appear in the dreams the longer she's aboard.

Since BioWare obviously wanted to go for drama and emotion with the vent kid, I think the dreams about that same kid are just that: Drama and emotion. BioWare themselves said they wanted Shepard to be more humane in ME3. They wanted to show that the war is also affecting Shepard, just like it's affecting anyone else. I think the dreams are part of that, just that, nothing more.

I think it being caused by the IFF is a pretty good guess though. You only had it aboard shortly during ME2, so not really enough time for indoctrination to start, it is specifically stated multiple times to still be present on board after the refit, and is a Reaper device thats entire purpose is to transmit signals.

The Reaper IFF is nothing fysical, it's only a bunch of data uploaded on a disc and later installed on the Normandy. So it's not possible for the Reaper IFF to indoctrinate anything or anyone, because it's not a physical part, it's just data being uploaded and intergrated with the Normandy systems. I don't think mere data can indoctrinate anyone.

[The Heretic of Time]

FellishBeast wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

How do you explain renegade Shep's red eyes if he isn't indoctrinated? You need to check your facts and stop grasping at straws. 

And you need to stop trying to troll me. Trolling is my job, not yours. Now stop grasping at straws and get your facts straight! 

My facts are straighter than a dog's pajamas.

A dog doesn't wear pajamas. 

[CoolioThane]

Hmmm...it appears as if you're answering questions with "Bioware meant this" Well...youaren't Bioware so you're just as much grasping at straws as we mate.

[FellishBeast]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

How do you explain renegade Shep's red eyes if he isn't indoctrinated? You need to check your facts and stop grasping at straws. 

And you need to stop trying to troll me. Trolling is my job, not yours. Now stop grasping at straws and get your facts straight! 

My facts are straighter than a dog's pajamas.

A dog doesn't wear pajamas. 

Gooby pls

[Uncle Jo]

byne wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

byne wrote...

Do they still hold off on putting your name up in destroy even if your EMS isnt high enough to get the breath scene? After the EC lowered the EMS needed to get the breath scene, I dont have any chars with low enough EMS

Your name is added to the memorial wall when you don't have enough EMS in the destroy ending.

Well now the scene where they dont put your name up makes even less sense.

Pretty much. That and the voice change of the Brat prevented me to kill the IT right off. I'm waiting for the Leviathan DLC to take my final decision.

[The Heretic of Time]

byne wrote...

I think the IFF itself is hardware. You pick something up on the Derelict Reaper after all.

No, the IFF is software. In real-life IFF's are also simply software, not hardware. What you picked up on the Delerict Reaper was a data slate with the IFF on it. Pay more attention when you play that mission next time you play ME2.

Also, I dont really understand how the salarians manage to use the Reaper IFFs, unless they're also using AIs aboard their ships.

You don't need A.I.s to install IFFs. Every ship as an IFF, always. The Normandy simply has upgraded it's IFF to a reaper IFF. Now the reaper radars registrate the normandy is a "friend" instead of a "foe".

I dont remember her exact words, but EDI said something about how she had to devote a lot of time to tracking the evolution of the IFF algorithms in order to be able to keep it up to date enough to fool the Reapers.
Or something. I havent heard that conversation in a while. It was her talking with Adams I believe. 

Can't remember her saying that. Did she say that in ME2 of ME3?

[Priss Blackburne]

I doubt Javik would be able to tell if someone is indoctrinated or not, even by sharing their genetic memories thing he does. If he was able to do that the protheans would not have had indoctrinated forces infiltrate there bases like they did right up to when Javik was being put into stasis. Even the VI couldn't detect them effectively. It was easy for it to tell that TIM and cerberus where indoctrinated since they all had a lot of reaper tech implanted in them.

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:34 .

[The Heretic of Time]

CoolioThane wrote...

Hmmm...it appears as if you're answering questions with "Bioware meant this" Well...youaren't Bioware so you're just as much grasping at straws as we mate.

No I'm not. I simply state what is the most likely explanation.
I'm not BioWare, but I use Occam's Razor: The easiest explantion with the least assumptions is usually the best explanation.

So far I made far less leaps of faith than you ITers, nor am I grasping at straws because I simply try to find the most simple and straight-forward explanation. I'm not biased, unlike you.

[byne]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

byne wrote...

I think the IFF itself is hardware. You pick something up on the Derelict Reaper after all.

No, the IFF is software. In real-life IFF's are also simply software, not hardware. What you picked up on the Delerict Reaper was a data slate with the IFF on it. Pay more attention when you play that mission next time you play ME2.

Also, I dont really understand how the salarians manage to use the Reaper IFFs, unless they're also using AIs aboard their ships.

You don't need A.I.s to install IFFs. Every ship as an IFF, always. The Normandy simply has upgraded it's IFF to a reaper IFF. Now the reaper radars registrate the normandy is a "friend" instead of a "foe".

I dont remember her exact words, but EDI said something about how she had to devote a lot of time to tracking the evolution of the IFF algorithms in order to be able to keep it up to date enough to fool the Reapers.
Or something. I havent heard that conversation in a while. It was her talking with Adams I believe. 

Can't remember her saying that. Did she say that in ME2 of ME3?

It was with Engineer Adams, so in ME3.

What she said was that the Reaper IFF was basically a bunch of constantly evolving algorithms, and I'm fairly certain she said that the Reaper IFF doesnt work by just transmitting a friend/foe signal, but by simulating a Reaper intelligence or something like that, and that she has to constantly monitor the evolving algorithms so that the Reapers will be fooled into thinking the Normandy is a Reaper.

Modifié par byne, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:38 .

[paxxton]

Usually doesn't mean always.

Modifié par paxxton, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:39 .

