80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

RavenEyry wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Hmm, that could explain the Harvesters too. They were supposed to be in ME1, but were cut, along with their Codex entry, that talked about them being genetically engineered. Here (Bottom of page).

It would make more sense for them to be genetically engineered by reapers (through collectors perhaps) than naturally evolving to carry around minions which may not even be from the same home world.

Hmm, that's pretty interesting. I think if they'd had them in ME1, with the codex, it could be something you could put together in hindsight, like we just did. It's not we every actually saw what the Collectors did before abducting all those Colonists, we just know it was genetic engineering type stuff.

[Restrider]

About refuse:
I don't know who, but some refer to refuse to be illogical for the reason that the timecapsules are found, although Liara (and everyone else) presumably died on Earth or the Sol system.I always thought that it was obvious that Liara, after showing you the timecapsule, was sending her agents to several planets to plant them, regardless of the outcome of the war. In my view, she did that before going to the Sol system. If the cycle was successful, she had all the time of her life to remove those capsules. If they failed, the capsules were already distributed and good to go.

A good comparison would be a soldier, who knows that he is going to be sent to a dangerous frontline in the next week. Naturally, he/she would make his/her last will before engaging into battle, since you are able to die during that.

And here another crazy thought about refuse:
After the refuse speech or shooting Starbrat, the beam and the other choices power down, and Shepard is left alone on that platform. Then you see a generic planet, and the VI of Liara explaining what (presumably) happened.
As I already showed above, the capsules were most likely distributed before the battle of Earth.
Now, I know this relates more to Puzzle Theory, but imagine if with high enough EMS you see (living) Liara walking into that room with the VI as if she wanted to remove these capsules that are of no use anymore, since the united galaxy was able to successfully beat the reapers?
I know that the random noise of the hologram kind of suggests that a big amount of time has passed, but this has been just a speculation of how you could implement a successful refuse later.

[BleedingUranium]

byne wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Hmm, that could explain the Harvesters too. They were supposed to be in ME1, but were cut, along with their Codex entry, that talked about them being genetically engineered. Here (Bottom of page).

Dont be silly. We cant believe that information! It was taken directly from the game, and we know that makes it non-canon!

They're worse than your average literalist. The entire site is like that, and that Lancer guy is the main admin.

Twitter and forum posts by devs don't count either, because you "can't verify it's really them".

They only added that the Argus is a variant of the Mattock because one of the devs said so. Visual comparisions are not allowed because they're "subjective".

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 23 septembre 2012 - 04:48 .

[spotlessvoid]

byne wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Hmm, that could explain the Harvesters too. They were supposed to be in ME1, but were cut, along with their Codex entry, that talked about them being genetically engineered. Here (Bottom of page).

Dont be silly. We cant believe that information! It was taken directly from the game, and we know that makes it non-canon!

Re-used assets, clearly

[D.Sharrah]

BleedingUranium wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

But why not Reaperfie the Klixen also, then?

I remember there being a great thread posted by someone that discussed this in more detail...basically the premise was save the Rachni Queen and you have the same "reaperized forces in ME 3 as now", but if you killed the Queen you would have to face "reaperized Klixen"...sounded pretty reasonable to me.

If that was ever planned, it was most likely cut due to time. Bioware did say that they wanted, if you'd killed the Rachni, to have them not appear at all, and have a completely different alternate mission to Grunt's as well.

And to be honest with you I rather face Ravagers than whatever the Reapers would have turned Klixen into...hated those things in ME 2.

But could also be interesting if they do ever decide to expand the Reaper forces that we have to face...

[RavenEyry]

Why can't all wikis be like the transformers wiki?

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

About refuse:
I don't know who, but some refer to refuse to be illogical for the reason that the timecapsules are found, although Liara (and everyone else) presumably died on Earth or the Sol system.I always thought that it was obvious that Liara, after showing you the timecapsule, was sending her agents to several planets to plant them, regardless of the outcome of the war. In my view, she did that before going to the Sol system. If the cycle was successful, she had all the time of her life to remove those capsules. If they failed, the capsules were already distributed and good to go.

