55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Starbuck8]

bigstig wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

You know how people were complaining about how EA i too focused on making money, like making possibilities for future ME games and first day DLC? Well this guy is either a genius or a nut. Hope it doesn't give EA an idea to make the EC availible to one person for a huge amount of money. (An you know whats sad? Is that someone would actually buy it.)

http://www.cinemable...-DLC-43383.html

He's a nut, Peter Moyneux is a dreamer with big ambitions.  He has over promised and under delivered for too long.

The concept is interesting I will grant you that but I have long since stopped paying attention to him.

Lol oh yeah that. Sounds like something he came up with while he was high and playing Minecraft...

[Jadebaby]

Starbuck8 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Starbuck8 wrote...

I guess you just have to be very careful about how you word it. Even if you're really diplomatic or thoughful about it though, people outside this thread don't seem to be very patient with viewpoints that differ from theirs, and we'll probably be accused of being religious zealots trying to "spread the good news" or whatever. Would be nice if we could have logical, meaningful discussions outside of our thread. A possibility is starting a new thread like "A question for pro-control people" like I've seen others do, but those are always bait for trolls...

When you're walking through a dark tunnel with a light, you're bound to run into a cave-troll or two. It's about getting passed them to find the answers you're looking for.

If they believe in it so much to wear it in their sigs, you think they could justify their viewpoints on it.

so true. I feel like we generally do a good job at doing that when others come in here and try to question or "disprove" our theory. But seems like arguing with them is like arguing with a brick wall sometimes. Guess you've gotta have a lot of patience, and hope you find someone who's willing to discuss the matter intellectually. Hey, they exist!

Maybe I should spend less time in this thread and more time in Control and Synthesis threads picking them to pieces. And by that I do not mean posting things attacking their right to believe what they want to believe, I mean just scanning and asking questions like others do in here, until you reach that final summary.

edit: lol @ Minecraft+drugs = Curiosity

Modifié par Jade8aby88, 09 juin 2012 - 11:24 .

[Rifneno]

Electra77 wrote...

The anti-EDI argument seems like it is only sentimental attachment Being symbolic or part of a narrative is not mutually exclusive with betrayal. The betrayal that you don't expect cuts the deepest and ultimately is the best.

Am I the only one that's getting incredibly sick of indoctrination/traitor accusations against characters that have nothing at all behind them except "could be"? Hackett, Liara, EDI, anyone and everyone is getting the McCarthy treatment and there's very rarely anything to it. Coates is the only one that an actually solid case was presented for. A few characters have curious lines about hearing hums or feeling like they're being watched. Beyond that, nothing. The circular logic used for Hackett is especially godawful. Hackett is indoctrinated because he said we can't beat the Reapers conventionally, and we know that we CAN beat the Reapers conventionally because only indoctrinated people told us we can't. Round and round we go. Liara... I can't even remember the perversion of logic that led to the conclusion Liara's a communist traitor. And EDI... of course, EDI. Because she's synthetic. And we can't trust them. I mean it's not like the last two games have been all about the moral message that our fear of AI is likely just our imaginations running away with Terminator-esque scenarios and in all likelihood the only way that would happen is if they were trying to defend themselves when we panicked and went genocidal on them. You know, like those dip**** quarians did. But yeah, let's assume EDI is a traitor. Hell, Legion too. Why not, he's got wires, he must be a bad guy.

No, the betrayal you least expect isn't ultimately the best. You obviously haven't heard any of the frenzied, hateful rants called "Dragon Age 2 reviews" about how they completely changed characters' personalities. Fans hate, and I mean hate when one of their beloved characters gets a personality transplant. Yes, I've heard the amateur nonsense that evoking any emotion from one's writing is good. And it's exactly that: amateur nonsense. Any fool can evoke negative emotions by writing murder and rape scenes. There's a big difference between fans experiencing emotions for the characters and emotions like anger for the writer. I've seen grown men cry at Aeris getting shish-kabobed and none of them ever said a single negative word about the writing. That's well written drama. When the comic relief of DAO bombs a temple so the local fascist has an excuse to butcher her concentration camp, people spewed vitriol at the writers, not the characters. That's not the kind of emotion you want. That's the kind of emotion where people are less likely to buy your works next time.

*sigh* I get that we're theorizing and not everything can or even should have a concrete foundation. But good God, I'm starting to feel like we're leading an inquisition here.

