4520 réponses à ce sujet

[Seival]

So, the Leviathan DLC is true, and will be released soon...

...I wander if the DLC will have some impact on the endings' cut-scenes and dialogues. Maybe the final battle will show that Reaper in action? And maybe the Catalyst will tell us something interesting about it? Also it's interesting what will be the Leviathan's attitude towards the Control possibility. Maybe it will have the same thoughts as TIM?

Modifié par Seival, 02 août 2012 - 09:21 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Seival wrote...
 Maybe the final battle will show that Reaper in action? 

I wouldn't count on it.

[fchopin]

Seival wrote...

@fchopin
Short final answer to you (and to all similar Destroyers by the way). We have no 100% proof that Shepard-Catalist will not restart the Cycles, and you have no 100% proof that Shepard-Catalist will restart the Cycles. If you can't agree even with that, then you are just trying to troll the opposing ending's camp.

Sorry but what you said to me i understood to mean that you are only interested in speaking with me if i accept your version of how things happened and i will never do that as i have my own opinions.
 
It's for you now to convince me that i am wrong in my interpretation on what you said.
 
I only converse with people that like talking and thinking on the endings but have no closed mind.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

[Seival]

fchopin wrote...

Seival wrote...

@fchopin
Short final answer to you (and to all similar Destroyers by the way). We have no 100% proof that Shepard-Catalist will not restart the Cycles, and you have no 100% proof that Shepard-Catalist will restart the Cycles. If you can't agree even with that, then you are just trying to troll the opposing ending's camp.

Sorry but what you said to me i understood to mean that you are only interested in speaking with me if i accept your version of how things happened and i will never do that as i have my own opinions.
 
It's for you now to convince me that i am wrong in my interpretation on what you said.
 
I only converse with people that like talking and thinking on the endings but have no closed mind.

Yes, I want you to accept my version, as the valid version. And this doesn't actually mean that you must replace your version with mine. I also have the opinion that you don't understand the concept of Control ending, and your vision of it is incorrect. But you should understand that my opinion is not an attempt to shut you up...

...If I said something insulting, then I'm sorry. I hope now we understand each other better?

[Uncle Jo]

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

You seriousy didn't hope that the control option with all its negative foreshadowing during the three games would stay unharmed? It's already a miracle that it was presented as valid option. Synthesis is hated by the majority of the players, destroy has a huge downside (the Geth and EDI)
However, I'd advice to wait for the DLC. Let's see what the Reaper says.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 03 août 2012 - 02:38 .

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

This is the perfect story trick. I think there were no people, who wasn't shocked in the end during the very first playthrough. Some of those people are still under impression of that trick, and still can't believe that Control is even possible (even through the game itself tells otherwise). And I really don't understand some people, who said something about "bad writing". ME3 writers team did the great job actually.

...I don't think BioWare "pushes the Synthesis". It's Control Ending which received 4 different variants in the EC, not Synthesis or Destroy. They spent much more time on Control Ending explanation. But that doesn't mean that Control is "canon ending". There are 3 different ways to stop the Reaper threat. And you can choose which one you like more.

Modifié par Seival, 03 août 2012 - 12:05 .

[Ranger Jack Walker]

I've never felt that Bioware was pushing Synthesis or any ending for that matter.

[Seival]

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I've never felt that Bioware was pushing Synthesis or any ending for that matter.

Some people think that "Synthesis is the canon ending, because it requires more EMS to be unlocked than the 'best' Control or Destroy ending". Synthesis is indeed harder to achieve, but this doesn't make it "canon ending".

Modifié par Seival, 03 août 2012 - 12:18 .

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

Considering the fact that the Reapers have one collective mind (the Catalyst), each Reaper mobile platform has no personality. So, maybe the Leviathan was a victim of some Synthesis attempts (which the original Catalyst told us about) and gained it's own mind in the process? Or maybe a couple of the very first Reapers' prototypes had their own minds, and so could rebel? That's quite possible. Nazara and Harbinger could also be such prototypes by the way, but instead of rebelling, they decided to help the original Catalyst.

Modifié par Seival, 03 août 2012 - 12:52 .

