55528 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

Oh and I think we have talked about this, but the Citadel control panel is in the Council chambers, not in the place where Shepard is at. We can confirm this because in ME1 Saren closes the Citadel because he goes to the Citadel Control panel in the Council Chambers and lets Sovereign in and keeps every one out.

Also um remember there needs to be another Conduit on the Citadel, that Shepard goes to. Remember illos. There was a relay/Conduit on the planet and one on the Citadel. So where is the Conduit on the Citadel?


Okay Maybe there was a nother Conduit inside the Citadel, but how did the Reaeprs build a nother Conduit where Sheaprd just happens to be at, and I finaly get why Shepard looks back,

Anderson should be there, because if this is a Conduit/Relay. Then that means Anderson should be right next to Shepard, not some where else.

look at 12;22  on the EC when Shepard goes up and watch it from there, to the point where Shepard is in player Control.
www.youtube.com/watch


GUYS did anyone pay attention, to the Camra paning out to where the Coats's body, or in this case that persons body was gone, but Bioware focuesd on that spot for 10 seconds and I think we were suppost to check it out, or question Where is the body that the Keeper removed the persons helmet?

Modifié par masster blaster, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:18 .

[Simon_Says]

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and I think we have talked about this, but the Citadel control panel is in the Council chambers, not in the place where Shepard is at. We can confirm this because in ME1 Saren closes the Citadel because he goes to the Citadel Control panel in the Council Chambers and lets Sovereign in and keeps every one out.

Also um remember there needs to be another Conduit on the Citadel, that Shepard goes to. Remember illos. There was a relay/Conduit on the planet and one on the Citadel. So where is the Conduit on the Citadel?

The landing pad is actually shown quite clearly. But yes, the whole ME3 conduit system doesn't look like any relay system we've seen in the series. (We need to examine the vangaurd biotic charges by the way.)

As for the control panels, you're unofrtunately mistaken. Yes, there's a control panel in the council chamber. It's probably the primary CP. That doesn't mean there are secondary CP's elsewhere on the station. (Engineering design 101: redundancy is good.)

The question you should be asking is why the conduit takes Shepard directy to a CP to begin with. Either the reapers were comfortable with sending organics scheduled for processing right next to a set of the space station's controls or Shepard was sent to that location specifically.

[masster blaster]

Simon I edit my post above your comment.

Edit: please read it.

Modifié par masster blaster, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:20 .

[masster blaster]

Simon_Says wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Oh and I think we have talked about this, but the Citadel control panel is in the Council chambers, not in the place where Shepard is at. We can confirm this because in ME1 Saren closes the Citadel because he goes to the Citadel Control panel in the Council Chambers and lets Sovereign in and keeps every one out.

Also um remember there needs to be another Conduit on the Citadel, that Shepard goes to. Remember illos. There was a relay/Conduit on the planet and one on the Citadel. So where is the Conduit on the Citadel?

The landing pad is actually shown quite clearly. But yes, the whole ME3 conduit system doesn't look like any relay system we've seen in the series. (We need to examine the vangaurd biotic charges by the way.)

As for the control panels, you're unofrtunately mistaken. Yes, there's a control panel in the council chamber. It's probably the primary CP. That doesn't mean there are secondary CP's elsewhere on the station. (Engineering design 101: redundancy is good.)

The question you should be asking is why the conduit takes Shepard directy to a CP to begin with. Either the reapers were comfortable with sending organics scheduled for processing right next to a set of the space station's controls or Shepard was sent to that location specifically.

Yes but why did Saren go there, if there was another Control panel. It would through Shepard into where is Saren, and Sheaprd could not have opened the Citadel, if Saren destroyed the Control panel in the Councils chambers and headed to the other Panel, that Shepard was not awar of. Also remeber that the place where Shepard is at. Are memories of the places Shepard has been to, and knows about.

[Eryri]

I've been thinking again about the dreamlike nature of the confrontation with the illusive man.

Assuming that the Reapers have allowed him to board and walk around the citadel wherever he pleases - why would he go to confront Shepard and Anderson alone? Why doesn't he have a squad of Cerberus flunkies training their guns on Shepard - just in case his new powers aren't enough? He doesn't seem the type to go unprepared.

For that matter why do the reapers allow him to wander around the Citadel wherever he pleases? They destroyed his facility on Horizon because they were worried his control research might actually work - now they let him close to the one thing that could destroy them?

BTW - has anyone played Infiltrator on iOS? Does that have any indoc related clues?

[SubAstris]

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

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.

There's a bit of a leap between the two there, are you seriously saying that one would inquire that much more solely because they are going to die in all of them? I find that hard to believe. And I'm not sure anyone would thing that the "soft" option is a "more real" choice.

The story arc with the kid can finally end after the Crucible has been used since the Reaper threat is no more.