[Lord Luc1fer]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Sorry guys, didnt know that analogy would hit so hard...

We Bioware fans are a sensitive bunch aren't we . I like to think that's one of Bioware's effects, attracting a paticular kind of gamer or luring a gamer in and making them think, in turn making them think about life.

Fun side note: Another Bioware Effect I've find out, once you play one of their games and like it you immediately want to play another one of their games.

Or replay the same game..

[szkasypcze]

This thread needs Mark III URGENTLY!!!

[paxxton]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Sorry guys, didnt know that analogy would hit so hard...

We Bioware fans are a sensitive bunch aren't we . I like to think that's one of Bioware's effects, attracting a paticular kind of gamer or luring a gamer in and making them think, in turn making them think about life.

Fun side note: Another Bioware Effect I've find out, once you play one of their games and like it you immediately want to play another one of their games.

Or replay the same game..

That BioWare Effect might have to do with the fact that they are a developer studio not a publisher. Their games are created by mostly the same people and have a similar general feeling. By mostly the same people I mean the core stuff that gives tone to the whole studio's work.

Modifié par paxxton, 09 juin 2012 - 11:45 .

[Stigweird85]

HellishFiend wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

But in retrospect...  That Human Reaper is made from the melted down bodies of thousands of innocent colonists.  And the fact we HAVE to use a componant from it for the Crucible revolts me.

Why let a giant piece of advanced machinery go to waste? Besides, what's done is done.

Did you pick Control your first time through ME3? Be honest...

I kept the Collector base on my 2nd playthrough.

The reason  - The same why I kept Maleon's data on the Genophage cure. Yes it was produced in a horrific fashion but it has been produced. Nothing we can do undo what has been done. Destroying it meant that all those who died died for completely pointless reasons.

That being said I personally wouldn't advocate the message of the ends justifies the means. Nor would allow for such creations to start in the first place.

It is also worth nothing on my 1st playthrough I destroyed the cure and collector base

[Starbuck8]

Rifneno wrote...

Electra77 wrote...

The anti-EDI argument seems like it is only sentimental attachment Being symbolic or part of a narrative is not mutually exclusive with betrayal. The betrayal that you don't expect cuts the deepest and ultimately is the best.

Am I the only one that's getting incredibly sick of indoctrination/traitor accusations against characters that have nothing at all behind them except "could be"? Hackett, Liara, EDI, anyone and everyone is getting the McCarthy treatment and there's very rarely anything to it. Coates is the only one that an actually solid case was presented for. A few characters have curious lines about hearing hums or feeling like they're being watched. Beyond that, nothing. The circular logic used for Hackett is especially godawful. Hackett is indoctrinated because he said we can't beat the Reapers conventionally, and we know that we CAN beat the Reapers conventionally because only indoctrinated people told us we can't. Round and round we go. Liara... I can't even remember the perversion of logic that led to the conclusion Liara's a communist traitor. And EDI... of course, EDI. Because she's synthetic. And we can't trust them. I mean it's not like the last two games have been all about the moral message that our fear of AI is likely just our imaginations running away with Terminator-esque scenarios and in all likelihood the only way that would happen is if they were trying to defend themselves when we panicked and went genocidal on them. You know, like those dip**** quarians did. But yeah, let's assume EDI is a traitor. Hell, Legion too. Why not, he's got wires, he must be a bad guy.

No, the betrayal you least expect isn't ultimately the best. You obviously haven't heard any of the frenzied, hateful rants called "Dragon Age 2 reviews" about how they completely changed characters' personalities. Fans hate, and I mean hate when one of their beloved characters gets a personality transplant. Yes, I've heard the amateur nonsense that evoking any emotion from one's writing is good. And it's exactly that: amateur nonsense. Any fool can evoke negative emotions by writing murder and rape scenes. There's a big difference between fans experiencing emotions for the characters and emotions like anger for the writer. I've seen grown men cry at Aeris getting shish-kabobed and none of them ever said a single negative word about the writing. That's well written drama. When the comic relief of DAO bombs a temple so the local fascist has an excuse to butcher her concentration camp, people spewed vitriol at the writers, not the characters. That's not the kind of emotion you want. That's the kind of emotion where people are less likely to buy your works next time.

*sigh* I get that we're theorizing and not everything can or even should have a concrete foundation. But good God, I'm starting to feel like we're leading an inquisition here.

