55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

Rosewind wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

No. Only Shepard could understand Vigil at first. Then Vigil taught itself English and spoke in that so your team could understand.

Ahhhhh Thank you Arian, so would Vendetta be the same though?

Well, only Shepard speaks Prothean. But it could be that Vendetta had listened to and was speaking in the Asari language, which was then being translated for them. Maybe.

[Arian Dynas]

Andromidius wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Actually the beacon on Eden prime can easily have been modified by the Reapers without them discovering ilos because the warning the Scienctist who created Vigil sent out was not until after the Reapers left. So even if the Reapers found the beacon there would not be a mention of Ilos yet as it had not been sent.

Considering Saren had just used it, and Sovereign was in close proximity, that's very likely.  Not to mention the Beacon exploded after being used, possibly booby trapped?

I doubt they tampered with it. Remember Sovereign (and by proxy, Saren) getting REALLY angry at the idea that someone might have used the Beacon? They didn't want ANYONE to know.

Why would you poison a well you want no one else to drink from when you could just destroy it?  They planned on that beacon being leveled along with the rest of Eden Prime.

[WandySilva]

leonia42 wrote...

WandySilva wrote...

I think this has to do more with Bioware keeping the endings ambiguous than anything else, if the catalyst told shepard that destroy would kill him, then anyone with a high EMS survived would immediately scream "THE CATALYST LIES!!!11!!1!" giving a lot more merit to non-literalist interpretations. It is much more beneficial for bioware's "lots of speculation" platform to keep everything the catalyst says open ended.

But there's plenty of other examples of the Catalyst lieing or using fallacious arguments.

Why would Bioware go through both the trouble of a literal ending, an IT ending, and a "let's confuse both of them" ending? That's a lot of effort to cover up something that may or may not exist.

Every time someone uses the "Well they're doing x,y, and z to fool the literalists" as evidence of IT,  I have to restrain myself from face palming. It makes little sense to do that, there's plenty of speculations for everyone without the extra layers of secrecy to dig through.

Why? i think the why is quite simple, MONEY. keeping the conversation alive and the debates going only hypes up their future paid dlc. I gauruntee that anyone who frequents these forums (especially this thread) will be first day buyers of leviathan or retake omega or whatever. The literalists want to proove the IT'ers wrong, and vice versa.

[RavenEyry]

WandySilva wrote...
Why? i think the why is quite simple, MONEY. keeping the conversation alive and the debates going only hypes up their future paid dlc. I gauruntee that anyone who frequents these forums (especially this thread) will be first day buyers of leviathan or retake omega or whatever. The literalists want to proove the IT'ers wrong, and vice versa.

But they would've guaranteed DLC sales by just making a good ending in the first place.

[Leonia]

RavenEyry wrote...

But they would've guaranteed DLC sales by just making a good ending in the first place.

Yeah, the more they string us along the less I care about speculating. I'm sure later I might appreciate their "master plan" regarding ME3 and all the DLC but how can they really ensure that we'll still be talking about things like this six months from now? The waiting for answers (if there any to be had) is starting to really kill my enthusiasm for the game.

[WandySilva]

RavenEyry wrote...

WandySilva wrote...
Why? i think the why is quite simple, MONEY. keeping the conversation alive and the debates going only hypes up their future paid dlc. I gauruntee that anyone who frequents these forums (especially this thread) will be first day buyers of leviathan or retake omega or whatever. The literalists want to proove the IT'ers wrong, and vice versa.

But they would've guaranteed DLC sales by just making a good ending in the first place.

"artistic intergrity", Bioware created an epic saga and wanted to try something different for the ending, in that respect, they succeeded (I'm not saying it was a good idea). But now they are free to milk us of our cash when they say "This DLC will add to the ending in some small way"... and chances are, it will work.

[Leonia]

Except they are more likely to say "This DLC will continue to expand Shepard's legend!" and less likely to actually admit that it has an impact on the ending at all and after we actually play it we'll be scratching our heads wondering if we misssed another major potential clue for something that may never be fully clarified ever.

Modifié par leonia42, 23 juillet 2012 - 04:42 .

[TSA_383]

leonia42 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

But they would've guaranteed DLC sales by just making a good ending in the first place.

Yeah, the more they string us along the less I care about speculating. I'm sure later I might appreciate their "master plan" regarding ME3 and all the DLC but how can they really ensure that we'll still be talking about things like this six months from now? The waiting for answers (if there any to be had) is starting to really kill my enthusiasm for the game.

