242 réponses à ce sujet

[Leafs43]

Micah3sixty wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

If you believe the Catalyst... who also said you'd die as well. You don't.

The Catalyst never said you would die if you chose Destroy.  He may have implied that since Shepard is also part synthetic, but he didn't outright say that, so surviving Destroy does not mean he lied.

And destroy destroys synthetics, ergo Shepard dies.

[Jamie9]

balance5050 wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

He says that, but he also said that I waz going to die as well. I think the Geth and Edi are just fine and that I was being lied to by a reaper.

That's as much headcanon as my ending. It's implied but not shown. You can't say it's okay to imply some things but not others.

[dreamgazer]

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

No, it was meant for much more than that sir.

 

Please, make a red circle where it  can be read "dream sequence" or "indocrination".
Thanks.

I hope you realize how many directors' notebooks you can read through that have raw ideas without explicit explanations, especially scraps of paper early in development. 

[dreman9999]

Micah3sixty wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

If you believe the Catalyst... who also said you'd die as well. You don't.

The Catalyst never said you would die if you chose Destroy.  He may have implied that since Shepard is also part synthetic, but he didn't outright say that, so surviving Destroy does not mean he lied.

Telling me that I'm partly synthetic after telling me I can kill all synthetics makes no sense if it didn't mean distory would kill me. Why say it if had nothing to do with distroy?

[Jamie9]

dreman9999 wrote...

It makes all the difference in the world. Why would a bw emplyee ask a question about something that would fix the ending on a site fill with people angry about the end?

Because BioWare's PR is terrible. I mean no offense to the people themselves, I've spoken to many of them and they seemed nice, but their strategies (overall) have only succeeded in aggravating the fanbase. Hence, why they haven't been here much lately.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. What does the vague statement"You will die. You can control us but lose everything you have "mean?
As I the starchild even telling the truth?

Your organic form will die, everything you are will become part of the Citadel, you will be the Catalyst. 

If you have an alternative you can happily state it and I will label it speculation. 

2. The geth already said they would die to stop the reapers.

It would be their choice, to die to fight the Reapers. 

Did say it would be perfectly okay for Shepard to kill off their entire species to save everyone else? I'm guessing they would be too happy about that, or even accepting. 

[dreman9999]

dreamgazer wrote...

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

No, it was meant for much more than that sir.

 

Please, make a red circle where it  can be read "dream sequence" or "indocrination".
Thanks.

I hope you realize how many directors' notebooks you can read through that have raw ideas without explicit explanations, especially scraps of paper early in development. 

But all of this was used.

[balance5050]

Micah3sixty wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

If you believe the Catalyst... who also said you'd die as well. You don't.

The Catalyst never said you would die if you chose Destroy.  He may have implied that since Shepard is also part synthetic, but he didn't outright say that, so surviving Destroy does not mean he lied.

He lied because he says that they only harvest worthy races and leave the younger ones ALONE. 

So what about the Harvesters?

  

[hoodaticus]

Wait - you think Harvesters are Klixen Queens?

Edit: Apparently, they indeed are - since Klixen Queens are called "Harvesters".

Dang.

Modifié par hoodaticus, 26 mai 2012 - 05:58 .

[Micah3sixty]

dreman9999 wrote...

Micah3sixty wrote...



What difference does that make?  The fact Chris asked the question leads me to believe IT is not in the official cannon anyways and he's just curious as to how many HTL-ers seem to think IT is a better ending than clarifying the ending we got.  

It makes all the difference in the world. Why would a bw emplyee ask a question about something that would fix the ending on a site fill with people angry about the end?

The only thing it tells me is that BW is curious about the number of people who believe in IT and would likely be upset if IT isn't adopted into the EC canon.  I find it more indicative that IT was never a part of the current ending and would be a retcon if adapted into the EC.

[dreman9999]

The Night Mammoth wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. What does the vague statement"You will die. You can control us but lose everything you have "mean?
As I the starchild even telling the truth?

Your organic form will die, everything you are will become part of the Citadel, you will be the Catalyst. 