A good comparison would be a soldier, who knows that he is going to be sent to a dangerous frontline in the next week. Naturally, he/she would make his/her last will before engaging into battle, since you are able to die during that.

And here another crazy thought about refuse:
After the refuse speech or shooting Starbrat, the beam and the other choices power down, and Shepard is left alone on that platform. Then you see a generic planet, and the VI of Liara explaining what (presumably) happened.
As I already showed above, the capsules were most likely distributed before the battle of Earth.
Now, I know this relates more to Puzzle Theory, but imagine if with high enough EMS you see (living) Liara walking into that room with the VI as if she wanted to remove these capsules that are of no use anymore, since the united galaxy was able to successfully beat the reapers?
I know that the random noise of the hologram kind of suggests that a big amount of time has passed, but this has been just a speculation of how you could implement a successful refuse later.

The problem is she had to have done it before coming to Earth for one reason, she can die in the beam run. This presents a problem: if she does die, her hologram still informs people that the Crucible "didn't work"

RavenEyry wrote...

Why can't all wikis be like the transformers wiki?

Or the Halo wiki.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 23 septembre 2012 - 04:52 .

[spotlessvoid]

One thing that could potentially be in ME4 is finding out that a lot of people throughout the galaxy are indoctrinated. If the fleets are greatly weakened by whatever way the Reapers are beaten/forced to retreat, the combination of Reaper indoctrinated vs Leviathan indoctrinated forces against each other and the galaxy could throw everything into chaos. And if the Reapers are only forced to retreat after suffering heavy losses, it could present a scenario where if one faction is allowed to control the head honchos get directly involved. Could make for awesome game play. Not knowing who to trust, having to balance going at both factions not knowing if the allies you're helping are actually indoctrinated....

[Restrider]

BleedingUranium wrote...


The problem is she had to have done it before coming to Earth for one reason, she can die in the beam run. This presents a problem: if she does die, her hologram still informs people that the Crucible "didn't work"

I don't understand why that is a problem?
It's like a video message of some dude saying: "If you see this, I probably have been butchered by some crazy maniac!"

She distributed the capsules with the message "We failed, the Crucible did not work!".
You know why? Because if it did work, there would've been someone, who could've removed those capsules. It is literally a last video message as I pointed out above. At least I would do it this way. A safety measure. 

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...


The problem is she had to have done it before coming to Earth for one reason, she can die in the beam run. This presents a problem: if she does die, her hologram still informs people that the Crucible "didn't work"

I don't understand why that is a problem?
It's like a video message of some dude saying: "If you see this, I probably have been butchered by some crazy maniac!"

She distributed the capsules with the message "We failed, the Crucible did not work!".
You know why? Because if it did work, there would've been someone, who could've removed those capsules. It is literally a last video message as I pointed out above. At least I would do it this way. A safety measure. 

But why specifically say we lost because the Crucible didn't work? That implies it did not activate or similar. Not that is was destroyed by the Reapers, or that we didn't have time to use it. Specifically that it didn't work. It's just an odd thing to say to the next cycle, expecially when you're also giving them the plans for it!

[Restrider]

spotlessvoid wrote...

One thing that could potentially be in ME4 is finding out that a lot of people throughout the galaxy are indoctrinated. If the fleets are greatly weakened by whatever way the Reapers are beaten/forced to retreat, the combination of Reaper indoctrinated vs Leviathan indoctrinated forces against each other and the galaxy could throw everything into chaos. And if the Reapers are only forced to retreat after suffering heavy losses, it could present a scenario where if one faction is allowed to control the head honchos get directly involved. Could make for awesome game play. Not knowing who to trust, having to balance going at both factions not knowing if the allies you're helping are actually indoctrinated....

This sounds really interesting. I would like to play some game that really stresses on paranoia.
In all ME games it was kind of clear who was evil/hostile and who was your ally. Ignoring IT, I kind of missed some kind of paranoia in the series.
Combine the unkown align of your supposed allies with the game mechanic BW tried to implement that could indoctrinate the player. I'd hope to see that the player would not be able to easily verifiy, if someone else or he himself was indoctrinated (only through hints).

