518 réponses à ce sujet

[Taboo]

The best case scenario...

Is a smoothie that takes as many complaints and blends them together and is then presented as the EC.

Some people won't be able to taste it but that's what we face.

I cannot possibly know what they're doing though. I suppose we'll know soon enough.

[balance5050]

Whether they do it by dealing each compliant individually or by throwing some indoctrination at it is yet to be seen.... I just hope it's good either way.

[Taboo]

That would an interesting thing to see.

SOME indoctrination.

That way the IT people feel validated and everyone is...happy.

Just give me Miranda.

[balance5050]

I'm hoping Miranda makes an appearance just for you Taboo....

Yeah, I honestly don't think the EC will be centered around indoc as much as us IT'ers hope.... just a wee bit of indoc would be enough to satiate me.

[Taboo]

From a marketing perspective, the best thing they can do is throw in as much as they can.

Miranda and Shepard are the only things I need.

And I'd really like to see something for the IT people as well.

Everyone else....will just be unhappy.

[balance5050]

They really can't lose any more credibility at this point, they might as well throw it all in a pot and see what happens, like you said.... "a smoothie that takes as many complaints and blends them together"... I might like that...

[liggy002]

If you want to do the Indoc right, do it 100% or don't do it at all. Any other form of the IT is a disaster. IT Mixed with an ending that is real? Hell no! That means no Harbinger fight.

I'd rather have the ending as is then have them attempt to combine the IT with it.  As I've said before, the best solution would be to have 2 seperate EC versions and let the players choose their own endings:  IT or not.  If they decide not to do that, then fine but if it's not IT full on, then I'm out of here.

Modifié par liggy002, 09 juin 2012 - 03:48 .

[Taboo]

I don't see how my Shepard is going to be fighting Harbinger in his current state. How are they implementing it?

Harbinger...should be shown being destroyed.

[liggy002]

Taboo-XX wrote...

I don't see how my Shepard is going to be fighting Harbinger in his current state. How are they implementing it?

Harbinger...should be shown being destroyed.

Well, it is possible that Harbinger was already destroyed but I do find it somewhat odd that he wasn't shown as being destroyed.  Maybe he took off into dark space?

Modifié par liggy002, 09 juin 2012 - 03:52 .

[Taboo]

Harbinger could not out run the beam. He's going to be affected one way or the other.

[liggy002]

Taboo-XX wrote...

Harbinger could not out run the beam. He's going to be affected one way or the other.

Yeah, that makes sense, but do you think maybe he could have taken a port to the Omega relay, and then jumped to the center of the galaxy?   I'm not sure if I recall a shockwave explosion over there.

[Taboo]

I'm just speculating as you are. I'd imagine that Bioware has something planned for Harbinger and whatever that is, remains to be seen.

I can only hope as many people get what they want in the EC.

[Joeybsmooth4]

If person is dizzy like you suggest no way they can win fire fight after fight .

[liggy002]

Joeybsmooth4 wrote...

If person is dizzy like you suggest no way they can win fire fight after fight .

You do realize we're talking about Commander Shepard here?

[Makrys]

WHERE IS KEITH SZARABAJKA BIOWARE?

[liggy002]

Makrys wrote...

WHERE IS KEITH SZARABAJKA BIOWARE?

Indeed.... Mass Effect just isn't the same without him AKA Harby

[Jonata]

Makrys wrote...

WHERE IS KEITH SZARABAJKA BIOWARE?

Allright so now Taboo started a trend here on the BSN. Let's all yell out for what we want!

EDITO: nope. I can't yell. I can't help but feel arrogant. Let's hope BioWare listens to my whispers.

Modifié par Jonata, 09 juin 2012 - 11:30 .

[OdanUrr]

KingZayd wrote...

Really?

In order of release:

ME1: (Thorian version of indoctrination, and Zhu's hope), Shiala, Rana's research, Beneziah, Saren (and other randoms)
ME2: Derelict Reaper, Collectors (basically indoctrinated and modified Protheans)
Mass Effect Retribution: Grayson
Mass Effect Evolution: Ben Hislop, and TIM hit by reaper artifact. Ben is indoctrinated, TIM is changed. (hints that he's been partially indoctrinated). Desolas Arterius gets indoctrinated. The same artifact activates near Saren, and some believe thats he got the beginnings of indoctrination too.
ME2 Arrival: Everyone Object Rho activates on ends up indoctrinated (except for Shepard? Why?)
ME3: Balak tells you Leviathan of Dis ended up indoctrinating most of a Batarian system. Cerberus studies indoctrination at Sanctuary and get results. TIM uses indoctrination.  Rana Thanoptis is indoctrinated. Shiala hears the reaper voices and tells you she's still indoctrinated. Kai Leng is indoctrinated. TIM is indoctrinated.

