55528 réponses à ce sujet

[UltimateTobi]

mrs.N7 wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

mrs.N7 wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

mrs.N7 wrote...

Any news from SDCC, or any good/bad news at all?

Not that I heard of.

Hi mrs.N7 BTW. ;D

HI! Sorry for yesterday, Orign doesn't like me, it seems!
So, we didn't get any news at all on Leviatan? Shame.. 

No worries. When Earth DLC comes out, maybe it fixes itself then.

Edit: Did you try contacting EA customer support? The chat preferably.

Yeah, 2 times. Standard reply, unistall, reinstall and re-donwload the whole thing. Of course, it didn't work.. :/

Email or chat? In chat I never had standard replies.

A friend of mine had a similar problem. He wasn't able to download Rebellion. I logged in with my account via TeamViewer, and downloaded the DLC. Then I logged out my account, and he logged in his account.
The DLC was shown as not installed, though he was able to play the content fine in-game.

Are you sure you log in with the correct BSN account? (Just kidding, but the most obvious one can be the cause. LOL)

[Arian Dynas]

leonia42 wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Thanks for putting together the relevant bits, Starbuck. I didn't have time to read the whole thing but this I could and...well, not much to go on but it's interesting nonetheless. Not terribly happy about what they said about Shepard's "dying breath" despite having considered it already and they're not saying anything new (surprise, surprise), however. Ah well, I wasn't expecting much, though I am a bit disappointed there was pretty much nothing about Leviathan.

Just using logic, people don't usually breath in when they die. That was either misinformation or a flat out lie.

To add to that, if it was a "dieing breath" why bother showing it at all, they could have easily shown us Shepard dieing without the vagueness of such a scene.

More to the point, a dying breath is an exhalation (like *khooo*) This was an INhalation (*khaaa!*) a exhalation is the universal way to show a dying breath, this is a breath of life,Shepard is breathing IN, not out.

[SubAstris]

RavenEyry wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But I'm not, you've just proved my point. Not everything is clearly meant to be taken literally in the game IT or not, hence why the term "literalist" is not accurate

It is possible to literally think they were literally dreams.

Now you are just playing semantics

[SubAstris]

Edorian27 wrote...

I just replayed the ending with the EC. Can someone point me to a thread/post were the effects of EC where discussed in light of IT?

I think IT and EC don't go together.

1) Why would there be a scene with Hackett stating that someone made it to the citadel? It is clearly nothing Shep would dream about.. so I have to take it for a fact.

2) Why would the catalyst care to explain what exactly he is, why the Reapers do this and that? With the new planted information given by the catalyst I find IT less likely.

3) What about the whole ending slideshow? It was easier to accept it as "Shepards Hopes" with the small part we got before, where his companions landed in a Paradise-like garden world being very symbolic. Now with the elaborate endings, it's hard to belive.

Adding to this, the rescue of Sheps team happened before the dream sequence, so the hope for them to survive gets less dreamlike.

So, if there is any (not too far fetched) explanation out there, would be nice if you could point me to it. (and no, I don't need explanations like = it's because IT is bull****)

IT explanation= BW like spending a lot of resources on nothing

[Arian Dynas]

estebanus wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Okay, I'm interested. What exactly did masster blaster had in mind? How will both IT and non-IT work together? And if they will, what do you hope will come of that?

Basically from what i can tell is, He wants the Literalists and the IT crowd, to put our differances aside and just try to compile all data we have found (both for and against) to find what is the TRUE ending. 

And somehow force BioWare to listen to us due to our new united strength.

Because that's totally how the world works.

The really, truly funny irony here?

"The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!"

[UltimateTobi]

Arian Dynas wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Okay, I'm interested. What exactly did masster blaster had in mind? How will both IT and non-IT work together? And if they will, what do you hope will come of that?

Basically from what i can tell is, He wants the Literalists and the IT crowd, to put our differances aside and just try to compile all data we have found (both for and against) to find what is the TRUE ending. 

And somehow force BioWare to listen to us due to our new united strength.

Because that's totally how the world works.

The really, truly funny irony here?

"The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!"

The irony here is, that it can't work together.

[Arian Dynas]

SubAstris wrote...

Edorian27 wrote...

I just replayed the ending with the EC. Can someone point me to a thread/post were the effects of EC where discussed in light of IT?

I think IT and EC don't go together.