[UltimateTobi]

Oh hey Heretic. Still havin' your daily fights with us?
I don't know why, but it's some fresh wind when you show up.

[Andromidius]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Hmmm...it appears as if you're answering questions with "Bioware meant this" Well...youaren't Bioware so you're just as much grasping at straws as we mate.

No I'm not. I simply state what is the most likely explanation.
I'm not BioWare, but I use Occam's Razor: The easiest explantion with the least assumptions is usually the best explanation.

So far I made far less leaps of faith than you ITers, nor am I grasping at straws because I simply try to find the most simple and straight-forward explanation. I'm not biased, unlike you.

Occam's Razor doesn't work with literature, otherwise foreshadowing and hidden meanings would be impossible in any story. 

Try again.

Edit: Not to mention that a literal interpretation requires MORE speculation as to what happened.  You have to explain every single weird happening - and saying 'Bioware is lazy' is in itself lazy.

IT explains it all in very simple terms.  So even if we did use Occam's Razor with literature, it would still imply IT is correct.

Modifié par Andromidius, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:41 .

[paxxton]

His day off work became 2 days. I suppose it'll extend to 3 or more.

[UltimateTobi]

byne wrote...

What she said was that the Reaper IFF was basically a bunch of constantly evolving algorithms, and I'm fairly certain she said that the Reaper IFF doesnt work by just transmitting a friend/foe signal, but by simulating a Reaper intelligence or something like that, and that she has to constantly monitor the evolving algorithms so that the Reapers will be fooled into thinking the Normandy is a Reaper.

So with that said, the evac. scene actually makes partly sense...?

Modifié par UltimateTobi, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:42 .

[Priss Blackburne]

Except Occam's Razor was never meant to be used in a narrative structure like a fictional story. Your taking something meant to be applied to things like real world work and applying it to a fictional world.

edit: sorry didn't mean only science

Modifié par Priss Blackburne, 14 juillet 2012 - 10:45 .

[Andromidius]

UltimateTobi wrote...

byne wrote...

What she said was that the Reaper IFF was basically a bunch of constantly evolving algorithms, and I'm fairly certain she said that the Reaper IFF doesnt work by just transmitting a friend/foe signal, but by simulating a Reaper intelligence or something like that, and that she has to constantly monitor the evolving algorithms so that the Reapers will be fooled into thinking the Normandy is a Reaper.

So with that said, the evac. scene actually makes sense...?

Nah.  The IFF would only work at long range, Reapers can clearly see things in the visual spectrum.  Not to mention it would mean the Normandy would never get chased and destroyed during scanning missions.

[byne]

UltimateTobi wrote...

byne wrote...

What she said was that the Reaper IFF was basically a bunch of constantly evolving algorithms, and I'm fairly certain she said that the Reaper IFF doesnt work by just transmitting a friend/foe signal, but by simulating a Reaper intelligence or something like that, and that she has to constantly monitor the evolving algorithms so that the Reapers will be fooled into thinking the Normandy is a Reaper.

So with that said, the evac. scene actually makes partly sense...?

Not really, since Harby has eyes, and can easily see the Normandy, and doesnt need to rely on an IFF.

[UltimateTobi]

Andromidius wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

byne wrote...

What she said was that the Reaper IFF was basically a bunch of constantly evolving algorithms, and I'm fairly certain she said that the Reaper IFF doesnt work by just transmitting a friend/foe signal, but by simulating a Reaper intelligence or something like that, and that she has to constantly monitor the evolving algorithms so that the Reapers will be fooled into thinking the Normandy is a Reaper.

So with that said, the evac. scene actually makes sense...?

Nah.  The IFF would only work at long range, Reapers can clearly see things in the visual spectrum.  Not to mention it would mean the Normandy would never get chased and destroyed during scanning missions.

That's what I thought. If you scan couple times, they can pin-point the Normandy.

[The Heretic of Time]

Andromidius wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Hmmm...it appears as if you're answering questions with "Bioware meant this" Well...youaren't Bioware so you're just as much grasping at straws as we mate.

No I'm not. I simply state what is the most likely explanation.
I'm not BioWare, but I use Occam's Razor: The easiest explantion with the least assumptions is usually the best explanation.

So far I made far less leaps of faith than you ITers, nor am I grasping at straws because I simply try to find the most simple and straight-forward explanation. I'm not biased, unlike you.

Occam's Razor doesn't work with literature, otherwise foreshadowing and hidden meanings would be impossible in any story. 

Try again.

Occam's Razor works perfectly fine for literature. Well, it does when we look at it in retrospect, after the novel is written and we try to analyze it. I agree that Occam's Razor would not work for a novel that isn't yet finished.


Anyway, you get the point I hope. We're all speculating here, but from all the speculation I am the one who's grasping at straws THE LEAST. I accept the endings for what they are and what they show. I do not seek anything more than what we got behind it and wheverer we find plotholes I just use the most likely true assumption: BioWare's writers are not that good. This assumption is of course based on the many plotholes and mediocre story quality of the entire ME3 game and parts of ME2 that weren't so good either, so it's not an entirely baseless assumption.

[Cyberfrog81]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Yep, and it's very likely that IT, in its current state, is false. IT surely hasn't covered everything in the exact way Bioware intended it (IF they intended it in that direction). IT just sufficiently goes in the right direction, or it seems so to me.

But IT is definitely not true and Bioware don't have to comment on the theory... just release content that approves with the theory

At best.

I doubt new content will completely invalidate control / synthesis. Wish I was wrong, but I can no longer accept that the "real ending" hasn't happened yet. That sucked at release, and it only gets crappier over time. The fully story not being known yet? See, that's much better. But that "full story" may not be IT. Heck, it may even make synthesis-supporters happier than any other group... we just don't know at this point.