55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Eryri]

Dwailing wrote...

Eryri wrote...

I'm sure you've considered this already, but I've just been replaying the opening scene, and the warning sign by the vent where the child hides really sticks out.

I don't remember ever seeing a sign like it in ME, and it's very odd the way the lightning bolt strikes the very top of that stylised face. In real life, electricity warning signs usually show a bolt striking a whole body, at least here in the UK.

Of course if that is a 4th wall breaking clue from Bioware, it would require that the child was fake even back in Vancouver, which isn't everybody's interpretation.

The way I see it, there are two ways the kid's appearances in Vancouver can be interpreted.  Either he is fake from the very beginning, and when you see him on the roof, he's just a hallucination; or he was real on the rooftop, but he was blown up when the Reapers came.  I just can't believe that his appearances in the vent and by the shuttle were real.  There's no way a six or seven year old kid could get from the rooftop, to the building with the vent (A building with a locked door, no less.), then to the shuttle pad, in all of, what, fifteen to twenty minutes tops?

Yeah the whole opening is weird. Like why is a kid playing on a military base? Is it "bring your child to work day" at the alliance? Plus the little park he's playing in is very strange, it's a tiny roof top garden with a sheer drop all around it and only a low railing. Not the sort of place you'd leave a kid unsupervised!

[estebanus]

Completely off-topic, but while delving through the deep caves of the BSN, I foud this awesome picture, and I thought I should share it with you!

[Dwailing]

estebanus wrote...

Completely off-topic, but while delving through the deep caves of the BSN, I foud this awesome picture, and I thought I should share it with you!

(Epic Rap Battles of History Announcer Voice) Adam Jensen vs. Kai Leng!  Begin!  (Regular Voice)  Someone PLEASE make this battle somehow!

Modifié par Dwailing, 17 juin 2012 - 10:10 .

[breakdown71289]

estebanus wrote...

Completely off-topic, but while delving through the deep caves of the BSN, I foud this awesome picture, and I thought I should share it with you!

Kai Leng: Hahahaha, you asked for it Jensen.

Adam Jensen: I NEVER asked for this!

[Andromidius]

Eryri wrote...

Yeah the whole opening is weird. Like why is a kid playing on a military base? Is it "bring your child to work day" at the alliance? Plus the little park he's playing in is very strange, it's a tiny roof top garden with a sheer drop all around it and only a low railing. Not the sort of place you'd leave a kid unsupervised!

Not to mention the garden seems to disappear when you see that building again later on.

Or that a child is the first and last thing Shepard sees in ME3.  Who look almost exactly the same (ignoring Starbinger's holographic skin texture).

And the fact Shepard somehow manages to keep running into him.  First seeing him directly from his apartment window, and then running into the building a few yards away during a firefight, and then in the duct, and then seeing him directly from the boarding ramp of the Normandy as he's leaving, and then seeing his picture on the memorial wall on the Citadel...  And in his dreams...  And then finally as the Catalyst.

Yeah, not buying it.  Nice try Harbinger.

[estebanus]

breakdown71289 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Completely off-topic, but while delving through the deep caves of the BSN, I foud this awesome picture, and I thought I should share it with you!

Kai Leng: Hahahaha, you asked for it Jensen.

Adam Jensen: I NEVER asked for this!

Jensen: Come back here, Leng! Those endings need to stay in the Deus Ex franchise!

Leng:
Suck my ass, Jensen! These endings will bring the Mass Effect series to
the pinnacle of storyteling, and there's nothing you can do about it!

Jensen:
Can't you see what you're doing? You can't just steal the endings of
another videogaming franchise and put them in your own! That's copyright
infringement!

Leng: Not if I supply it with different colours and an epic backstory of synthetics always wanting to kill organics! HAHAHA!!!

Jensen: NOOOOOOOO!!!

[deltacypresss]

DrTsoni- there is something about the way the Shepard in the dream looks at you while its burning. I always get this very sinister feeling about it.

Demersel- Is it true that less and less neutral options appear as the game goes on? I don't think it has been brought up in the way you are implying. Just that Shepard's views may becoming more extreme throughout the game. Which kinda doesn't make sense because we are supposed to be Shepard, it is an rpg. But the way you make an interesting argument for it representing Indoctrination.

[estebanus]

I've got a question: Is it alright nuking a thread where the OP deliberately insults you constantly and calls you an idiot?

[Rifneno]

Turbo_J wrote...

I thought that 'cut' version wasn't actually cut, but plays for non-romanced Sheps?