1) Why would there be a scene with Hackett stating that someone made it to the citadel? It is clearly nothing Shep would dream about.. so I have to take it for a fact.

2) Why would the catalyst care to explain what exactly he is, why the Reapers do this and that? With the new planted information given by the catalyst I find IT less likely.

3) What about the whole ending slideshow? It was easier to accept it as "Shepards Hopes" with the small part we got before, where his companions landed in a Paradise-like garden world being very symbolic. Now with the elaborate endings, it's hard to belive.

Adding to this, the rescue of Sheps team happened before the dream sequence, so the hope for them to survive gets less dreamlike.

So, if there is any (not too far fetched) explanation out there, would be nice if you could point me to it. (and no, I don't need explanations like = it's because IT is bull****)

IT explanation= BW like spending a lot of resources on nothing

Ignore him. He's usually full of crap anyway, this time is no exception.

1).Why? Dreams have internally consistent logic, meaning that a dream will actually make an effort not to contradict itself in a lucid dream state. When a dream contradicts itself you wake up. Why would Shepard NOT dream about Hackett saying this?

There's also the business explanation that the EC was intended to give more weight to a literal interpretation, filling in plot holes to make those natives who weren't happy with the endings as is to be a bit less restless, so basically, fanservice.

2).Because the fans asked, Shepard asked, and lies/bull**** mixed with partial truths are cheap?

3).Fanservice again, and Shepard gets a fully choroeographed dream sequence! Really, have you listened to some of those? The Control one is just disturbing and the Synthesis one is just literally unbelieveably saccharine.

Waking hallucination is the current explanation, showing that Shepard is losing his grip on reality the closer he gets to the beam. See either my ending script in my sig for an early version of this, or seek out TJBartelmus.

[UltimateTobi]

UltimateTobi wrote...

I'm gonna try though, forgive me if it doesn't make sense.

Edorian27 wrote...

I just replayed the ending with the EC. Can someone point me to a thread/post were the effects of EC where discussed in light of IT?

I think IT and EC don't go together.

1) Why would there be a scene with Hackett stating that someone made it to the citadel? It is clearly nothing Shep would dream about.. so I have to take it for a fact.

That might be. But he said someone, not Shepard. And if need to take that scene at face value, we also need to take his statement, that >someone< made it, at face value.

2) Why would the catalyst care to explain what exactly he is, why the Reapers do this and that? With the new planted information given by the catalyst I find IT less likely.

Think about it. The more information you give, the more the other one trusts you. BW served both, literalists and theorists. We got more "closure" from the literal point of view. BUT, that plays in our favor, the Catalyst is more obviously grasping at Shep's faith/believe. The Catalyst also talks more positively about Control, and even more about Synthesis. Destroy is still the worst choice in Catalyst's POV.

3) What about the whole ending slideshow? It was easier to accept it as "Shepards Hopes" with the small part we got before, where his companions landed in a Paradise-like garden world being very symbolic. Now with the elaborate endings, it's hard to belive.

Well, they could've made rendered scenes instead of slide shows. For me, slide shows are vaguely, unclear. They could play in our terms, dream-like. And they add more "closure", for the ones who desired that.

Adding to this, the rescue of Sheps team happened before the dream sequence, so the hope for them to survive gets less dreamlike.

But did you notice that Harbinger had very well the chance to shoot down the Normandy? He didn't. With one purpose: making Shepard believe there's hope. If Harbinger would've shot down the Normandy with all he cares about aboard, Shepard would do the devil and just want to destroy the Reapers, by any means.

So, if there is any (not too far fetched) explanation out there, would be nice if you could point me to it. (and no, I don't need explanations like = it's because IT is bull****)

I tried my best, I am not good at explaining, but I know the feeling of being diappointed. I was, after playing EC.

Repost for Edorian, so he doesn't miss it.

[Arian Dynas]

UltimateTobi wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

Okay, I'm interested. What exactly did masster blaster had in mind? How will both IT and non-IT work together? And if they will, what do you hope will come of that?

Basically from what i can tell is, He wants the Literalists and the IT crowd, to put our differances aside and just try to compile all data we have found (both for and against) to find what is the TRUE ending. 

And somehow force BioWare to listen to us due to our new united strength.

Because that's totally how the world works.

The really, truly funny irony here?

"The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither!"

The irony here is, that it can't work together.

 
Just like Synthesis.

[UltimateTobi]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Just like Synthesis.

We're on the same wave here.

