55528 réponses à ce sujet

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

[EpyonX3]

Ytook wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ytook wrote...

Why would a glancing hit from a large beam cause a small but deep bleeding wound in your side like getting shot would?

This question comes from the assumption that Shepard's arm blood comes from his gut.

Which is where it is shown to be coming from, and if the beam burns off alot of your armour why would it cause a deep bleeding wound anywhere, also weren't you claiming before that Shepard was clutching his side earlier because of a wound in his side?

Then how do you explain the blood getting from his hand up his left arm, and then to his right hand and then up his right arm?

Also, you don't need deep wounds to produce bleeding like that. Especially if it bleeds over time.

And yes I showed an image of him holding his side before he reaches tim, suggesting that the injury was already there.

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

byne wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Also, the room is not as closed off as you think.

One possibility is this:

*img snip*

It's possible Shepard originated somewhere else and slid in through the cieling like common slime.

But then he may have gotten impaled by the device below. But since Shep survived a graze from the reaper beam then I can't see why he got lucky twice.

For some reason I am now imagining that hole connecting to an awesome slide that Shep got to ride before the confrontation with TIM.

Like the slide Fry and Leela rode in that Robot Hell song.

So, yknow, thanks for that awesome mental image.

Well isn't the reaper war sorta like robot hell?

So now Shepard becomes a slimey goo?

No, I don't follow you.

[byne]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The Reaper corpses are still there for study if you pick destroy.

We got Thanix Cannons from just the tiny bits of Sovereign we managed to recover. We could get Reaper tech from their intact corpses easily.

No matter how many times you try arguing leaving the Reapers alive somehow is the better choice, you're still going to not only be wrong, but betraying everything your crew, your friends, and the entire galaxy fought for.

So yknow, good luck with that.

I'm gonna do what TIM brought Shep back to do. I'm gonna win this war, and I'm gonna do it without sacrificing the soul of our species.

[Corik]

paxxton wrote...

Corik wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

You can't control the reapers. The reapers control you. That was the message in every ME game.

Because the game wants you to think that. It indoctrinates you and you gather forces around Earth as the Reapers want.

Seriously... this is like the discussions between Shepard and Saren or TIM. If this is what Bioware wanted... I must admit is genius.

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

[D.Sharrah]

byne wrote...

snip..

I'm gonna do what TIM brought Shep back to do. I'm gonna win this war, and I'm gonna do it without sacrificing the soul of our species.

Nods in agreement.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Corik wrote...

paxxton wrote...
Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

You can't control the reapers. The reapers control you. That was the message in every ME game.

Exactly, every person, every group we have heard about who tried to reason with or control the Reapers ended up Indoctrinated. With every cycle they destroyed it is only more clear that they cannot be controlled or destroyed, because every cycle is another cycle who might have thought the exact same thing as TIM did, as Saren did and who ultimately only furthered the Reapers goals in their attempts.

[MegumiAzusa]

The CVG article seems loads of crap to me, especially the last quote:

A great ending begins right at the start. Red Dead Redemption - which I thought had a fantastic ending - has a strong central theme about the death of the West where the central character embodies that theme, the action all plays into it, and the end is bold and tough but entirely fitting. I'm not sure how a bit of DLC can make the difference for Mass Effect 3. If the spike on the top of the skyscraper is wonky because the foundation is wonky, a new spike ain't going to fix it.

ME has a strong central theme about indoctrination where the central characters embodies that theme (indoctrination of TIM, possible indoctrination of others, indoctrination of Shep), the conversations all plays into it, and the end is bold and tough but entirely fitting.

[Corik]

D.Sharrah wrote...

byne wrote...

snip..

I'm gonna do what TIM brought Shep back to do. I'm gonna win this war, and I'm gonna do it without sacrificing the soul of our species.

Nods in agreement.

Same here!

[D.Sharrah]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ytook wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ytook wrote...

Why would a glancing hit from a large beam cause a small but deep bleeding wound in your side like getting shot would?

This question comes from the assumption that Shepard's arm blood comes from his gut.

Which is where it is shown to be coming from, and if the beam burns off alot of your armour why would it cause a deep bleeding wound anywhere, also weren't you claiming before that Shepard was clutching his side earlier because of a wound in his side?