If you have an alternative you can happily state it and I will label it speculation. 

2. The geth already said they would die to stop the reapers.

It would be their choice, to die to fight the Reapers. 

Did say it would be perfectly okay for Shepard to kill off their entire species to save everyone else? I'm guessing they would be too happy about that, or even accepting. 

1. Key note it's vague..That means it's open to intepritation...No one knows what it menas.
2. But you arn't. Your killng off a race that already said  they would die  fighting the reapers...They already made there say...It's not an unfair choice.

[teh DRUMPf!!]

Shepard Wins wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...


I'm not trying to promote "avoid Reaper tech at all times" attitude.Thing is, it's dangerous and has to be handled with caution.

1) Ah yes, but Sovereign was dead when it was salvaged. Dead, as in DESTROYed. See how that works?
2) It was a Prothean designed Mass Relay, Relay technology doesn't indoctrinate so it was safer
3) - the IFF was a necessary evil there, you're confusing the end with the means;
4) EDI isn't defined by the fact that she was created using Reaper Tech; the game is kinda vague on that one
5) Whoa, have you paid attention to Arrival? Stopping the Reapers (the Project) was about sending an asteroid into a Relay, and Object Rho would have stopped that from happening, had it not been for Shepard's intervention. So no, Object Rho is not good.

1.) Derelict Reaper from ME2 was dead too. It's no less a risk.

2.) We used their technology against them. Creating a mass-relay modeled after their creation, rewriting the keepers, foiling their back-door trap which was the Citadel.

3.) Sometimes the ends do justify the means. In the IFF's case that can be said confidently and unequivocally.

4.) No Reaper-tech, no EDI. No EDI, ME2 and ME3 = problematic, maybe impossible.

5.) Yes, and the Project never takes place if not for the discovery of Object Rho. The loss of an Alliance team is nothing compared to the Reapers entering and spreading throughout the galaxy quickly through the Alpha Relay.

1) Sovereign was in pieces, scattered all over the place - Derelict Reaper was very much intact, with active Mass Effect fields and somesuch. So I'd say Derelict Reaper was much more dangerous
2) agreed
3) agreed, but the IFF in itself was simply a necessary evil to achieve a greater good
4) not necessarily, we don't know if EDI wouldn't have been built without it, there were many AIs without Reaper Tech in them
5) Object Rho in itself was dangerous and almost brought about failure of the Project

1.) Well yeah, and? You ask for good examples of Reaper tech. If it can be used safely afterall to create things like the Thanix, what's the problem here?
4.) Seeing how much more incredibly advanced Reapers are than simple AIs, I doubt one could have subsituted for EDI so easily.
5.) The Project is only possible because of Object Rho. All Shepard even has to do is eliminate the indoctrinated agents inside it and get it restarted. In the end, the loss of the Alpha Relay was a blow to the Reapers.

[dreamgazer]

dreman9999 wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

No, it was meant for much more than that sir.

 

Please, make a red circle where it  can be read "dream sequence" or "indocrination".
Thanks.

I hope you realize how many directors' notebooks you can read through that have raw ideas without explicit explanations, especially scraps of paper early in development. 

But all of this was used.

As a raw idea.  The specifics can come later.  It doedsn't have to say "indoctrination" or "dream sequence".  It just shows the internal thought-processes behind what they wanted the audience to endure with the ending. 

[dreman9999]

Micah3sixty wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Micah3sixty wrote...



What difference does that make?  The fact Chris asked the question leads me to believe IT is not in the official cannon anyways and he's just curious as to how many HTL-ers seem to think IT is a better ending than clarifying the ending we got.  

It makes all the difference in the world. Why would a bw emplyee ask a question about something that would fix the ending on a site fill with people angry about the end?

The only thing it tells me is that BW is curious about the number of people who believe in IT and would likely be upset if IT isn't adopted into the EC canon.  I find it more indicative that IT was never a part of the current ending and would be a retcon if adapted into the EC.