[MaximizedAction]

Arian Dynas wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Thanks for putting together the relevant bits, Starbuck. I didn't have time to read the whole thing but this I could and...well, not much to go on but it's interesting nonetheless. Not terribly happy about what they said about Shepard's "dying breath" despite having considered it already and they're not saying anything new (surprise, surprise), however. Ah well, I wasn't expecting much, though I am a bit disappointed there was pretty much nothing about Leviathan.

Just using logic, people don't usually breath in when they die. That was either misinformation or a flat out lie.

To add to that, if it was a "dieing breath" why bother showing it at all, they could have easily shown us Shepard dieing without the vagueness of such a scene.

More to the point, a dying breath is an exhalation (like *khooo*) This was an INhalation (*khaaa!*) a exhalation is the universal way to show a dying breath, this is a breath of life,Shepard is breathing IN, not out.

Thanks for analysing this particular answer.

I'm not sure if this was discussed in the last 30 pages, but about that answer regarding the kid/Catalyst/whatever:

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

[UltimateTobi]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

Who said that? A non-ITer/or literalist?

[Arian Dynas]

UltimateTobi wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

Who said that? A non-ITer/or literalist?

...

I never heard THAT said anywhere... 

Where the flaming tapdancing **** did THAT comment come from? I didn't see it in the transcript...

[MaximizedAction]

UltimateTobi wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

Who said that? A non-ITer/or literalist?

Sorry, you already went offline shortly before Bioware's panel (from www.newsarama.com/games/sdcc-2012-mass-effect-past-present-future.html):

Q: What's the deal with the kid and Shepard seeing him through the whole game?

A: Hepler said it was just to tie Shepard's story personally to Earth and the feeling of not being able to save the child.

They didn't outright say PTSD, but the answer implies that. It says that the kid is just a kid that haunts him. Aka, the literal interpretation.

Or maybe I'm just interpretating out of my ass. :innocent:

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:07 .

[UltimateTobi]

Arian Dynas wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

Who said that? A non-ITer/or literalist?

...

I never heard THAT said anywhere... 

Where the flaming tapdancing **** did THAT comment come from? I didn't see it in the transcript...

If BioWare stated that, then this would render the whole evidence chain of the "dreams" obsolete.

[Starbuck8]

 I made this sum up of the sdcc panel for you guys http://social.biowar...2/1865#13143070

[Arian Dynas]

MaximizedAction wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Over night I thought about it a bit: Did they actually take a stand towards the literal interpretation? I mean, the question was "What's with that kid that keeps appearing throughout the whole game" and they answered with the usual, literal interpretation: PTSD.

Isn't that them stating a non-IT answer?

Who said that? A non-ITer/or literalist?

Sorry, you already went offline shortly before Bioware's panel (from www.newsarama.com/games/sdcc-2012-mass-effect-past-present-future.html):

Q: What's the deal with the kid and Shepard seeing him through the whole game?

Hepler said it was just to tie Shepard's story personally to Earth and the feeling of not being able to save the child.

Ah... so... basically exactly what we knew from the artbook to begin with.

They established early on the kid is symbolic of Shepard's guilt, that he represents the face of the people he cannot save in this war.

I never saw the words Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in there.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:08 .

[RavenEyry]

UltimateTobi wrote...
If BioWare stated that, then this would render the whole evidence chain of the "dreams" obsolete.

Not really Bioware have said many conflicting things, and PTSD is what it's supposed to look like on the surface.

[UltimateTobi]

RavenEyry wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...
If BioWare stated that, then this would render the whole evidence chain of the "dreams" obsolete.

Not really Bioware have said many conflicting things, and PTSD is what it's supposed to look like on the surface.

As we saw now, BioWare didn't say PTSD outright. Just the interpretation we knew from the beginning.
No evidence not obsolete. 

[Arian Dynas]

RavenEyry wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...
If BioWare stated that, then this would render the whole evidence chain of the "dreams" obsolete.

Not really Bioware have said many conflicting things, and PTSD is what it's supposed to look like on the surface.

...

No. No it's not, seeing as bad dreams while a symptom of PTSD, are just as easily a symptom of a bad cheese sandwich and alot of guilt.

It looks NOTHING like PTSD, Shepard does not relive the event, he has symbolic dreams concerning the child, PTSD requires vivid recollections.