Then how do you explain the blood getting from his hand up his left arm, and then to his right hand and then up his right arm?

Also, you don't need deep wounds to produce bleeding like that. Especially if it bleeds over time.

And yes I showed an image of him holding his side before he reaches tim, suggesting that the injury was already there.

Pulled this from my response to this...

"if it was true and Shep had been clutching his side and that arm had been trickling blood down the entire time...wouldn't the blood be more prominent on the outside of the hand - or - more obvious in the entire area?"

Also, wouldn't his hand (the palm) be clean and there be a void where ti was?  And if there were two wounds, wouldn't there be more blood?  And why does the camera specifically show the blood covered plam when pulled away from his abdomen?

Modifié par D.Sharrah, 27 mai 2012 - 05:24 .

[Corik]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

The CVG article seems loads of crap to me, especially the last quote:

A great ending begins right at the start. Red Dead Redemption - which I thought had a fantastic ending - has a strong central theme about the death of the West where the central character embodies that theme, the action all plays into it, and the end is bold and tough but entirely fitting. I'm not sure how a bit of DLC can make the difference for Mass Effect 3. If the spike on the top of the skyscraper is wonky because the foundation is wonky, a new spike ain't going to fix it.

ME has a strong central theme about indoctrination where the central characters embodies that theme (indoctrination of TIM, possible indoctrination of others, indoctrination of Shep), the conversations all plays into it, and the end is bold and tough but entirely fitting.

Yeah, in fact I think that the real problem is that IT fits TOO much in ME story. I mean... the evidence is there...

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...
So now Shepard becomes a slimey goo?

No, I don't follow you.

It was a joke.

EpyonX3 wrote...
It's possible Shepard originated somewhere else and slid in through the cieling like common slime.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 mai 2012 - 05:25 .

[MegumiAzusa]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

TIM was always like that. He expressively says:
"Judge us not by our methods, but by what we seek to accomplish."

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

As reasonable as the Protheans who tried the same and without doubt has been attempted by countless cycles before, but the Reapers are still there proving thate very single attempt at control has failed miserably. Nothing tells us this would be any different in fact odds are against TIM as the Protheans were more technologically advanced (Replicating Mass Relays and making stars go Supernova) but still could not find a solution that involved anything but dead reapers, something which they were to scattered and broken to achieve.

Everyone close to Shepard shares the viewpoint taht the Reapers cannot eb controlled, every current and former Squadmate tells you outright or implies that they do not think you can stop the Reapers in any way but destroying them.

To quote Samara as an example: "Treat them as any other enemy. Show no quarter, mercy or weakness."

Moral simplicity? Or big hammer in the players face that he has to stay true to Shepards and the galaxies goal during that final choice?

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 27 mai 2012 - 05:34 .

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...
So now Shepard becomes a slimey goo?

No, I don't follow you.

It was a joke.

EpyonX3 wrote...
It's possible Shepard originated somewhere else and slid in through the cieling like common slime.

Hehe I had a feeling but just to be sure lol.

[Vox Draco]

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

Well, whenever I browse the forums and get stuck on some of these threads, I get shivers. I really cannot realte to any of the arguments in favor of control or synthesis, no matter if IT is true or not.

But it gets somehow tiring to always write down the same arguments, valid arguements based on our experience in the game-series, not the last five minutes! It is a battle against wind-mills anyway, because most of the "support" for synthesis/control simply comes from "so many are in favor of destroy, so I want to be special and smart and so I am against it"-martyrdom

But at least I found a solution not to type so much anymore, and so I made a little video, and I think I'll post it whenever it feels appropiate in the future...All my feelings and thoughts about the choices, wrapped into roughly 4 minutes with epic music...

Maybe it'll hearten your spirits too?


Edit: Hope this shameless act of self-promotion is forgiveable...

Modifié par Vox Draco, 27 mai 2012 - 05:34 .

[Dwailing]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

As reasonable as the Protheans who tried the same and without doubt has been attempted by countless cycles before, but the Reapers are still there proving thate very single attempt at control has failed miserably. Nothing tells us this would be any different in fact odds are against TIM as the Protheans were more technologically advanced (Replicating Mass Relays and making stars go Supernova) but still could not find a solution that involved anything but dead reapers, something which they were to scattered and broken to achieve.