False rumor. I've done several Sheps that went through all 3 games without so much as flirting (what can I say, none of the romance options really clicked with me) with anyone and never got that speech.

byne wrote...

I only lost Legion in my first ME2 playthrough, and I never counted it as my canon playthrough because I only lost him due to Miranda misleading me about who should lead the second fireteam.

She said they needed to be able to command loyalty through experience. Samara has the most experience out of all of them, and her description even had the word experience in it, so I picked her.

Miranda killed Legion, and went down to the bottom of my favorite crewmembers list.

Though to be fair, Miri is only at the bottom of the list because I didnt feel Jacob was worthy of being included on the list at all.

My first playthrough I think I only lost the crew, minus Chakwas. That sucked. I know they kind of warn you, but c'mon, time always stops in RPGs. Meteor headed toward the planet? Don't worry, it'll stop and wait if you want to take a break and go into the giant chicken breeding/racing business. Fascist monster empowered by an ancient, unknown evil that you let out by being a greedy gravelooting tool is about to commit genocide? Don't worry, she'll wait if you want to run around and collect high tier demons like they're pokemon. So needless to say, I thought I had time. Whoops. Another playthrough I lost Grunt by giving him the second team lead before the biotic bubble part. I mean c'mon, it's Grunt! But apparently the aryan krogan dies from shots that Miranda's latex catwoman suit deflects.

In retrospect, I can see the problem with Grunt. He's just not an experienced leader. Same with Samara. She's got centuries of experience but justicars almost always work alone. She's not used to having to account for allies. The real time Miranda ****s up is when she claims she can pull off the biotic bubble. In your dreams, skank.

My favorite is Zaeed not being a capable leader. People point out how much experience he has leading. But... listen to his stories. That ugly bastard is always the only thing left living when all is said and done. I wouldn't trust him to feed my fish.

Yknow, didnt James mention at one point that his squad was betrayed by a Cerberus agent working with the Collectors?

And Ash spent like the entire game accusing me of being with Cerberus nonstop? Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

I figured that James met someone like Dr. O'Loy from the Firewalker expansion. Ashhole? <Javik> We cannot afford people with questionable loyalty. Toss her out the airlock, commander. </Javik>

Plus Ash said at one point that Shep was the only Cerberus presence on Horizon while she was stationed there, which is odd, because how the hell would she know? Its not like undercover Cerberus agents are easily spotted.

I always figured she's just a passive-aggressive **** but that works too.

Modifié par Rifneno, 17 juin 2012 - 10:23 .

[demersel]

deltacypresss wrote...

Demersel- Is it true that less and less neutral options appear as the game goes on? I don't think it has been brought up in the way you are implying. Just that Shepard's views may becoming more extreme throughout the game. Which kinda doesn't make sense because we are supposed to be Shepard, it is an rpg. But the way you make an interesting argument for it representing Indoctrination.

No, I don't think that the neutral options appear less and less as the game goes on. I think they don't almost apear at all, and right from the beginning - right from the start you don't have neutral options, and you don't have investigate extension. I really can't remember a single instance of an investigate or neutral option being present.... (investigate maybe once in the game - when you talk to Eve, and neutral option also maybe once or twice in the game - when you try to apologize to wrex for destroying the maleon data, and also maybe during a turian squad mission on tuchanka... but i'm really not sure, sorry)  

[Humakt83]

FellishBeast wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Does the sign "No step" and "T78" mean anything? They are on the Normandy.

I'm gonna say "no step" means "do not step here."

T78 is probably tech jargen.

Nothing special to avoid stepping on where the sign is located.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

His presence is only inferred. It may be an incorrect assumption and his presence can be disproved or proved in the EC.

Completely true, but you have to truthfully ask yourself why this was put in by BW, and if indeed it is incorrect, why isn't there a hint of it being incorrect shown in the game at all

Edit: I misread what you said.  But I'll leave what I said anyway.  The evidence for the child never existing are still in-game evidences, but they'll take time to detail.

What do you mean?  There's in-game proof of Starbinger either being incorrect or blantantly lying.

1/ The created will always destroy the creators.  Even if you ignore the Geth and Quarians (its shakey evidence), the fact the Reapers haven't turned on the Catalyst yet disproves this notion.  Not to mention the Hanar never turned against the Enkindlers (Protheans), and infact some are so obedient to them that they'll turn to the Reapers (the masters of their masters) without hesitation.  So this is either a blatant lie, and/or the Catalyst didn't create the Reapers (another lie).

2/ Shepard will die if he picks Destroy.  Breath scene debunks this.