He does not have an aversion to the situation that caused the stress, otherwise he would be making a beeline AWAY from both Reapers and children. Since he doesn't, and just to show Mac Walters, the man with a PSYCH degree actually knows his **** about PTSD, we get two texbook cases shown in the game, via the Asari commando and Kelly Chambers.

[MaximizedAction]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Ah... so... basically exactly what we knew from the artbook to begin with.

They established early on the kid is symbolic of Shepard's guilt, that he represents the face of the people he cannot save in this war.

I never saw the words Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in there.

Since the question was not about the kid in Vancouver, but the kid in the whole game, I assumed the answer was also about the appearances in the dreams. What other interpretation about seeing someone who you could not save from dying is there?

(I am aware that in reality cases of PTSD are wayyy more serious than the dreams, but so would be Shepard's survival in the breath scene, and BW's answer on that was basically ignoring reality to the fullest: atmospheric reentry, etc.)

[MaximizedAction]

See folks, I'm aware that BW didn't say anything the player couldn't already take from the game face-value. But the thing is, unlike at PAX, they got two questions about content that IT builds upon. So it's either ignoring their answers or taking them into account when discussing.

The former makes me worry that I'm too biased about the ending, already. That's why I asked about their answer to the question about the kid. It's just the first time that they answered a question of that caliber live. Thus I wondered, whether that would be similar to a case of them taking a stand with respect to IT, or parts of it.

If it's always possible to categorise an answer from them that goes into the literal direction as 'nothing new', then how is it even possible for them to take a stand on the topic of whether was being indoc.?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 15 juillet 2012 - 12:20 .

[Arian Dynas]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Ah... so... basically exactly what we knew from the artbook to begin with.

They established early on the kid is symbolic of Shepard's guilt, that he represents the face of the people he cannot save in this war.

I never saw the words Post Traumatic Stress Disorder in there.

Since the question was not about the kid in Vancouver, but the kid in the whole game, I assumed the answer was also about the appearances in the dreams. What other interpretation about seeing someone who you could not save from dying is there?

(I am aware that in reality cases of PTSD are wayyy more serious than the dreams, but so would be Shepard's survival in the breath scene, and BW's answer on that was basically ignoring reality to the fullest: atmospheric reentry, etc.)

Remember what that assuming thing makes out of you and me?

STOP ASSUMING.

They said the kid was meant to connect Shepard's arc as a character to Earth. He does that, we have a little piece of Earth following us constantly through the game, Shepard is obsessed with this child. That is not normal for Shepard as a character, whom has seen far more people he is far closer to die over several years by this point. ESPECIALLY with the Survivor background.

There are alot of other interpretations. They flat out came out and said the child was meant to be symbolic and represent the people Shepard could not save. He does that. The dreams are guilt, yes, and what have we decided LONG ago was the purpose behind choosing a child as an avatar for the Reapers, and then having said child "killed"?

Oh yeah, TO INSTILL GUILT IN SHEPARD AS A MEANS OF WEAKENING HIS WILLPOWER.

And NOWHERE did I see them give any kind of a definite answer on the breath scene whether it was real, what the motivation behind it was or wether it was in London, on the Citadel or somewhere on Uranus.

It's all alot of nondescript smokescreen. Again.

[UltimateTobi]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Remember what that assuming thing makes out of you and me?

STOP ASSUMING.

They said the kid was meant to connect Shepard's arc as a character to Earth. He does that, we have a little piece of Earth following us constantly through the game, Shepard is obsessed with this child. That is not normal for Shepard as a character, whom has seen far more people he is far closer to die over several years by this point. ESPECIALLY with the Survivor background.

There are alot of other interpretations. They flat out came out and said the child was meant to be symbolic and represent the people Shepard could not save. He does that. The dreams are guilt, yes, and what have we decided LONG ago was the purpose behind choosing a child as an avatar for the Reapers, and then having said child "killed"?

Oh yeah, TO INSTILL GUILT IN SHEPARD AS A MEANS OF WEAKENING HIS WILLPOWER.

And NOWHERE did I see them give any kind of a definite answer on the breath scene whether it was real, what the motivation behind it was or wether it was in London, on the Citadel or somewhere on Uranus.

It's all alot of nondescript smokescreen. Again.

I prefer that smokescreen instead the possibility of outright destroying IT.

[Arian Dynas]

Basically, don't give up the ghost now just because we got alot of filibuster answers.

Because that's all they are. By all appearances they are being pretty skilled at saying something, yet managing to say nothing at all.

These statements tell us little to nothing we didn't already know.