Wait, why are we even CONSIDERING whether controling the Reapers is a good thing?  Every time someone has tried to control them, the parties in question have ALWAYS been indoctrinated.  Also, they've commited so many attrocities like, oh, I don't know, wiping out ALL ADVANCED LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY EVERY 50,000 years!!!!  For some things, there's no other solution but to fight, to kill, and to win.  And this is coming from a Paragon.  The Reapers deserve no mercy.  They've never given any, they've never asked for any, and they've never done ANYTHING to deserve it.

[paxxton]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

The emphasized part is an example of moral simplification in Mass Effect 3 the article in CVG was talking about.

I don't know. In a way Hackett is right. The reapers have done this many times before and don't seem interested in stopping. There's no diplomacy, no communication, no reasoning with them. The only way to survive with what tech is availble is by killing them.

Controling the Reapers is the way to go. You not only end the war but also get their technology.

The end is what makes the story tricky and the morals start to take over.

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

As reasonable as the Protheans who tried the same and without doubt has been attempted by countless cycles before, but the Reapers are still there proving thate very single attempt at control has failed miserably. Nothing tells us this would be any different in fact odds are against TIM as the Protheans were more technologically advanced (Replicating Mass Relays and making stars go Supernova) but still could not find a solution that involved anything but dead reapers, something which they were to scattered and broken to achieve.

Everyone close to Shepard shares the viewpoint taht the Reapers cannot eb controlled, every current and former Squadmate tells you outright or implies that they do not think you can stop the Reapers in any way but destroying them.

To quote Samara as an example: "Treat them as any other enemy. Show no quarter, mercy or weakness."

Moral simplicity? Or big hammer in the players face that he has to stay true to Shepards and the galaxies goal during that final choice?

I see your point. If you are not 100% sure how to do something at the moment of choice, choose what you are certain will work. The problem is as always with defining if you are sure or not about the correctness of your choice.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 mai 2012 - 05:41 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Dwailing wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Actually, the game presents TIM's view point with a lot of negativity. He's the bastard who tricks people into coming to a refugee camp and then turns them into husks without their consent. His methods are sick but the goal of controlling the Reapers is reasonable.

As reasonable as the Protheans who tried the same and without doubt has been attempted by countless cycles before, but the Reapers are still there proving thate very single attempt at control has failed miserably. Nothing tells us this would be any different in fact odds are against TIM as the Protheans were more technologically advanced (Replicating Mass Relays and making stars go Supernova) but still could not find a solution that involved anything but dead reapers, something which they were to scattered and broken to achieve.

Wait, why are we even CONSIDERING whether controling the Reapers is a good thing?  Every time someone has tried to control them, the parties in question have ALWAYS been indoctrinated.  Also, they've commited so many attrocities like, oh, I don't know, wiping out ALL ADVANCED LIFE IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY EVERY 50,000 years!!!!  For some things, there's no other solution but to fight, to kill, and to win.  And this is coming from a Paragon.  The Reapers deserve no mercy.  They've never given any, they've never asked for any, and they've never done ANYTHING to deserve it.

Exactly.

I was full paragon as I stood before the final 3 choices, but Control, blue or not, never held any draw with me. Everything, EVERYTHING, in the Mass Effect series told me attempting to control the Reapers would end in disaster.

Synthesis was more of a draw, but Legion and the Geth snapped me out fo that one. They fought to decide their own future, their own path! Synthesis would be choosing for them and for every species in the universe, it was not an option even if I had to risk the death of EDI and the Geth.

Full paragon, but as I fired upon the tube in the Destory ending i had no doubts as to what choice I saw as the right choice.

Modifié par Raistlin Majare 1992, 27 mai 2012 - 05:44 .

[EpyonX3]

D.Sharrah wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ytook wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Ytook wrote...

Why would a glancing hit from a large beam cause a small but deep bleeding wound in your side like getting shot would?

This question comes from the assumption that Shepard's arm blood comes from his gut.

Which is where it is shown to be coming from, and if the beam burns off alot of your armour why would it cause a deep bleeding wound anywhere, also weren't you claiming before that Shepard was clutching his side earlier because of a wound in his side?

Then how do you explain the blood getting from his hand up his left arm, and then to his right hand and then up his right arm?

