175 réponses à ce sujet

[Khajiit Jzargo]

elegolas1 wrote...

Someone with twitter should ask bioware why shepards eyes change upon choosing control or synthesis

For whatever reason, Bioware loves to act ambiguous now, so even if you were to ask they would respond along these lines.

"It could be Indoctrination or something else, is what the player thinks"

Because they can't make their own game anymore.

Modifié par Khajiit Jzargo, 29 juillet 2012 - 01:12 .

[Eryri]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

... But lean a little bit closer, see that Shepard's eyes have turned blue-oo-oo...

Yea, Indoctrination makes your eyes go blue-oo-oo.

So, you're saying that maybe synthesis isn't such a bed of Roses?

I think it's fair to say that the eye change is meant to communicate something to the player. Aside from the bugs, every pixel that we see has been put there by someone. It took time and effort for someone to apply that effect to Shepard's eyes, when it wasn't strictly necessary. If all they were trying to convey was Shepard's skin and eyes being burnt off , then the red renegade eyes would have done (although they might have looked a bit demonic).

The only other instances when we've seen those particular electric blue eyes have been on Saren, TIM, husks, and indoctrinated cerberus troopers including Randall Ezno from ME infiltrator. All of them had been physically exposed to Reaper nanites (or whatever they're called), but only Randall was still in control of his own mind. All the rest were in some way compromised.

Whether or not you believe the ending of the game was a hallucination, it's very disturbing seeing Shepard come to physically resemble his enemies. 

Modifié par Eryri, 29 juillet 2012 - 01:53 .

[shepdog77]

RenegonSQ wrote...

IT is real

ROFLMAO

[Sir MOI]

I know you'd like to think destroy is the only solution... but it's not and in fact, it is the worst of the 3. Unless you like genocides...

[iamweaver]

Flog61 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

I know you'd like to think destroy is the only solution... but it's not and in fact, it is the worst of the 3. Unless you like genocides...

I don't like genocides, I just hate crimes against nature more

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

[Calibrations Expert]

What? TIM's eyes are a result of eye implants not indoctrination.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Calibrations Expert wrote...

What? TIM's eyes are a result of eye implants not indoctrination.

Nope its a result of indoctrination. His eyes became so after he came into contact with the Arca Monolith, the same thing that indoctrinated Saren if I'm not wrong.

Regardless, I don't think there is an ending DLC coming, these were probably meant as indoctrination signs, as are the rest of the clues ITers uncovered; they were meant to hint towards an indoctrination endgame, but as the rEApers zerg rushed them, they gave us the endings we have and left the clues in there to fuel spekulashons!

Modifié par pirate1802, 29 juillet 2012 - 02:44 .

[iamweaver]

pirate1802 wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

What? TIM's eyes are a result of eye implants not indoctrination.

Nope its a result of indoctrination. His eyes became so after he came into contact with the Arca Monolith, the same thing that indoctrinated Saren if I'm not wrong.

Regardless, I don't think there is an ending DLC coming, these were probably meant as indoctrination signs, as are the rest of the clues ITers uncovered; they were meant to hint towards an indoctrination endgame, but as the rEApers zerg rushed them, they gave us the endings we have and left the clues in there to fuel spekulashons!

While I'm sure that's what's written, it doesn't actually make sense.  How did becoming indoctrinated add three glowing dots to his artificial eyes?  And why don't all indoctrinated people have them - is it that only plot-relevant characters get glowing eyes, unless they are Asari?

I guess the argument being used by the OP is, "All people with three dots in their eyes are indoctrinated" is true, but "All indoctrinated people have three glowing dots in their eyes" is not. 

Except unless this is lore somewhere, it's not necessarily true, either.  THe only thing that we know is "some indoctrinated people have glowing dots", which means that it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of indoctrination.

[Jadebaby]

Sir MOI wrote...

I know you'd like to think destroy is the only solution... but it's not and in fact, it is the worst of the 3. Unless you like genocides...

I refused.

[Jadebaby]

iamweaver wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

Sir MOI wrote...

I know you'd like to think destroy is the only solution... but it's not and in fact, it is the worst of the 3. Unless you like genocides...

I don't like genocides, I just hate crimes against nature more

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

lol nonsense, the fact that nature no longer can evolve according to life and fate, and is forever altered by a living beings interaction. It is the most unnatural way to cause a Utopia by changing everyone against their will. Also that is how it differs from any of us altering our bodies with technology. We have the choice, the galaxy in Synthesis doesn't. Don't like it, stiff, it's what the 'hero' wanted...

Pffft.

[DirtyPhoenix]

iamweaver wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Calibrations Expert wrote...

What? TIM's eyes are a result of eye implants not indoctrination.

Nope its a result of indoctrination. His eyes became so after he came into contact with the Arca Monolith, the same thing that indoctrinated Saren if I'm not wrong.

Regardless, I don't think there is an ending DLC coming, these were probably meant as indoctrination signs, as are the rest of the clues ITers uncovered; they were meant to hint towards an indoctrination endgame, but as the rEApers zerg rushed them, they gave us the endings we have and left the clues in there to fuel spekulashons!

While I'm sure that's what's written, it doesn't actually make sense.  How did becoming indoctrinated add three glowing dots to his artificial eyes?  And why don't all indoctrinated people have them - is it that only plot-relevant characters get glowing eyes, unless they are Asari?

I guess the argument being used by the OP is, "All people with three dots in their eyes are indoctrinated" is true, but "All indoctrinated people have three glowing dots in their eyes" is not. 

Except unless this is lore somewhere, it's not necessarily true, either.  THe only thing that we know is "some indoctrinated people have glowing dots", which means that it is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition of indoctrination.