So in a literal scenario, are you basically saying Destroy is a bad option?

[Simon_Says]

masster blaster wrote...

Yes but why did Saren go there, if there was another Control panel. It would through Shepard into where is Saren, and Sheaprd could not have opened the Citadel, if Saren destroyed the Control panel in the Councils chambers and headed to the other Panel, that Shepard was not awar of. Also remeber that the place where Shepard is at. Are memories of the places Shepard has been to, and knows about.

Becuase it was the most accessible one. The conduit was right next to the elevator that goes right into the council chamber where the control panel is located.

SubAstris wrote...

There's a bit of a leap between the two there, are you seriously saying that one would inquire that much more solely because they are going to die in all of them? I find that hard to believe. And I'm not sure anyone would thing that the "soft" option is a "more real" choice.

The obvious implication of Catalysts "Even you are partly synthetic" is that Shepard was going to die. But yes, the harsher the choice, the easier it is on average for any particular person to reject that choice. Not to mention that since Shepard was only partly synthetic, stating that Shepard would die would be a lot more questionable than implying that Shepard's death is just a real possibility.

SubAstris wrote...

The story arc with the kid can finally end after the Crucible has been used since the Reaper threat is no more.

Yes. Of course it does. That wasn't my point. The point is that the arc needed a climax, and that climx can be summed up in a thesis statement. What's that thesis statement?

SubAstris wrote...

So in a literal scenario, are you basically saying Destroy is a bad option?

No. I'm saying that at first glance the Destroy option is a bad option, and only with analysis is it revealed that it's the most reliable (not the most correct) course of action, morals/ethics-wise. Literalism or IT doesn't factor into that.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:39 .

[comrade gando]

WandySilva wrote...

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.

Which is why Im going to youtube and screen all dlc's until I hear/see something resebling a good ending. Buying the dlc I dont have a problem with, giving bioware money I do have a problem with now

[FellishBeast]

Has anyone seen the "trailer" they showed for Leviathan at SDCC yet?

[MaximizedAction]

FellishBeast wrote...

Has anyone seen the "trailer" they showed for Leviathan at SDCC yet?

That's random screenshot you mean?

[paxxton]

Something off-topic but take a look at what Nvidia has cooked up for us:

Modifié par paxxton, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:35 .

[Eryri]

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

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.

There's a bit of a leap between the two there, are you seriously saying that one would inquire that much more solely because they are going to die in all of them? I find that hard to believe. And I'm not sure anyone would thing that the "soft" option is a "more real" choice.

The story arc with the kid can finally end after the Crucible has been used since the Reaper threat is no more.

So in a literal scenario, are you basically saying Destroy is a bad option?

What I think Simon is saying is that the way the Catalyst only suggests that Shepard may die in Destroy - obviously implies that he may survive - which to a selfless personality like Paragon (and even Renegade) Shepard perversely makes it less attractive to that kind of personality.

If Shepard was certain that he would die in Destroy, that would mitigate his guilt over also killing the Geth and EDI, because he would be sharing their fate. He wouldn't be doing anything to them that he wouldn't be prepared to do to himself.

The Catalyst is using a subtle bit of reverse phychology to imply that Shepard would be acting like a selfish, cowardly jerk in picking Destroy, as it might save his own skin - not an appealing prospect to a heroic mindset.

 

Modifié par Eryri, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:38 .

[SubAstris]

Eryri wrote...

I've been thinking again about the dreamlike nature of the confrontation with the illusive man.

Assuming that the Reapers have allowed him to board and walk around the citadel wherever he pleases - why would he go to confront Shepard and Anderson alone? Why doesn't he have a squad of Cerberus flunkies training their guns on Shepard - just in case his new powers aren't enough? He doesn't seem the type to go unprepared.

BTW - has anyone played Infiltrator on iOS? Does that have any indoc related clues?

Because it makes the whole encounter more personal and more dramatic.

[TSA_383]

paxxton wrote...

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.

I highlighted Gears...
Although Halo went a bit bat**** bonkers after halo 2...

FellishBeast wrote...

Has anyone seen the "trailer" they showed for Leviathan at SDCC yet?

The shot of Shep in the underwater atlas possibly about to speak to Leviathan (as it would seem from all the leaked script stuff)?

[SubAstris]

Eryri wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

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.

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.

There's a bit of a leap between the two there, are you seriously saying that one would inquire that much more solely because they are going to die in all of them? I find that hard to believe. And I'm not sure anyone would thing that the "soft" option is a "more real" choice.

The story arc with the kid can finally end after the Crucible has been used since the Reaper threat is no more.

So in a literal scenario, are you basically saying Destroy is a bad option?