3/ No organic has made it to that part of the Citadel.  Erm, considering its on the outside on a very visible and well-used part of the station, and has the same text writing as other parts of the station...  Yeah, you're lying so badly it hurts, Starbinger.

4/ Implying Shepard is able to control the Reapers, even though its been hammered into us all trilogy that they can't be controled because anyone who gets close to them ends up being controlled by them.

Four cases of either lies or ignorance by Starbinger, right off the bat.  All in-game evidence.

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

Its still deception, pure and simple.  You can make all the excuses you like, but its still demonstrably wrong about almost everything it says and uses very weak circular logic.

But if you disagree, fair enough.

[Rifneno]

Humakt83 wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

Does the sign "No step" and "T78" mean anything? They are on the Normandy.

I'm gonna say "no step" means "do not step here."

T78 is probably tech jargen.

Nothing special to avoid stepping on where the sign is located.

Is it in the cockpit?  I can just see the dev conversations now.  "Crap, we forgot to fix that bug that paralyzes Shepard when he's standing next to Joker!"  "What are we going to do?  We don't have time for a code change."  "How about we just stick one of those 'do not step here' signs there?"  "Ha!  That's hilarious!"

[paxxton]

SubAstris wrote...

That is where we disagree. There is difference between blurring the lines and leaving the audience in the dark, which is exactly what happened with the game, and that cannot be anything other than bad storyteller. But either it shows up BW as bad writers

According to the literal interpretation everything's ok with the ending. In IT the audience is left in the dark so that they can talk about the game on BSN and after a few months they are given the EC that clarifies everything.

Modifié par paxxton, 17 juin 2012 - 10:33 .

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

Its still deception, pure and simple.  You can make all the excuses you like, but its still demonstrably wrong about almost everything it says and uses very weak circular logic.

But if you disagree, fair enough.

You say he is demonstrably wrong and yet when I provide some rebuttals to your assertions that he is on those matters, you don't reply to them. I wouldn't advise using such blanket statements.

[SubAstris]

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

That is where we disagree. There is difference between blurring the lines and leaving the audience in the dark, which is exactly what happened with the game, and that cannot be anything other than bad storyteller. But either it shows up BW as bad writers

According to the literal interpretation everything's ok with the ending. In IT the audience is left in the dark so that they can talk about the game on BSN and after a few months they are given the EC that clarifies everything.

If you mean by "everything's ok" that I like the ending you have me wrong. And even if the ending is meant to be taken at face-value, there are still many questions

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

That is where we disagree. There is difference between blurring the lines and leaving the audience in the dark, which is exactly what happened with the game, and that cannot be anything other than bad storyteller. But either it shows up BW as bad writers

According to the literal interpretation everything's ok with the ending. In IT the audience is left in the dark so that they can talk about the game on BSN and after a few months they are given the EC that clarifies everything.

If you mean by "everything's ok" that I like the ending you have me wrong. And even if the ending is meant to be taken at face-value, there are still many questions

Sub, I'm curious, how many BW games have you played before ME3?

[paxxton]

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

That is where we disagree. There is difference between blurring the lines and leaving the audience in the dark, which is exactly what happened with the game, and that cannot be anything other than bad storyteller. But either it shows up BW as bad writers

According to the literal interpretation everything's ok with the ending. In IT the audience is left in the dark so that they can talk about the game on BSN and after a few months they are given the EC that clarifies everything.

If you mean by "everything's ok" that I like the ending you have me wrong. And even if the ending is meant to be taken at face-value, there are still many questions

So the EC promises to clarify them.

[Eryri]

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

My thoughts on this:
1) - it may not be explicitly stated, but it is very heavily implied that he is their creator. "They are my solution" - implies that he was setting out to solve a problem, and came up with the Reapers. Also if you have low EMS, his words are "The Reapers are mine!" said in quite an arrogant way.

2) - again it's not explicit that Shepard will die, but the Catalyst goes out of his way to plant the idea that it's a very likely possibility. He has the politician's knack for lying without lying if you get my drift.

3) - True. Have to conceed that.

4) - But we don't know that Shepard isn't indoctrinated. The whole point of indoctrination is that you don't know that you are. Saren and TIM both thought they were taking advantage of the Reapers rather than the other way around. It's presented as a gradual, subtle process. Shepard can't be absolutely sure that he's 100% free of any taint of it. And if the Reapers have even the smallest hold on him, what does that mean for the long term prospects of Control?