Well as the story goes, TIM and Saren had secondary exposure to the artifact, and were the only people to have done so. They touched or were touched by those who were in direct contact with the thing. Those who were in direct contact got glowing blue stuff all over their bodies, including eyes.

And I know what you are talking about, its like all apples are fruits but all fruits aren't apples, right?

[DirtyPhoenix]

Jade8aby88 wrote...
 Don't like it, stiff, it's what the 'hero' wanted...

Pffft.

Same thing can be said for refusal no? We all die now because our hero was nosey about what to pick. I'm not sure what the galaxy wants, but dying is certainly not among them.

[Conniving_Eagle]

Sir MOI wrote...

I know you'd like to think destroy is the only solution... but it's not and in fact, it is the worst of the 3. Unless you like genocides...

What? Please elaborate. None of the choices are good that's for sure, they all conform to the Catalyst's logic.

Destroy annihilates the Reapers, which is what Shepard set out to do from the start.

Synthesis is evil in so many ways.

Control is scary.

Refuse is a waste if the next cycle ends up using the Crucible anyway.

[Jadebaby]

pirate1802 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...
 Don't like it, stiff, it's what the 'hero' wanted...

Pffft.

Same thing can be said for refusal no? We all die now because our hero was nosey about what to pick. I'm not sure what the galaxy wants, but dying is certainly not among them.

I didn't know I would die before I picked it, my only reason for picking it was because it was allowed and I never wanted to compromise with that Space Brat.. thing.

Holding out for Leviathan and Puzzle Theory! Yay! Puzzle Theory!

[Vigilant111]

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

[Krunjar]

The color of his eyes?

Really?

Come up with a better criticism. There could be any number of 10,000 plausible explanations of which perhaps indoctrination is there somewhere if that's your head cannon but honestly this criticism is weak.

Also all those people unwilling to act against nature. Go leave your homes throw off your clothes and possessions and live in a forest somewhere and catch and eat raw rabbits for your food. While your at it pin some passing women down and force yourself apon them. Because that's how humans act according to your vaunted "nature".

Modifié par Krunjar, 29 juillet 2012 - 03:45 .

[DirtyPhoenix]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Jade8aby88 wrote...
 Don't like it, stiff, it's what the 'hero' wanted...

Pffft.

Same thing can be said for refusal no? We all die now because our hero was nosey about what to pick. I'm not sure what the galaxy wants, but dying is certainly not among them.

I didn't know I would die before I picked it, my only reason for picking it was because it was allowed and I never wanted to compromise with that Space Brat.. thing.

Holding out for Leviathan and Puzzle Theory! Yay! Puzzle Theory!

Oh so that is the reasoning. Now I think I understand. But another doubt. Doesn't the starchild say clearly that you are going to lose if you don't use the crucible? Yes you don't have to believe him but doesn't other people say pretty much the same thing throughout the game?

Also, having chosen refusal once, you know what it does, why would your other Shepards pick it? Or do you not like to metagame?

[Taboo]

I wish I had drunk more last night and had a terrible hangover.

This isn't even criticism. It's just plain goofy.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Vigilant111 wrote...

Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Don't you do this in every option? How would you know destroy would do exactly what the catalyst says?
How would you know that control is not a means to control you?

[Vigilant111]

pirate1802 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Don't you do this in every option? How would you know destroy would do exactly what the catalyst says?
How would you know that control is not a means to control you?

By choosing destroy and control, u negate or at least hope to negate the Catalyst's statement and both of them are not the recommended options

[Taboo]

pirate1802 wrote...

Vigilant111 wrote...

Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Don't you do this in every option? How would you know destroy would do exactly what the catalyst says?
How would you know that control is not a means to control you?

That's actually my way of saying, I don't think you're entirely accurate. I accept responsibility for my actions and I'm going to stop you in the way I feel is best.

Which is why I choose Destroy. Not out of a personal vendetta, but out of hope that it will offer the best future free from control of the Reapers and my Shepard.

[iamweaver]

Vigilant111 wrote...

iamweaver wrote...

just to be combative... Is that like how homosexuality is a crime against nature?

Seriously, what makes altering the DNA pattern to allow it to interface with synthetics more or less against nature than any of the other ways sapients use technology to alter their bodies?

It's not as though it ends up turning us into mindless clones or anything (though to be fair, you don't know that before you zap yourself).  EC shots show each race continuing to be unique, and building on their previous works.

THere are arguments agains synthesis, sure - but "against nature" is, IMO, not a good one.

*Incredulous

I don't know what you are insinuating but homosexuality is not synthesis

Yes, altering bodies... but by wilful conduct with a specific purpose in mind, with effects foreseen and expected. Not just blindly following Catalyst's recommendations about some vague idea

Put it this way, it is against organic nature, as organics must be allowed to evolve naturally without artificial means, otherwise, u are just a synthetic with organic parts

I was just reacting to the whole overuse of the "crime against nature" line by many and in many RL situations.  I was sure that it would annoy some folks, but I was feeling combative when I posted it .

But the whole idea that "organics must be allowed to evolve naturally" is just bunk.  The moment that genetic alteration can fix hereditary diseases, I sure as heck hope that we don't refuse to use them, stating that they are "crimes against nature".

There's nothing magically pure or special about "natural" genetic mutation and drift.  It's just what happens to organics by the forces around it, without the application of intelligence.

[Sir MOI]

I don't give a dam about nature, I give a dam about intelligent life. If making evolution completely artificial makes us better and more happy then **** nature.
Or if you prefer, let's create a "new" nature, far better than the old one.
Open your mind, think outside your christian precepts.