What I think Simon is saying is that the way the Catalyst only suggests that Shepard may die in Destroy - obviously implies that he may survive - which to a selfless personality like Paragon (and even Renegade) Shepard perversely makes it less attractive to that kind of personality.

If Shepard was certain that he would die in Destroy, that would mitigate his guilt over also killing the Geth and EDI, because he would be sharing their fate. He wouldn't be doing anything to them that he wouldn't be prepared to do to himself.


 

I could understand that argument, if for example, you have a choice between two options; in one, you live but millions die, in another, you die, but those millions live and someone choosing the less selfish option. But it's not like that, if the net outcome is exactly the same, but you get the decision to live or die, why on earth would you choose not to live unless you were suicidal?

The whole thing about destroy is that sacrifices have to be made and both the Geth and EDI have fully devoted themselves to the cause, they are doing it for the greater good. So Shepard shouldn't feel guilty

[Eryri]

SubAstris wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I've been thinking again about the dreamlike nature of the confrontation with the illusive man.

Assuming that the Reapers have allowed him to board and walk around the citadel wherever he pleases - why would he go to confront Shepard and Anderson alone? Why doesn't he have a squad of Cerberus flunkies training their guns on Shepard - just in case his new powers aren't enough? He doesn't seem the type to go unprepared.

BTW - has anyone played Infiltrator on iOS? Does that have any indoc related clues?

Because it makes the whole encounter more personal and more dramatic.

From a storytelling perspective that's true. It does have the unfortunate side effect of turning TIM into even more of an over-confident, wannabe Bond villain though. 

Modifié par Eryri, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:54 .

[Simon_Says]

SubAstris wrote...

I could understand that argument, if for example, you have a choice between two options; in one, you live but millions die, in another, you die, but those millions live and someone choosing the less selfish option. But it's not like that, if the net outcome is exactly the same, but you get the decision to live or die, why on earth would you choose not to live unless you were suicidal?

The whole thing about destroy is that sacrifices have to be made and both the Geth and EDI have fully devoted themselves to the cause, they are doing it for the greater good. So Shepard shouldn't feel guilty

That's exactly the choice presented, you dolt!

And yes, of course EDI/geth were willing to die for the cause, that's why we can established destroy as the morally reliable option! But if you were on death's door, talking to the boy who haunts your dreams, and you are given the option to save not just the synthetics but everyone else as well, and you were rushed for time, what would be your emotional reaction to destroy given control and synthesis were available?

It's almost certain that rationality wasn't the primary factor of your decision the first time you made it. It wasn't for me. I fell for the Catalyst hook line and sinker and picked synthesis due to my own transhumanist leanings.

[Eryri]

SubAstris wrote...

I could understand that argument, if for example, you have a choice between two options; in one, you live but millions die, in another, you die, but those millions live and someone choosing the less selfish option. But it's not like that, if the net outcome is exactly the same, but you get the decision to live or die, why on earth would you choose not to live unless you were suicidal?

The whole thing about destroy is that sacrifices have to be made and both the Geth and EDI have fully devoted themselves to the cause, they are doing it for the greater good. So Shepard shouldn't feel guilty

You're right in that logically and rationally - he shouldn't feel guilty. But Shepard, the character, and we as the players, are not perfectly rational, logical beings - (particularly after being put through the mill of that confusing and exhausting ending sequence). Guilt is often not rational - (ask any lapsed catholic, which I happen to be.)

Personally - I didn't pick destroy on my first or second play throughs - precisely because I thought it was the selfish jerk option (at the time).

Modifié par Eryri, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:57 .

[Simon_Says]

Eryri wrote...

From a storytelling perspective that's true. It does have the unfortunately side effect of turning TIM into even more of an over-confident, wannabe Bond villain though.

That's what he is though, isn't he? He was a complex character in ME2, with ambiguous motives, multi-dimensional characterization, etc. Indoctrination made him a one-note BadGuy just like every other indoctrinated villain in the series. The only complexity or depth every indoctrinated villain had was the contrast between their pre- and post-indoctrinated personalities. I was actually already writing about this for the Selfish Meme theory thread but I'll bring it up now since it's an opportune moment.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 23 juillet 2012 - 06:53 .

[Eryri]

Simon_Says wrote...

Eryri wrote...

From a storytelling perspective that's true. It does have the unfortunately side effect of turning TIM into even more of an over-confident, wannabe Bond villain though.

That's what he is though, isn't he? He was a complex character in ME2, with ambiguous motives, multi-dimensional characterization, etc. Indoctrination made him a one-note BadGuy just like every other indoctrinated villain in the series. The only complexity or depth every indoctrinated villain had was the contrast between their pre- and post-indoctrinated personalities. I was actually already writing about this for the Selfish Meme theory thread but I'll bring it up now since it's an opportune moment.