Ditto.
Leviathan needs to come along soon and bring something big to the table or a lot of fans are just going to switch off...

[WandySilva]

leonia42 wrote...

Except they are more likely to say "This DLC will continue to expand Shepard's legend!" and less likely to actually admit that it has an impact on the ending at all and after we actually play it we'll be scratching our heads wondering if we misssed another major potential clue for something that may never be fully clarified ever.

adding to the speculations! even if there isnt a (intentional) clue, the boards will erupt in debate over what every little thing means in regards to the ending... again

The cycle cannot be broken

[CoolioThane]

Still don't understand WHY people can be so against IT.

I put forward a point yesterday Astris:

Destroy means that the Geth and EDI die. If Shepard didn't know if he could die or not he could be less likely to risk killing the Geth and Edi.

By this I mean he could find it hard to live knowing he destroyed all Geth, which he just spent time saving and helping coexist with the Quarians, and EDI who is one of his friends and another of his best friend's lover. Whenever he'd see Joker or Tali he'd remember what he'd done...

...whereas if he states Shepard will die then it might be more acceptable as he knows he wouldn't have to live with the consequences.

That's just an idea, not necessarily what I believe.

[RavenEyry]

CoolioThane wrote...

Still don't understand WHY people can be so against IT.

There does seem to be more people who despise the very idea than those who just disagree. Or maybe they're just more vocal.

[Rosewind]

CoolioThane wrote...

Still don't understand WHY people can be so against IT.

I put forward a point yesterday Astris:

Destroy means that the Geth and EDI die. If Shepard didn't know if he could die or not he could be less likely to risk killing the Geth and Edi.

By this I mean he could find it hard to live knowing he destroyed all Geth, which he just spent time saving and helping coexist with the Quarians, and EDI who is one of his friends and another of his best friend's lover. Whenever he'd see Joker or Tali he'd remember what he'd done...

...whereas if he states Shepard will die then it might be more acceptable as he knows he wouldn't have to live with the consequences.

That's just an idea, not necessarily what I believe.

Or he could lie and say he didn't know that was going to happen.

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

Still don't understand WHY people can be so against IT.

I put forward a point yesterday Astris:

Destroy means that the Geth and EDI die. If Shepard didn't know if he could die or not he could be less likely to risk killing the Geth and Edi.

By this I mean he could find it hard to live knowing he destroyed all Geth, which he just spent time saving and helping coexist with the Quarians, and EDI who is one of his friends and another of his best friend's lover. Whenever he'd see Joker or Tali he'd remember what he'd done...

...whereas if he states Shepard will die then it might be more acceptable as he knows he wouldn't have to live with the consequences.

That's just an idea, not necessarily what I believe.

I am not so much against IT as trying to find out for everyone's benefit why BW would make the Catalyst say that.

Interseting, however, isn't destroy about sticking to what you believe regardless of sacrifice? The Geth would understand this, EDI would this and of course Joker as well.

[CoolioThane]

I thought you were against IT sub?

I agree it's about sticking to what we believe, considering it's what we've set out to do in all three games, also factoring in the other two choices (Refuse is pointless if what Gamble said was true) are the choices the two antagonists wanted.

Yes, of course, the Geth and EDI both said they'd die if it meant destroying the Reapers, but you'd think it'd still weigh on your mind if you survived, that you caused the deaths of all of those synthetics knowing you could have saved them by choosing Control/Synthesis (Though in IT these aren't real so..xD)

[Fingertrip]

Synthesis obviously didn't turn people into husks to begin with.

The ending is just garbage, shouldn't think to much into it. They had a good plan from the get-go, then it got ruined ;/

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

I thought you were against IT sub?

I agree it's about sticking to what we believe, considering it's what we've set out to do in all three games, also factoring in the other two choices (Refuse is pointless if what Gamble said was true) are the choices the two antagonists wanted.

Yes, of course, the Geth and EDI both said they'd die if it meant destroying the Reapers, but you'd think it'd still weigh on your mind if you survived, that you caused the deaths of all of those synthetics knowing you could have saved them by choosing Control/Synthesis (Though in IT these aren't real so..xD)

I'm not against IT, I just don't BW implemented it.