I agree, I think of all the squadmate possibly indoctrinated scenarios (all of which are largely speculative), EDI is probably the least likely candidate, but seems to be brought up the most often because they assume she's made from spare parts scrapped from Sovereign or something.

[lex0r11]

szkasypcze wrote...

This thread needs Mark III URGENTLY!!!

[SubAstris]

Jade8aby88 wrote...


https://encrypted-tb...zoVeVyjWufb39Ah


@ SubAstris, It's not as far fetched as some other things that have been written, you'd admit that.

As if that is something to be proud of to be honest!

[paxxton]

lex0r11 wrote...

szkasypcze wrote...

This thread needs Mark III URGENTLY!!!

Perfect concise answer, as always. Wouldn't say it better myself.

Modifié par paxxton, 09 juin 2012 - 11:43 .

[Jadebaby]

SubAstris wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...

snip*

@ SubAstris, It's not as far fetched as some other things that have been written, you'd admit that.

As if that is something to be proud of to be honest!

I'm not proud of it, just thought it was a fitting welcome you received.

[ivenoidea]

A little off topic, but does anyone remember the fan designed Mass Effect hoodies?

Guess what, they are BEING MADE!

I'm SO getting the Garrus one. Probably Kaidan too. And Legion. And Wrex. Damn, so many.

It would be great if there was a Shepard one though. Nothing better than Shepards N7 armor.

lupodirosso.deviantart.com/art/mass-effect-hoodie-project-STATUS-UPDATED-AGAIN-294739828

Modifié par ivenoidea, 09 juin 2012 - 12:06 .

[Stigweird85]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Oh by the way, before I depart for sleep, figured I would drop a link to offically the stupidest thing I have ever seen in my life.

http://christwire.or...-sex-maneuvers/

Have fun.

 It's things like this that make me sad to be a Christian.  It hurts to read.  It must be a parody. Please tell me it is an onion type deal. No way can that be real.

Did a bit more digging and it is a parody site. Thank goodness for that. It's distrurbing that as rediculous as it is it is still believeable

Modifié par bigstig, 09 juin 2012 - 12:45 .

[Stigweird85]

Arian Dynas wrote...

snip

Just back up because I thought I had a nosebleed people, not staying long.

And you likely have not missed it, since it is the Reaper theory you can conveniently find sitting in my signature.

Now that you mention it, I rememeber reading that before,

So what is your take on my other point. Created rebel against Creators and we know that Harbringer was actively creating a new Reaper via the collectors. Edi mentions that attempts have been made to create new Reapers during each cycle.

What are the chances that either (a) Harbringer has control over the other Reapers to prevent this from happening to him( Reapers rebelling against Reapers is also part of the cycle and that while Harbringer is assumed to be the oldest he may not be the first.

Modifié par bigstig, 09 juin 2012 - 12:59 .

[Starbuck8]

@bigstig
Haha ya its a parody. Don't worry! It's just sad that real things like this do exist and people are actually serious about it. I know because I grew up with it.

[Rifneno]

This is probably old but... http://social.biowar.../index/12493228

[Stigweird85]

Rifneno wrote...

This is probably old but... http://social.biowar.../index/12493228

Yeah, already brought up about a page or two ago.

Generally feeling is could be true about MP content but the info about EC is just a rephrasing of the official Bioware blog so nothing too juicy

[Eryri]

bigstig wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

snip

Just back up because I thought I had a nosebleed people, not staying long.

And you likely have not missed it, since it is the Reaper theory you can conveniently find sitting in my signature.

Now that you mention it, I rememeber reading that before,

So what is your take on my other point. Created rebel against Creators and we know that Harbringer was actively creating a new Reaper via the collectors. Edi mentions that attempts have been made to create new Reapers during each cycle.

What are the chances that either (a) Harbringer has control over the other Reapers to prevent this from happening or ( Repears rebelling against Reapers is also part of the cycle and that while Harbringer is assumed to be the oldest he may not be the first.

Definitely. Even if the Reapers have no memory of their former lives before being pureed into reaper goo, and they are a singular personality rather than a hive mind, I would still find it plausible that they would strive for dominance amongst themselves - Natural selection and all that.

In ME2 Harbinger definitely seemed the sort of villain that would twirl his moustache if he had one. It would only be natural that he would seek to prevent the others from usurping him by some nefarious means - either mind control, or just simple fear.

Modifié par Eryri, 09 juin 2012 - 12:52 .