No, if IT is false...They would just annunce that it's false. To check the intrest of it means they are intersted in it...BW did this twce on this site. Once now, once in april.
Added..Indoctrination is part of the ending...remeber the scene with TIM controling Shepard and Anderson and every symtom of indoctrination poped up?

Modifié par dreman9999, 26 mai 2012 - 06:01 .

[balance5050]

hoodaticus wrote...

Wait - you think Harvesters are Klixen Queens?

Edit: Apparently, they indeed are - since Klixen Queens are called "Harvesters".

Dang.

You confused me for a sec there.

[Micah3sixty]

dreman9999 wrote...

Micah3sixty wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

If you believe the Catalyst... who also said you'd die as well. You don't.

The Catalyst never said you would die if you chose Destroy.  He may have implied that since Shepard is also part synthetic, but he didn't outright say that, so surviving Destroy does not mean he lied.

Telling me that I'm partly synthetic after telling me I can kill all synthetics makes no sense if it didn't mean distory would kill me. Why say it if had nothing to do with distroy?

I get that the Catalyst was trying to reinforce the value of Synthetics by saying that.  Not that Shepard would necessarily die.  The fact that he outright tells Shepard that he will die if he choses control means he left Shepards odds of surviving Destroy fairly open.  Which is true.  Shepard can live or die with Destroy depending on EMS.  But High EMS also opens up Synthesis, not just Shepard surviving Destroy.

[davishepard]

dreamgazer wrote...

As a raw idea.  The specifics can come later.  It doedsn't have to say "indoctrination" or "dream sequence".  It just shows the internal thought-processes behind what they wanted the audience to endure with the ending. 

More wishful thinking.
"It's not there, but that doesn't mean nothing. It can still be."

You IT guys just have infinite explanations to support your delusion. It's kinda amazing.

[ReXspec]

Shepard Wins wrote...

Fnork wrote...

Too soon

Not really.  Because this thread is going to go nowhere, fast.

[Jamie9]

@Dreman9999

So we've all been debating for over an hour. I want to just sumarise my feelings. There is a lot of compelling evidence for IT. I've seen all the videos, I've seen the 85 minute documentary on YouTube. I can't explain some things away. We know, for a fact, they were considering implementing indoctrination into the TIM fight at some point.

So perhaps they scrapped the idea? Perhaps they still have it planned? Perhaps it is just a fan theory?

What matters is that the Extended Cut is good. It can use IT and be good. It can not use IT and be good. We all want the same thing. So while we each have our own preferences, lets remember to keep an open mind.

[Shepard Wins]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

HYR 2.0 wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...


I'm not trying to promote "avoid Reaper tech at all times" attitude.Thing is, it's dangerous and has to be handled with caution.

1) Ah yes, but Sovereign was dead when it was salvaged. Dead, as in DESTROYed. See how that works?
2) It was a Prothean designed Mass Relay, Relay technology doesn't indoctrinate so it was safer
3) - the IFF was a necessary evil there, you're confusing the end with the means;
4) EDI isn't defined by the fact that she was created using Reaper Tech; the game is kinda vague on that one
5) Whoa, have you paid attention to Arrival? Stopping the Reapers (the Project) was about sending an asteroid into a Relay, and Object Rho would have stopped that from happening, had it not been for Shepard's intervention. So no, Object Rho is not good.

1.) Derelict Reaper from ME2 was dead too. It's no less a risk.

2.) We used their technology against them. Creating a mass-relay modeled after their creation, rewriting the keepers, foiling their back-door trap which was the Citadel.

3.) Sometimes the ends do justify the means. In the IFF's case that can be said confidently and unequivocally.

4.) No Reaper-tech, no EDI. No EDI, ME2 and ME3 = problematic, maybe impossible.

5.) Yes, and the Project never takes place if not for the discovery of Object Rho. The loss of an Alliance team is nothing compared to the Reapers entering and spreading throughout the galaxy quickly through the Alpha Relay.