I'm not sure that's really good enough reason for why the Catalyst would refrain from telling him he would definitely die. It would weigh on his mind, but I'm pretty sure his own impending death would be at the forefront of his mind

[masster blaster]

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Still don't understand WHY people can be so against IT.

I put forward a point yesterday Astris:

Destroy means that the Geth and EDI die. If Shepard didn't know if he could die or not he could be less likely to risk killing the Geth and Edi.

By this I mean he could find it hard to live knowing he destroyed all Geth, which he just spent time saving and helping coexist with the Quarians, and EDI who is one of his friends and another of his best friend's lover. Whenever he'd see Joker or Tali he'd remember what he'd done...

...whereas if he states Shepard will die then it might be more acceptable as he knows he wouldn't have to live with the consequences.

That's just an idea, not necessarily what I believe.

I am not so much against IT as trying to find out for everyone's benefit why BW would make the Catalyst say that.

Interseting, however, isn't destroy about sticking to what you believe regardless of sacrifice? The Geth would understand this, EDI would this and of course Joker as well.

Yes that's true, but remember a lot of people just started to play ME,
but on ME3 not ME1, or ME2. lots of people don't care about story lines,
anymore, but that could be the reason why literalist say it's bad
writing, or just except it don't understand ME at all. Since most of
them just started to play ME3. Just look at MP, the only reason, why a
lot of people, were going to buy ME3 was because of MP, and the action
of ME3.

So in a sense many people just say it's bad writing,
because they don't pay attention to the game at all, and only play to
just shot like Halo, Gears, and Star Wars. Now granted they have good
story lines, but most people play for the action, not the story itself.

[Arian Dynas]

Fingertrip wrote...

Synthesis obviously didn't turn people into husks to begin with.

The ending is just garbage, shouldn't think to much into it. They had a good plan from the get-go, then it got ruined ;/

And you have... what to back this up?

Look dude, unless you got a Bioware tag under your name, you don't have the authority to make those claims.

Tell us your problems, and come back to us.

[TSA_383]

masster blaster wrote...

So in a sense many people just say it's bad writing,
because they don't pay attention to the game at all, and only play to
just shot like Halo, Gears, and Star Wars. Now granted they have good
story lines, but most people play for the action, not the story itself.

Modifié par TSA_383, 23 juillet 2012 - 05:51 .

[Arian Dynas]

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

I thought you were against IT sub?

I agree it's about sticking to what we believe, considering it's what we've set out to do in all three games, also factoring in the other two choices (Refuse is pointless if what Gamble said was true) are the choices the two antagonists wanted.

Yes, of course, the Geth and EDI both said they'd die if it meant destroying the Reapers, but you'd think it'd still weigh on your mind if you survived, that you caused the deaths of all of those synthetics knowing you could have saved them by choosing Control/Synthesis (Though in IT these aren't real so..xD)

I'm not against IT, I just don't BW implemented it.

I'm not sure that's really good enough reason for why the Catalyst would refrain from telling him he would definitely die. It would weigh on his mind, but I'm pretty sure his own impending death would be at the forefront of his mind

Bioware has stated that aspects of the game have non-literal interpretations.

They have stated that there is layers of metaphor and meaning.

They have said there is a great deal of intentional symbolism.

What more do you need man?

[masster blaster]

Fingertrip wrote...

Synthesis obviously didn't turn people into husks to begin with.

The ending is just garbage, shouldn't think to much into it. They had a good plan from the get-go, then it got ruined ;/

oh mmaybe in real ife, Shepard gave the Reaper an upgrad,  so that they can gain Shepard whole being, like the Catalyst said  Shepard has change things that the Catalyst admits it did not see coming. But if this is a dream, and Shepard is still on Earth, then what's to say that in real lige Shepard Jumps in the Conduit beam and sends the Reapers his personality, so that the Reapers can upgrad themselfs so that they can complete themselfs as the Pricibles of Evolution.

Turbo_J wrote...

masster blaster wrote...



Okay guys after playing Overlord I have come to a conclusion, that
Harbinger wants Shepard to fuse with Himself to become the ultimate
Reaper.