[Dwailing]

Eryri wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

My thoughts on this:

4) - But we don't know that Shepard isn't indoctrinated. The whole point of indoctrination is that you don't know that you are. Saren and TIM both thought they were taking advantage of the Reapers rather than the other way around. It's presented as a gradual, subtle process. Shepard can't be absolutely sure that he's 100% free of any taint of it. And if the Reapers have even the smallest hold on him, what does that mean for the long term prospects of Control?

This point is driven home if you played Arrival.  Shepard was in the same base as Object Rho for two days.  There's no way you're going to tell me that he came through THAT ONE Reaper influence free.  I don't know how much influence, but there had to be SOME influence.

Modifié par Dwailing, 17 juin 2012 - 10:44 .

[SubAstris]

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

That is where we disagree. There is difference between blurring the lines and leaving the audience in the dark, which is exactly what happened with the game, and that cannot be anything other than bad storyteller. But either it shows up BW as bad writers

According to the literal interpretation everything's ok with the ending. In IT the audience is left in the dark so that they can talk about the game on BSN and after a few months they are given the EC that clarifies everything.

If you mean by "everything's ok" that I like the ending you have me wrong. And even if the ending is meant to be taken at face-value, there are still many questions

So the EC promises to clarify them.

Hopefully. I speculate that we will find out a lot more about the Reapers and the Catalyst, such as how it came to be, basically all the things Mac Walters stated they wanted to leave out as per Final Hours will be put in. However, I fully accept you are entitled to believe otherwise and no doubt will

[SubAstris]

Dwailing wrote...

Eryri wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

My thoughts on this:

4) - But we don't know that Shepard isn't indoctrinated. The whole point of indoctrination is that you don't know that you are. Saren and TIM both thought they were taking advantage of the Reapers rather than the other way around. It's presented as a gradual, subtle process. Shepard can't be absolutely sure that he's 100% free of any taint of it. And if the Reapers have even the smallest hold on him, what does that mean for the long term prospects of Control?

This point is driven home if you played Arrival.  Shepard was in the same base as Object Rho for two days.  There's no way you're going to tell me that he came through THAT ONE Reaper influence free.  I don't know how much influence, but there had to be SOME influence.

I'm not getting into a discussion about Arrival...

[HellishFiend]

Andromidius wrote...

Eryri wrote...

Yeah the whole opening is weird. Like why is a kid playing on a military base? Is it "bring your child to work day" at the alliance? Plus the little park he's playing in is very strange, it's a tiny roof top garden with a sheer drop all around it and only a low railing. Not the sort of place you'd leave a kid unsupervised!

Not to mention the garden seems to disappear when you see that building again later on.

Or that a child is the first and last thing Shepard sees in ME3.  Who look almost exactly the same (ignoring Starbinger's holographic skin texture).

And the fact Shepard somehow manages to keep running into him.  First seeing him directly from his apartment window, and then running into the building a few yards away during a firefight, and then in the duct, and then seeing him directly from the boarding ramp of the Normandy as he's leaving, and then seeing his picture on the memorial wall on the Citadel...  And in his dreams...  And then finally as the Catalyst.

Yeah, not buying it.  Nice try Harbinger.

Oh come on... you know you bought it the first time.... <_<

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Eryri wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

1) It is never explicitly stated that the Catalyst created the Reapers, he says, "they are my solution", but not that he created them. It seems the Catalyst is just an AI of sorts.

2) But he never says he will die, just listen very carefully to what he says

3) We don't know of any organics actually being there before in that exact location.

4) As the Catalyst himself says, people like TIM and Saren cannot control the Reapers themselves because they themselves were indoctrinated; however Shepard isn't, and therefore can take control.. If one listens to the dialogue it is clear the parameters have changed considerably.

My thoughts on this:

4) - But we don't know that Shepard isn't indoctrinated. The whole point of indoctrination is that you don't know that you are. Saren and TIM both thought they were taking advantage of the Reapers rather than the other way around. It's presented as a gradual, subtle process. Shepard can't be absolutely sure that he's 100% free of any taint of it. And if the Reapers have even the smallest hold on him, what does that mean for the long term prospects of Control?

This point is driven home if you played Arrival.  Shepard was in the same base as Object Rho for two days.  There's no way you're going to tell me that he came through THAT ONE Reaper influence free.  I don't know how much influence, but there had to be SOME influence.

I'm not getting into a discussion about Arrival...

I'm not getting into this discussion either.  I've debated enough Literalists on this point that I know it's fruitless.  However, would you please answer my earlier question?  Did you ever play a BW game before ME3?