To get what I mean, does someone of you know the game "Mafia" (I am not referring to the Shooter, but to the forum/party game).

[jojon2se]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
...
It is hammered into your head repeatedly taht this war cannot be won without losses, without sacrifice.
...

BleedingUranium wrote:
...
But destroy plays to the themes throughout the series, "Victory through sacrifice" and "The right choice is usually not the easy one"
...

I have seen numerous interpretations of what the themes of the series are (...and you could probably make a case for anything, provided you are a gifted enough debater). Many of them seem mutually exclusive, but they do not have to be.

NPCs keep telling you that deliberate sacrifices have to be made and there is, as always, a kernel of truth to it, but so much is it rammed down your throat, in fact, that some of us will react against it and even wonder whether we are supposed to.

One of the themes I personally see, is that of Shepard defying the way in which others resign themselves to the "inevitable" and finding another solution, against all odds.

Refuse breaks indoctrination in that you hold on to your values, without letting perceived necessity twist any of them into a perversion of their cores and that way aligning them with reaper philosphies.
This is true even if Shepard buys into the implanted illusion of being there and talking to the kid and even if the cinematic presentation shows her/him standing there looking like (s)he has given up.
Thing is; Shepard HAS taken action, as far as I am concerned, by making an active choice - her/his own choice -- more so than if allowing her/himself being pushed into one.

Modifié par jojon2se, 23 septembre 2012 - 05:12 .

[Restrider]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Restrider wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...


The problem is she had to have done it before coming to Earth for one reason, she can die in the beam run. This presents a problem: if she does die, her hologram still informs people that the Crucible "didn't work"

I don't understand why that is a problem?
It's like a video message of some dude saying: "If you see this, I probably have been butchered by some crazy maniac!"

She distributed the capsules with the message "We failed, the Crucible did not work!".
You know why? Because if it did work, there would've been someone, who could've removed those capsules. It is literally a last video message as I pointed out above. At least I would do it this way. A safety measure. 

But why specifically say we lost because the Crucible didn't work? That implies it did not activate or similar. Not that is was destroyed by the Reapers, or that we didn't have time to use it. Specifically that it didn't work. It's just an odd thing to say to the next cycle, expecially when you're also giving them the plans for it!

Yes, I agree on that. Though interpreted her speech more in the terms of: "The plan to use the Crucible did not work!"
But I see your point.

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Restrider wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...


The problem is she had to have done it before coming to Earth for one reason, she can die in the beam run. This presents a problem: if she does die, her hologram still informs people that the Crucible "didn't work"

I don't understand why that is a problem?
It's like a video message of some dude saying: "If you see this, I probably have been butchered by some crazy maniac!"

She distributed the capsules with the message "We failed, the Crucible did not work!".
You know why? Because if it did work, there would've been someone, who could've removed those capsules. It is literally a last video message as I pointed out above. At least I would do it this way. A safety measure. 

But why specifically say we lost because the Crucible didn't work? That implies it did not activate or similar. Not that is was destroyed by the Reapers, or that we didn't have time to use it. Specifically that it didn't work. It's just an odd thing to say to the next cycle, expecially when you're also giving them the plans for it!

Yes, I agree on that. Though interpreted her speech more in the terms of: "The plan to use the Crucible did not work!"
But I see your point.

It's a bit of a technicality, since it's a low EMS thing. Like how, you can only have Destroy, but the kid will get mad at you for picking Refuse  Same with only Control

[Restrider]

jojon2se wrote...

I have seen numerous interpretations of what the themes of the series are (...and you could probably make a case for anything, provided you are a gifted enough debater). Many of them seem mutually exclusive, but they do not have to be.

NPCs keep telling you that deliberate sacrifices have to be made and there is, as always, a core of truth to it, but so much is it rammed down your throat, in fact, that some of us will react against it and even wonder whether we are supposed to.

One of the themes I personally see, is that of Shepard defying the way in which others resign themselves to the "inevitable" and finding another solution, against all odds.