[Ericus]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

I think the EC-Control ending already does a good job of creating the impression that it is a risky choice.  Not impossible, but risky.  The long-term results will really depend on Shepard's ability to stay true to his/her goal of protecting the galaxy.  I seriously doubt the cycle would ever be restarted, but there are other risks - like what if Shepard decided to declare martial law to prevent war in the galaxy?  That would have a lot of nasty consequences, despite being done with the best of intentions.  

Everything in life is something of a risk, so this doesn't invalidate Control as a choice, especially when it preserves synthetics and doesn't force a genetic-level change on everyone against their will.

And as for a Reaper (like Harbinger perhaps?) being able to defy the controller, I'd be willing to accept that risk.  It's not a sure thing, and again, it'd have less of an impact than the absolutely certain outcomes of Synthesis or Destroy.  Besides, even if one or two Reapers did rebel, there'd be a whole Shepard-controlled legion of Reapers to fight them.

[Ericus]

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

Considering the fact that the Reapers have one collective mind (the Catalyst), each Reaper mobile platform has no personality. So, maybe the Leviathan was a victim of some Synthesis attempts (which the original Catalyst told us about) and gained it's own mind in the process? Or maybe a couple of the very first Reapers' prototypes had their own minds, and so could rebel? That's quite possible. Nazara and Harbinger could also be such prototypes by the way, but instead of rebelling, they decided to help the Catalyst.

I think Harbinger might be the only Reaper (other than Leviathan potentially) to have developed it's own personality.  I'm basing this on the fact that Harbinger sometimes refers to himself as "I" instead of "we".  When Legion did that right before his death, it's something they made a big point about.  Perhaps spending 50,000 years controlling Collector bodies gave him a sense of self that other Reapers wouldn't have the opportunity to experience normally (?).

I also read an interesting theory somewhere on these forums that Harbinger himself may have been trying to fight the Catalyst in a more subtle way.  The suggestion is that he arranged for construction of the Human Reaper, which presumably would not be under the Catalyst's control, in order to destroy the Citadel and the Catalyst.  I need to play ME2 again to see how well that fits, but it's an interesting theory.  Either way, I think Harbinger likes being a Reaper ("the universe bends to me", etc), but he may not have approved of the cycle as a method of forced ascension...

[Seival]

Well, we will get all answers on the matter soon enough

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Ericus wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

I think the EC-Control ending already does a good job of creating the impression that it is a risky choice.  Not impossible, but risky.  The long-term results will really depend on Shepard's ability to stay true to his/her goal of protecting the galaxy.  I seriously doubt the cycle would ever be restarted, but there are other risks - like what if Shepard decided to declare martial law to prevent war in the galaxy?  That would have a lot of nasty consequences, despite being done with the best of intentions.  

Everything in life is something of a risk, so this doesn't invalidate Control as a choice, especially when it preserves synthetics and doesn't force a genetic-level change on everyone against their will.

And as for a Reaper (like Harbinger perhaps?) being able to defy the controller, I'd be willing to accept that risk.  It's not a sure thing, and again, it'd have less of an impact than the absolutely certain outcomes of Synthesis or Destroy.  Besides, even if one or two Reapers did rebel, there'd be a whole Shepard-controlled legion of Reapers to fight them.

Exactly, the EC already adds a negative side to control in order to balance it out, which is why I dislike the prospect of having more negative added to it.

[Sentientbrute]

No synth support?

[Seival]

Lizardviking wrote...

Ericus wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

Actually, 96% of ME3 story is full of "Control undermining". Step by step the game convinces you that Control is "impossible" or "wrong". And only in the very end you understand that Control is possible and can be the right choice (if you believe that your Shepard is truly ready for this of course).

The story cast doubts over control being possible by showing those that try to accomplish it failing, however it never gives solid proof that control is impossible. Levianth however, would give that proof, showing that Reapers can rebel against their ruler for whatever reason.

That said, perhaps I am just being pessimistic and Bioware will give an explanation that Leviathan is an exception.

I think the EC-Control ending already does a good job of creating the impression that it is a risky choice.  Not impossible, but risky.  The long-term results will really depend on Shepard's ability to stay true to his/her goal of protecting the galaxy.  I seriously doubt the cycle would ever be restarted, but there are other risks - like what if Shepard decided to declare martial law to prevent war in the galaxy?  That would have a lot of nasty consequences, despite being done with the best of intentions.  