1) Sovereign was in pieces, scattered all over the place - Derelict Reaper was very much intact, with active Mass Effect fields and somesuch. So I'd say Derelict Reaper was much more dangerous
2) agreed
3) agreed, but the IFF in itself was simply a necessary evil to achieve a greater good
4) not necessarily, we don't know if EDI wouldn't have been built without it, there were many AIs without Reaper Tech in them
5) Object Rho in itself was dangerous and almost brought about failure of the Project

1.) Well yeah, and? You ask for good examples of Reaper tech. If it can be used safely afterall to create things like the Thanix, what's the problem here?
4.) Seeing how much more incredibly advanced Reapers are than simple AIs, I doubt one could have subsituted for EDI so easily.
5.) The Project is only possible because of Object Rho. All Shepard even has to do is eliminate the indoctrinated agents inside it and get it restarted. In the end, the loss of the Alpha Relay was a blow to the Reapers.

1) bolded the important part
4) they managed to use it safely then
5) again, you're talking about the outcome and I'm talking about the object itself. Object Rho is evil and dangerous.

In summary, yes, there are instances of Reaper Tech used safely and to our advantage.

But Control and Synthesis are both succumbing to Reaper logic and therefor being indoctrinated

[dreman9999]

Micah3sixty wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Micah3sixty wrote...

Shepard Wins wrote...

Jamie9 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Actually some things are concrete.... the rubble around Shepard when you get the Shepard alive scene, this scene requires more EMS then the other endings, making it the hardest to attain.

I have to compliment you on the pun.

We don't know if the rubble is on the Citadel or the Earth though. More speculations. Hardest to attain does not equal best moral decision. It means you get to live, at the cost of all AI.

If you believe the Catalyst... who also said you'd die as well. You don't.

The Catalyst never said you would die if you chose Destroy.  He may have implied that since Shepard is also part synthetic, but he didn't outright say that, so surviving Destroy does not mean he lied.

Telling me that I'm partly synthetic after telling me I can kill all synthetics makes no sense if it didn't mean distory would kill me. Why say it if had nothing to do with distroy?

I get that the Catalyst was trying to reinforce the value of Synthetics by saying that.  Not that Shepard would necessarily die.  The fact that he outright tells Shepard that he will die if he choses control means he left Shepards odds of surviving Destroy fairly open.  Which is true.  Shepard can live or die with Destroy depending on EMS.  But High EMS also opens up Synthesis, not just Shepard surviving Destroy.

But Shepard implants have nothingto to do with synthetics at all. He's an example of technology keeping a being alive. It makes no sense to bring it up if Shepard is not going to be affected. Destory effects synthetics not all tech.

[Micah3sixty]

davishepard wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

As a raw idea.  The specifics can come later.  It doedsn't have to say "indoctrination" or "dream sequence".  It just shows the internal thought-processes behind what they wanted the audience to endure with the ending. 

More wishful thinking.
"It's not there, but that doesn't mean nothing. It can still be."

You IT guys just have infinite explanations to support your delusion. It's kinda amazing.

Indeed.  It's like watching the inception of a religion based off of unsupported and unprovable beliefs and speculation.

[The Night Mammoth]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. Key note it's vague..That means it's open to intepritation...No one knows what it menas.

Therefore, we speculate. 

2. But you arn't. Your killng off a race that already said  they would die  fighting the reapers...They already made there say...It's not an unfair choice.

Killing an entire species because you can't adapt to save the rest is fair? But using the Reapers for good before destroying them, saving the Geth in the process, is somehow wrong?

[balance5050]

davishepard wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

As a raw idea.  The specifics can come later.  It doedsn't have to say "indoctrination" or "dream sequence".  It just shows the internal thought-processes behind what they wanted the audience to endure with the ending. 

More wishful thinking.
"It's not there, but that doesn't mean nothing. It can still be."

You IT guys just have infinite explanations to support your delusion. It's kinda amazing.

U so silly. It's all right there in front of you and you still can't see it.

[Micah3sixty]

Just like debating religion and politics, it's pointless to debate IT any further.

/thread (at least for me)