Tons of foreshadowing.
 

Firstly, I do not read neither the comics nor the books. One should not be forced to go there to understand the plot of the games. The comics/books should enhance the story but not take away from it.

Secondly, for some reason or other many people may not have bought Arrival. If you're determined to include Shepard's indoctrination in the core game, then the reasons for this (and the building up to it) should be included in the core game as well, not in a DLC (whether paid or free is irrelevant, it must be on the disc that people bought).

Having said that, we're still left with plenty of examples of indoctrination. However, there's no foreshadowing that Shepard is being indoctrinated. Just because a lot of people get indoctrinated, or even because Shepard's been around a lot of Reaper tech, doesn't necessarily mean Shepard is indoctrinated as well. By that reasoning there should be plenty of indoctrinated characters in the ME universe, starting with Tali and Garrus.

Finally, I do not like how indoctrination is used as an excuse for everything. In ME1 it was a novel concept and we learned of Saren's struggle with it. In ME2, we board a derelict Reaper and find out the Cerberus team was indoctrinated and turned into husks. Those examples were fine. Note also that in both cases people needed to be in close proximity to an actual Reaper. If people could get indoctrinated simply by being close to parts of a Reaper, then most people on the Citadel would have been indoctrinated at the end of ME1. Then in ME3, indoctrination is used to explain why TIM makes dumber and dumber decisions at every turn:

- Why did he attack Sur'kesh? Oh, he was indoctrinated.
- Why did he attack Tuchanka? Oh, he was indoctrinated.
- Why did he attack the Citadel? Oh, he was indoctrinated.
- Why did he warn the Reapers? Oh, he was indoctrinated.

When is it ever suggested TIM's been indoctrinated? At the very end of ME3 and no explanation is given for this. We're supposed to trust the Catalyst on this, even when a lot of people have been arguing not to.

Also, when a character acts in an odd manner, it is also suggested he may have been indoctrinated. E.g. why did Udina help Cerberus attack the Citadel? Oh, well, he was probably indoctrinated. Because he couldn't possibly have his own agenda, right? He couldn't possibly have grown tired of the Council's passivity and decided to take action, right?

And now, to top it all, people propose that, in order to make sense of the ending, we should believe Shepard's being indoctrinated. If you want to believe that, that's fine. I have no problem with people making their own interpretation of the ending, the same as one would interpret the ending of a movie, such as Inception or 2001. I do have a problem, however, when a certain interpretation, any interpretation, is forced on others. If people like the endings in their current form, they shouldn't be demeaned because of it or called morons for not realising "the truth." As long as Bioware doesn't make up its mind, believing that Shepard's indoctrinated (or not) at the end is just as valid as believing the endings are great or that they're a perfect example of bad writing (or, at least, bad communication on the part of the writers).

My main gripe against using indoctrination as the official ending to ME3 is because it would be a cop out. When things don't make sense, we argue indoctrination and move on. I'm sorry but it can't be like that, at some point the writers need to explain why people are acting the way they do. Why would TIM waste resources attacking Shepard when he could be searching for the Catalyst or stealing the Crucible from the Alliance? How come TIM warns the Reapers and doesn't realise he's (being) indoctrinated? What does TIM gain by attacking the Citadel? He doesn't know it's the Catalyst at this point.

I'm sorry, maybe it's just me, but I require characters to make sense within the limits of their personality and previous actions. When they don't I disconnect from the story and simply enjoy the game for allowing me to shoot at things. But that wears off pretty fast.

I hope I didn't come off as confrontational because that's certainly not my intent. My point is that all interpretations are valid (within reason obviously, Shepard's not a Rachni in disguise, or is he?) until Bioware says otherwise. If they decide to go along with the idea of Shepard being indoctrinated in its current form, I'll personally see it as a cop out.

That's about it.

[Makrys]

bump