Everything in life is something of a risk, so this doesn't invalidate Control as a choice, especially when it preserves synthetics and doesn't force a genetic-level change on everyone against their will.

And as for a Reaper (like Harbinger perhaps?) being able to defy the controller, I'd be willing to accept that risk.  It's not a sure thing, and again, it'd have less of an impact than the absolutely certain outcomes of Synthesis or Destroy.  Besides, even if one or two Reapers did rebel, there'd be a whole Shepard-controlled legion of Reapers to fight them.

Exactly, the EC already adds a negative side to control in order to balance it out, which is why I dislike the prospect of having more negative added to it.

Negative side you are talking about only depends on your Shepard. So, if you have no doubts about your Shepard, then you have no reasons to worry

Modifié par Seival, 03 août 2012 - 01:36 .

[Seival]

Sentientbrute wrote...

No synth support?

There is nice Synthesis support thread, actually: http://social.biowar.../index/12153660

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Seival wrote...
Negative side you are talking about only depends on your Shepard. So, if you have no doubts about your Shepard, then you have no reasons to worry

But that is my point, we are given a situation and people can decide for themselves on what to think, does the rewards outweigh the risks (or in your case, don't believe there is a risk in the first), but now we get this additional negative which for me just seems like Bioware just wanting to undermine control.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

Seival wrote...

Ranger Jack Walker wrote...

I've never felt that Bioware was pushing Synthesis or any ending for that matter.

Some people think that "Synthesis is the canon ending, because it requires more EMS to be unlocked than the 'best' Control or Destroy ending". Synthesis is indeed harder to achieve, but this doesn't make it "canon ending".

But Destroy technically has the highest requirement.

It's funny because Destroyers never seem to agree on this. A Destroyer might use the Breath Scene's higher EMS requirement as 'proof' that we are supposed to choose Destroy and that it's the 'good' ending but will later dismiss the same breat scene as a minor Easter Egg to take a pot shot at Bioware.

[Ranger Jack Walker]

starlitegirlx wrote...

Seival wrote...

Sentientbrute wrote...

No synth support?

There is nice Synthesis support thread, actually: http://social.biowar.../index/12153660

Has everyone forgotten that saren became synthesis in ME1 and that he turned into an insane leapfrog that tried to bomb them to death? That is synthesis. I don't even think there was any Saren left when he was the crazy leapfrog. Just some machine thing with maybe organic parts whose goal was to kill Shep. Synthesis sounds all nice and pretty but remember, you are giving your entire existence over to machines whose main agendas are to harvest you and use you for their agenda. They see organic life as garbage. How do you imagine all species evolving if they become reaper entwined? Not like Edi, that's for sure. Not like free geth. More like Crazy leapfrog saren still killing civilizations every 50k years.

Synthesis is far more similar to Legion uploading the reaper code to grant the Geth individuality than it is to Saren's goal of proving the species useful to the reapers to assure survival.

[CrutchCricket]

Lizardviking wrote...

From what I remember reading of the leak of Levianth DLC, alot of it seems to undermine the control choice, which annoys me since it simply comes off as Bioware wanting to push synthesis by making both other choices carry major negative consequences.

This seems obvious to me. Not only must we accept the artistic integrity that's shoved down our throats but we must choose the magic green land of happiness and chocolates and be happy about it. If that means sabotaging everything else, including the rest of your RGB endings so be it.

And while it won't dissuade Control's strongest supporters (my interpretation for example already invalidates the idea of "rebelling") it will give haters some more ammunition and we'll have to deal with a whole new slew of misbegotten one line "rebuttals" along the lines of "Shepard's not really shepard" and "shepard will start reaping again lololol"

Now it'll be "you'll lose control because reapers will rebel hahaha, should've shot the pipe lololololol!!!1one"

Spare me.<_<

[Ericus]

Lizardviking wrote...

Seival wrote...
Negative side you are talking about only depends on your Shepard. So, if you have no doubts about your Shepard, then you have no reasons to worry

But that is my point, we are given a situation and people can decide for themselves on what to think, does the rewards outweigh the risks (or in your case, don't believe there is a risk in the first), but now we get this additional negative which for me just seems like Bioware just wanting to undermine control.

We'll have to wait and see if it's an additional negative, or just more exposition on the current drawback.  Apart from better understanding the background for the Reapers, what we learn might not have that significant impact on Control.