Think about it Synthesis makes no sense right, and the way you jump in
the beam is like Shepard is every genetic material is being fused with
harbinger. And you may argue that Control is Shepard becoming a Reaper,
but Synthesis is Shepard and Harbinger combing with each other to create
the perfect Reaper that is the principle of evolution.



harbinger since ME2 is always talking about humans have the requirements
to make more Reapers, but Harbinger sees Humanity AKA Shepard that by
fusing everything that Shepard is Harbinger could use that against the
other cycle, and this one about using Shepard's methods of getting thing
done, and maybe making the Reapers feel emotion so that when the time
comes for the next cycle. harbinger can play the innocent act, and
indoctrinate another race, so that the Reapers can be the heroes of the
next cycle, only to find out the Reapers are monsters from hell.



Edit: i know yes the Synthesis ending is not real, but in real life that happened.

You are close. Think more broadly. What did Legion have that was so
special that it was necessary for him to disseminate his personality to
all Geth? Perspective...



What do you think would happen to the Reapers if an indoctrinated Shepard were to be disseminated to all Reapers?



It could be... problematic.

yes that's what I fear that for the people who pick Synthesis you gave the Reapers an upgrade.

[paxxton]

Fingertrip wrote...

Synthesis obviously didn't turn people into husks to begin with.

The ending is just garbage, shouldn't think to much into it. They had a good plan from the get-go, then it got ruined ;/

Btw, weren't you an ITists the last time I read your post?

[Simon_Says]

About the Catalyst not stating outright that Shepard will die. There's an explanation. Simple really.

Stating outright that Shepard will die makes the choice that much easier to reject. If in all three choices Shepard is clearly going to die, then Shepard is more likely to wonder why there isn't an out. They're going to want to examine the choices more closely. They're more likely to come to the conclusion that no choice should be made.

I know it may seem counter-intuitive, but really, put yourself in Shepard's shoes, temporarily disregard everything you learned after the choices were presented, and think: "How would I react with a choice that provides a semi-ambiguous means to survive, and one where there's absolutely no walking away from it." I know that for myself I'd be more willing to accept the former "soft" choice as a real choice than the latter "hard" choice. It's not rational, but the human mind typically isn't.

Basically, implying and not stating that Shepard would die is an "incredulity pressure valve".

There's also the dreams to consider. I've asked this question before, I'll say it again: What were the dreams for?

There is a definite story arc involving the child, the dreams, and the Catalyst. SubAstris can make a fool of himself all he wants and maintain that the Catalyst's form being the same as the image that haunts Shepard's dreams is just 'coincidental', but the simple fact is that the Starchild's image is significant to the dream arc and Shepard's internal struggles. And the dream arc is significant to overall plot because of how it opens and closes the game.

It's obvious what the child and the dreams represent: Shepard is agonizing over the loss of life incurred by the reaper war. But what does this arc culminate to? Because it's apparent that Shepard must resolve their survivor's guilt by virtue of the Starchild basically confronting Shepard and forcing them to decide who or what else must be sacrificed to end the war. But what is the correct solution to this arc from the spectrum of options provided?

Should Shepard pick Control or Synthesis, sacrificing themselves so that no one else must die for Shepard? Should Shepard pick destroy, sacrificing synthetic life in order to (possibly) save thier own skin? Should Shepard reject the choice, be unwilling to sacrifice their soul even if it comes at the cost of the entire Council Cycle?

Oh yes. The Catalyst is trying to play on Shepard's survival guilt big time. Imagine how you would feel if you were given the option to give Earth a better future (ex. No more hunger or something.) but at the cost of your own life, and you rejected it. Particularly if you had seen first-hand the terrible injustices of the world we live in. That's the kind of situation the Catalyst is placing Shepard in.

It's only really with the benefit of hindsight that we can conclude for sure that Destroy is in fact the most morally reliable of the solutions presented. But without that hindsight Destroy does look very, very ugly. And suggesting that Shepard could survive it but not the other, 'better' options makes it even uglier than if Shepard wouldn't.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:11 .

[masster blaster]

TSA_383 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

So in a sense many people just say it's bad writing,
because they don't pay attention to the game at all, and only play to
just shot like Halo, Gears, and Star Wars. Now granted they have good
story lines, but most people play for the action, not the story itself.

I was saying that so no GOW fan FAN can come in here, and say Oh Gears of War has a good story line, but Mass Effect 3 doesn't.

[paxxton]

TSA_383 wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

So in a sense many people just say it's bad writing,
because they don't pay attention to the game at all, and only play to
just shot like Halo, Gears, and Star Wars. Now granted they have good
story lines, but most people play for the action, not the story itself.

Hey, I like Halo's story too.

Modifié par paxxton, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:02 .