[paxxton]

Corik wrote...

Anyone else is preparing to receive a face-value EC? While I continue to support IT and I will seriously make IT as my personal canon... I think it's actually a good idea to be prepared for everything. Currently, counting evidence, twitter jokes and silence, I think IT has a 85% chance of being true and intended. But... prepare for the worst and hope for the best

I could live with the EC that doesn't reveal what happened after the breath if BioWare would announce that the story continues in Mass Effect 4. 

Modifié par paxxton, 09 juin 2012 - 01:00 .

[Stigweird85]

Face value DLC, I'd accept it admit I was wrong. It's not a big deal to me as I liked the endings(a few issues *Joker cough cough* but liked it overall.

I would also happily take an ME4 either just after the events of ME3 or even centuries after. I would personally love this debate to make an appearance in the game. For example NPCs could discuss Shepard "the legend" and debate whether he did the right thing, if he was indoctriated or not etc.

I don't want to see a prequal in any shape or form though

[Eryri]

@Bigstig

I noticed last night that Raistin Majare 1992 came up with some intelligent points against the idea that Harbinger would allow the reapers to become independent if he was incapacitated:

-----------------
Raistin Majare 1992 

I never said the Crucible was not convenient, but Harbinger beeing some sort of control unit for the collective Reaper fleet is in my opinion pushing the convenience factor. If it was the case one would think Harbinger would have several fail saves built in so taht in case he is destroyed evrything he did does noty fall to pieces.

Like him transferring permanently to another Reaper if destroyed or simply back up signals in certain reaper for keeping the fleet on purpose.

And no we dont know Crucible or the Catalyst does, but that is why i still consider it a more logical way to do it. Even if it is trap, it can be turned to and advantage.

-----------

I've been mulling this over and I think I've come up with some answers to this. For one he may not be able to transfer his conciousness to another reaper for the same reason that EDI can't transfer to another Blue Box. Subtle differences in the hardware would mean that it would only be a bad copy of Harbinger, with a different personality, not the original.

As to why he wouldn't prevent the Reapers from becoming independent on his death - that might be due to arrogance or hubris - the thought that he might be defeated just hasn't occurred to him.

Or he might regard the other Reapers as just a means to an end - being his private army, or to augment his own processing power with theirs. If he's a selfish, vain despot he wouldn't really care if the other reapers die or the cycle falls apart after his death, because it would no longer matter to him.

Modifié par Eryri, 09 juin 2012 - 01:05 .

[Stigweird85]

Eryri wrote...

@Bigstig

I noticed last night that Raistin Majare 1992 came up with some intelligent points against the idea that Harbinger would allow the reapers to become independent if he was incapacitated:

-----------------
Raistin Majare 1992 

I never said the Crucible was not convenient, but Harbinger beeing some sort of control unit for the collective Reaper fleet is in my opinion pushing the convenience factor. If it was the case one would think Harbinger would have several fail saves built in so taht in case he is destroyed evrything he did does noty fall to pieces.

Like him transferring permanently to another Reaper if destroyed or simply back up signals in certain reaper for keeping the fleet on purpose.

And no we dont know Crucible or the Catalyst does, but that is why i still consider it a more logical way to do it. Even if it is trap, it can be turned to and advantage.

-----------

I've been mulling this over and I think I've come up with some answers to this. For one he may not be able to transfer his conciousness to another reaper for the same reason that EDI can't transfer to another Blue Box. Subtle differences in the hardware would mean that it would only be a bad copy of Harbinger, with a different personality, not the original.

As to why he wouldn't prevent the Reapers from becoming independent on his death - that might be due to arrogance or hubris - the thought that he might be defeated just hasn't occurred to him.

Or he might regard the other Reapers as just a means to an end - being his private army, or to augment his own processing power with theirs. If he's a selfish, vain despot he wouldn't really care if the other reapers die or the cycle falls apart after his death, because it would no longer matter to him.

All good points(I had forgotten about Edi being unable to copy herself) but then Geth do have this ability as evidenced by the Geth entering the Quarian suits if you broker a peace between them.

I believe Edi is still primarily in the Normandy so she can't copy herself into another body and have the exact same results as it depends on the hardware. However is a Reaper mainly software with a shell or a sentient machine who has one and only one body? Harbringers ability to "assume direct control" and Soverign taking over Saren leads me to believe that in this scenario Reapers are closer to the Geth.