Also, you don't need deep wounds to produce bleeding like that. Especially if it bleeds over time.

And yes I showed an image of him holding his side before he reaches tim, suggesting that the injury was already there.

Pulled this from my response to this...

"if it was true and Shep had been clutching his side and that arm had been trickling blood down the entire time...wouldn't the blood be more prominent on the outside of the hand - or - more obvious in the entire area?"

Also, wouldn't his hand (the palm) be clean and there be a void where ti was?  And if there were two wounds, wouldn't there be more blood?  And why does the camera specifically show the blood covered plam when pulled away from his abdomen?

Good point about the palm. But explain how both of his hands and arms are soaked with blood when he gets up to the control panel.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

paxxton wrote...

I see your point. If you are not 100% sure how to do something at the moment of choice, choose what you are certain will work. The problem is as always with defining if you are sure or not.

I see you at least realize that.

We know Destroying the Reapers will end their threat, attempting to control them is uncertain and only, I repeat, only has evidence against it, not for it,  from throughout the series.

[paxxton]

We are building a consensus.

"IT'S ALWAYS EASIER TO DESTROY THAN BUILD."

Modifié par paxxton, 27 mai 2012 - 05:52 .

[D.Sharrah]

Vox Draco wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Looked at another anti IT thread...and it needs to be said again, do they play the game w/o paying attention at all? My most recent reason for asking this is the claim that there are no hints that destroy might be the only/best choice...let's see how quickly we can get an exhaustive list of these in game hints...

I'll start...conversation w/Hackett (paraphrased):

Shep - ...he thinks we can control them...

Hackett - ...the only way we win this war is with the reapers dead

P.S. Does anyone else ever feel like they need to offer to hold anti-IT'ers hands while they play, so you can stop them when needed to show them these things?

Well, whenever I browse the forums and get stuck on some of these threads, I get shivers. I really cannot realte to any of the arguments in favor of control or synthesis, no matter if IT is true or not.

But it gets somehow tiring to always write down the same arguments, valid arguements based on our experience in the game-series, not the last five minutes! It is a battle against wind-mills anyway, because most of the "support" for synthesis/control simply comes from "so many are in favor of destroy, so I want to be special and smart and so I am against it"-martyrdom

But at least I found a solution not to type so much anymore, and so I made a little video, and I think I'll post it whenever it feels appropiate in the future...All my feelings and thoughts about the choices, wrapped into roughly 4 minutes with epic music...

Maybe it'll hearten your spirits too?


Edit: Hope this shameless act of self-promotion is forgiveable...

Very nice vid...its always nice to learn that I am not alone in the way that I feel as I lurk other threads...I really need to commit to just coming here...otherwise I might lose my sanity.

Also two quick asides (that watching your video made me think of)...

1.  On Cronos w/the Kai Leng fight, once you have introduced that ant to the heel of your boot - and he tries to get one last parting shot in, what happens if you don't take the interrupt (as I never have done this, my emotions in that scene just won't let me - I want him to burn like Thessia did (as I am a loyal Liara LI))?

2.  In ME 2, (both the video and the Shep surives re-entry discussion here spurned this) anyone else think that there may be something to the idea that visually there are a great number of similarites b/w rebuilt Shep and the baby reaper (including the obvious Terminator references)?  For example, is this visual connection b/w the two strengthen the idea that Shep was always meant to be the "consciousness" of the human reaper?

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

D.Sharrah wrote...

1.  On Cronos w/the Kai Leng fight, once you have introduced that ant to the heel of your boot - and he tries to get one last parting shot in, what happens if you don't take the interrupt (as I never have done this, my emotions in that scene just won't let me - I want him to burn like Thessia did (as I am a loyal Liara LI))?

2.  In ME 2, (both the video and the Shep surives re-entry discussion here spurned this) anyone else think that there may be something to the idea that visually there are a great number of similarites b/w rebuilt Shep and the baby reaper (including the obvious Terminator references)?  For example, is this visual connection b/w the two strengthen the idea that Shep was always meant to be the "consciousness" of the human reaper?

Dont know about the second, but ine thfirst not taking the interupt results in Shepard dodging as the blade pierces the control panel and then stapping Kai instead of smashing t5he balde.