Refuse breaks indoctrination in that you hold on to your values, without letting perceived necessity twist any of them into a perversion of their cores and that way aligning them with reaper philosphies.
This is true even if Shepard buys into the implanted illusion of being there and talking to the kid and even if the cinematic presentation shows her/him standing there looking like (s)he has given up.
Thing is; Shepard HAS taken action, as far as I am concerned, by making an active choice -- more so than if allowing her/himself being pushed into one.

Exactly this!
I played ME3 after the EC and at my first playthrough I went with refuse, because the choices offered did not please me (and I did only know that the endings were bad, nothing specific). The refuse speech alone lets this choice stand out.
And it ties in with Shepard's deeds.
He refused to believe that Saren was invincible.
He refused to believe that the passage through the Omega-4 relay was a one way ticket.
He refused to believe that a peace between krogans and turians were impossible (for some playthroughs).
He refused to believe that peace between geth and quarians were impossible (for some playthroughs).
A successful refuse would fit perfectly in this line.

[BleedingUranium]

jojon2se wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
...
It is hammered into your head repeatedly taht this war cannot be won without losses, without sacrifice.
...

BleedingUranium wrote:
...
But destroy plays to the themes throughout the series, "Victory through sacrifice" and "The right choice is usually not the easy one"
...

I have seen numerous interpretations of what the themes of the series are (...and you could probably make a case for anything, provided you are a gifted enough debater). Many of them seem mutually exclusive, but they do not have to be.

NPCs keep telling you that deliberate sacrifices have to be made and there is, as always, a core of truth to it, but so much is it rammed down your throat, in fact, that some of us will react against it and even wonder whether we are supposed to.

One of the themes I personally see, is that of Shepard defying the way in which others resign themselves to the "inevitable" and finding another solution, against all odds.

Refuse breaks indoctrination in that you hold on to your values, without letting perceived necessity twist any of them into a perversion of their cores and that way aligning them with reaper philosphies.
This is true even if Shepard buys into the implanted illusion of being there and talking to the kid and even if the cinematic presentation shows her/him standing there looking like (s)he has given up.
Thing is; Shepard HAS taken action, as far as I am concerned, by making an active choice -- more so than if allowing her/himself being pushed into one.

Sure, Shepard makes the active choice to let everyone in the Galaxy die, including the Geth/EDI/other synthetics! Why then, is Refuse better?

Also, sure, some stuff is hammered into your head, and some of it you shouldn't listen to. When your squadmates are telling you stuff, that's when you should listen. When it comes to themes and such, squadmates are pretty much always right.

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

jojon2se wrote...

I have seen numerous interpretations of what the themes of the series are (...and you could probably make a case for anything, provided you are a gifted enough debater). Many of them seem mutually exclusive, but they do not have to be.

NPCs keep telling you that deliberate sacrifices have to be made and there is, as always, a core of truth to it, but so much is it rammed down your throat, in fact, that some of us will react against it and even wonder whether we are supposed to.

One of the themes I personally see, is that of Shepard defying the way in which others resign themselves to the "inevitable" and finding another solution, against all odds.

Refuse breaks indoctrination in that you hold on to your values, without letting perceived necessity twist any of them into a perversion of their cores and that way aligning them with reaper philosphies.
This is true even if Shepard buys into the implanted illusion of being there and talking to the kid and even if the cinematic presentation shows her/him standing there looking like (s)he has given up.
Thing is; Shepard HAS taken action, as far as I am concerned, by making an active choice -- more so than if allowing her/himself being pushed into one.

Exactly this!
I played ME3 after the EC and at my first playthrough I went with refuse, because the choices offered did not please me (and I did only know that the endings were bad, nothing specific). The refuse speech alone lets this choice stand out.
And it ties in with Shepard's deeds.
He refused to believe that Saren was invincible.
He refused to believe that the passage through the Omega-4 relay was a one way ticket.
He refused to believe that a peace between krogans and turians were impossible (for some playthroughs).
He refused to believe that peace between geth and quarians were impossible (for some playthroughs).
A successful refuse would fit perfectly in this line.