The idea that the possibility of failure hasn't occured to Harbringer is very plausible. As it seems that to the Reapers that the outcome isn't a variable but an inevitability.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Eryri wrote...

@Bigstig

I noticed last night that Raistin Majare 1992 came up with some intelligent points against the idea that Harbinger would allow the reapers to become independent if he was incapacitated:

-----------------
Raistin Majare 1992 

I never said the Crucible was not convenient, but Harbinger beeing some sort of control unit for the collective Reaper fleet is in my opinion pushing the convenience factor. If it was the case one would think Harbinger would have several fail saves built in so taht in case he is destroyed evrything he did does noty fall to pieces.

Like him transferring permanently to another Reaper if destroyed or simply back up signals in certain reaper for keeping the fleet on purpose.

And no we dont know Crucible or the Catalyst does, but that is why i still consider it a more logical way to do it. Even if it is trap, it can be turned to and advantage.

-----------

I've been mulling this over and I think I've come up with some answers to this. For one he may not be able to transfer his conciousness to another reaper for the same reason that EDI can't transfer to another Blue Box. Subtle differences in the hardware would mean that it would only be a bad copy of Harbinger, with a different personality, not the original.

As to why he wouldn't prevent the Reapers from becoming independent on his death - that might be due to arrogance or hubris - the thought that he might be defeated just hasn't occurred to him.

Or he might regard the other Reapers as just a means to an end - being his private army, or to augment his own processing power with theirs. If he's a selfish, vain despot he wouldn't really care if the other reapers die or the cycle falls apart after his death, because it would no longer matter to him.

Interesting post, but if Harbinger is so arrogant (more so than your average Reaper seems to be) then what is his interest in Shepard?

The logical conclusion to Harbingers interest is that Shepard is their greatest threat in this cycle, the single human who continues to defy them. If he truly is so arrogant as to consider himself then he would probably not concern himself with a single "insect" in such a way as he has done with Shepard.

No I think despite all that Harbinger says that he on some level realizes Shepard is a threat.

Off course he might also see Shepard as very promising component for a new Reaper, but if truly the Reapers are simply his private army only meant to serve why would he concern himself with the individual parts?

Harbingers interest in Shepard ultimately shows that he is not so "above everything else" as to ignore the little things, the minor possibilities.

I wont refute the possibility of some kind of programming or other from of control uniting the Reapers towards soem singular goal, but I dont think it has  single origin point either and is more a result of the way a Reaper is made than a control signal enacted later.

After all if you build it, why not make sure it is follows your goals from the very core and not trhough soem flimsy way such as a signal. 

[paxxton]

Eryri wrote...

@Bigstig

I noticed last night that Raistin Majare 1992 came up with some intelligent points against the idea that Harbinger would allow the reapers to become independent if he was incapacitated:

-----------------
Raistin Majare 1992 

I never said the Crucible was not convenient, but Harbinger beeing some sort of control unit for the collective Reaper fleet is in my opinion pushing the convenience factor. If it was the case one would think Harbinger would have several fail saves built in so taht in case he is destroyed evrything he did does noty fall to pieces.

Like him transferring permanently to another Reaper if destroyed or simply back up signals in certain reaper for keeping the fleet on purpose.

And no we dont know Crucible or the Catalyst does, but that is why i still consider it a more logical way to do it. Even if it is trap, it can be turned to and advantage.

-----------

I've been mulling this over and I think I've come up with some answers to this. For one he may not be able to transfer his conciousness to another reaper for the same reason that EDI can't transfer to another Blue Box. Subtle differences in the hardware would mean that it would only be a bad copy of Harbinger, with a different personality, not the original.

As to why he wouldn't prevent the Reapers from becoming independent on his death - that might be due to arrogance or hubris - the thought that he might be defeated just hasn't occurred to him.

Or he might regard the other Reapers as just a means to an end - being his private army, or to augment his own processing power with theirs. If he's a selfish, vain despot he wouldn't really care if the other reapers die or the cycle falls apart after his death, because it would no longer matter to him.

This last paragraph gave me an idea that Harbinger might send a last order to all the Reapers to auto-destruct. But that would be too organic of him. AIs don't have such twisted needs. I prefer the possibility that he transfers his "consciousness" to another Reaper shell. Or just deactivates.

Or it can use the energy of a star to bend timespace and open a wormhole that would suck everything and then collapse trapping everything in another dimension. Such an escape route in case he's in danger.