Yes he is rather diminished in ME3 - I mean even Dr Evil had enough sense to keep plenty of minions around! Maybe the Reaper Induced brain damage is setting in.

By the way - in case you didn't see my posts in your thread - I really like your theory. I hope Bioware are taking notes.

Modifié par Eryri, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:03 .

[AxStapleton]

Eryri wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I could understand that argument, if for example, you have a choice between two options; in one, you live but millions die, in another, you die, but those millions live and someone choosing the less selfish option. But it's not like that, if the net outcome is exactly the same, but you get the decision to live or die, why on earth would you choose not to live unless you were suicidal?

The whole thing about destroy is that sacrifices have to be made and both the Geth and EDI have fully devoted themselves to the cause, they are doing it for the greater good. So Shepard shouldn't feel guilty

You're right in that logically and rationally - he shouldn't feel guilty. But Shepard, the character, and we as the players, are not perfectly rational, logical beings - (particularly after being put through the mill of that confusing and exhausting ending sequence). Guilt is often not rational - (ask any lapsed catholic, which I happen to be.)

Personally - I didn't pick destroy on my first or second play throughs - precisely because I thought it was the selfish jerk option (at the time).

I was in a "WTF!?" mode at the time, so I was barely paying attention to what it was saying so I ended up picking the Blue option (I didn't ev en listen to what they were apart from Synthesis). I guess they weren't counting on an idiot reaching the end of the game). As soon as I saw what that got me, I reloaded, actually listened to what it had to say and then picked Destroy because of my prior knowledge of Control.

Modifié par AxStapleton, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:03 .

[Simon_Says]

By the way.

• The reapers/Catalyst controlled TIM.
• We're shown TIM controlling Shepard to some degree.
• Ergo the reapers/Catalyst were controlling Shepard to some degree by proxy.

"He could never have taken control.... because we already controlled him."

"But I can?"

"You will die. You will control us but you will loose everything you have."

"But the reapers will obey me?"

"Yes."

Seems legit.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[Eryri]

AxStapleton wrote...

I was in a "WTF!?" mode at the time, so I was barely paying attention to what it was saying so I ended up picking the Blue option (I didn't ev en listen to what they were apart from Synthesis). I guess they weren't counting on an idiot reaching the end of the game). As soon as I saw what that got me, I reloaded, actually listened to what it had to say and then picked Destroy because of my prior knowledge of Control.

 Me too. I was dazed, confused and tired so I just wandered straight ahead into the green beam of death like a lamb to the slaughter. Probably because I'd just picked the exact same ending in Deus Ex HR - where it made more sense.

Then I saw the cyborg trees, and Edi draping herself over Joker like a Stepford Wife and thought "Well this sucks!" Obviously this is the "bad ending".

Tried control next - was treated to the sight of Shepard fried to a crisp. Turned my PC off in disgust. 

Finally heard that Destroy was the "Shepard lives" ending. Eagerly booted up my PC, played through the whole Citadel mission again - only to get a 2 second shot of someone drawing breath in a pile of rubble. <_< I was not amused.

Modifié par Eryri, 23 juillet 2012 - 07:10 .

[AxStapleton]

Eryri wrote...

AxStapleton wrote...

I was in a "WTF!?" mode at the time, so I was barely paying attention to what it was saying so I ended up picking the Blue option (I didn't ev en listen to what they were apart from Synthesis). I guess they weren't counting on an idiot reaching the end of the game). As soon as I saw what that got me, I reloaded, actually listened to what it had to say and then picked Destroy because of my prior knowledge of Control.

 Me too. I was dazed, confused and tired so I just wandered straight ahead into the green beam of death like a lamb to the slaughter. Probably because I'd just picked the exact same ending in Deus Ex HR - where it made more sense.

Then I saw the cyborg trees, and Edi draping herself over Joker like a Stepford Wife and thought "Well this sucks!" Obviously this is the "bad ending".

Tried control next - was treated to the sight of Shepard fried to a crisp. Turned my PC off in disgust. 

Finally heard that Destroy was the "Shepard lives" ending. Eagerly booted up my PC, played through the whole Citadel mission again - only to get a 2 second shot of someone drawing breath in a pile of rubble. <_< I was not amused.

So many of us know the feeling.

[MaximizedAction]

Simon_Says wrote...

By the way.

• The reapers/Catalyst controlled TIM.
• We're shown TIM controlling Shepard to some degree.
• Ergo the reapers/Catalyst were controlling Shepard to some degree by proxy.

"He could never have taken control.... because we already controlled him."

"But I can?"

"You will die. You will control us but you will loose everything you have."

"But the reapers will obey me?"

"Yes."

Seems legit.

I think this is why they added the extra left-middle dialog option to 'explain' you what happens in the EC. What part of your 'soul' being made into a Reaper/new Catalyst did you find unbelievable?