That's not really refuse in the same way, that all boils down to one thing: Shepard refuses to believe nothing is impossible.

By choosing refuse, what are you accomplishing over destroy? What are you doing that was thought to be impossible? Nothing.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 23 septembre 2012 - 05:17 .

[Restrider]

Yeah, I remember my first playthrough of ME2 as paragon. TIM convinced me to save the Collector Base and I was thinking :"Hell yeah! We'll use their tech against them!"
When I was on the Normandy again and I talked to my crewmates I was like :"Awe ****!"

[Restrider]

BleedingUranium wrote...

That's not really refuse in the same way, that all boils down to one thing: Shepard refuses to believe nothing is impossible.

By choosing refuse, what are you accomplishing over destroy? Nothing.

As it is right now, Destroy > Refuse.
But I hope that, if IT is true, Refuse is a viable ending... at least more than Control and Synthesis. 
A few pages ago I made a list of what could happen in an "post-decision" DLC.

[BleedingUranium]

Restrider wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

That's not really refuse in the same way, that all boils down to one thing: Shepard refuses to believe nothing is impossible.

By choosing refuse, what are you accomplishing over destroy? Nothing.

As it is right now, Destroy > Refuse.
But I hope that, if IT is true, Refuse is a viable ending... at least more than Control and Synthesis. 
A few pages ago I made a list of what could happen in an "post-decision" DLC.

Oh I agree refuse is much better that the other two IT-wise, as you don't get indoctrinated. I'm all for the Puzzle Theory, and if you have enough support you could pick Refuse but still wake up, though probably in worse shape than Destroy. The Rachni, Shiala and the Feros colonists, hell even the Geth could help you out of it. I think refuse has the potential to be a good ending, just isn't right now.

[spotlessvoid]

" This sounds really interesting. I would like to play some game that really stresses on paranoia."

That's what I like about it. Not knowing if the paragon decision isn't actually helping a faction. The right thing to do can be the wrong thing to do. You would have to pay really really close attention to try and see what paths you're being led down. You might have to temporarily allow one faction a victory to fight stop the other faction, but then have to deal with the consequence of that decision. There could even be a secret indoctrination meter

[jojon2se]

BleedingUranium wrote...
Sure, Shepard makes the active choice to let everyone in the Galaxy die, including the Geth/EDI/other synthetics! Why then, is Refuse better?
...

Am I talking with a literalist, all of a sudden?

The scene is metaphorical, remember?

...and even if it wasn't; You give everyone in the galaxy a chance to fight (and at the very least work to prepare the next cycle), on their own terms, as much as they can given the situation forced upon them by the Reapers (not Shepard).
The galaxy doesn't just end the second you refuse, even given the crippling losses the fleet is bound to suffer in any attempt to retreat -- the three colours are what offer the apparent insta-solutions.

[spotlessvoid]

Refuse could be where Shepard dies after beating indoctrination and if you have high enough ems you're assets could still achieve victory

[BleedingUranium]

jojon2se wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
Sure, Shepard makes the active choice to let everyone in the Galaxy die, including the Geth/EDI/other synthetics! Why then, is Refuse better?
...

Am I talking with a literalist, all of a sudden?

The scene is metaphorical, remember?

...and even if it wasn't; You give everyone in the galaxy a chance to fight (and at the very least work to prepare the next cycle), on their own terms, as much as they can given the situation forced upon them by the Reapers (not Shepard).
The galaxy doesn't just end the second you refuse, even given the crippling losses the fleet is bound to suffer in any attempt to retreat -- the three colours are what offer the apparent insta-solutions.

Sorry, I was trying to argue it in both IT and literal senses

I see refuse as potentially good, in the Puzzle Theory sense, but the main indicator in favour of Destroy is the breath scene. I won't be sold on Refuse unless it gets one too (or something like it).

[BleedingUranium]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Refuse could be where Shepard dies after beating indoctrination and if you have high enough ems you're assets could still achieve victory

That's what I'd like to see happen with it. High EMS with at least the Rachni, Shiala, the Geth, or Liara still alive. Or other people, those just seem the most fitting.