80611 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

munnellyladt wrote...

paxxton wrote...

munnellyladt wrote...

just thought of something about the ending choices.
If you go to one then walk back it's says "the crucible has been destroyed"which most of you already know.
But why does this happen?
Since he controls the reapers,he could order them to stay away from the crucible since his solution "won't work anymore"but instead he never tells them t stay away.
It's almost like he's forcing shep to pick a choice betwwen the three.

I have an opinion that this might be the pre-EC Refuse ending. Seriously. Shepard can't make up his mind and the Catalyst is a really impatient fellow.

Maybe shep is trolling him?

"They're (con)trolling you!"

[munnellyladt]

paxxton wrote...

munnellyladt wrote...

paxxton wrote...

munnellyladt wrote...

just thought of something about the ending choices.
If you go to one then walk back it's says "the crucible has been destroyed"which most of you already know.
But why does this happen?
Since he controls the reapers,he could order them to stay away from the crucible since his solution "won't work anymore"but instead he never tells them t stay away.
It's almost like he's forcing shep to pick a choice betwwen the three.

I have an opinion that this might be the pre-EC Refuse ending. Seriously. Shepard can't make up his mind and the Catalyst is a really impatient fellow.

Maybe shep is trolling him?

"They're (con)trolling you!"

lol

[paxxton]

Saturday...Sunday...the weekend...

[Restrider]

Well, in IT context it kind of could make sense.
By applying time constrains Starbinger increases the pressure on Shepard to make a choice and this could easily lead Shepard to make a wrong choice and succumb to indoctrination.
In a literal POV it could be explained that the Crucible is already damaged before it docks. Like a car on fire it could still be useful until the fire reaches the fuel tanks and explodes.

Still the indoctrination approach is more logical on this point than the literal approach, as in so many other aspects of the trilogy.

[Dwailing]

You know, when all this is over, I Need a Freaking Drink. Or at least, I would, if I was 21. Anyway, once this is all over with, I think I'm going to take a nice, long break from speculations, and play some ME3, safe in the knowledge that we were right.

[Davik Kang]

Could it not be just that the ReaperKid orders the Reapers to attack the Crucible, and if you spend too long thinking about it, they succeed before you can do anything?

[Dwailing]

Davik Kang wrote...

Could it not be just that the ReaperKid orders the Reapers to attack the Crucible, and if you spend too long thinking about it, they succeed before you can do anything?

But why would he not stop the Reapers from attacking the Crucible if Shepard using it to create a new solution was so important to him?

[paxxton]

Davik Kang wrote...

Could it not be just that the ReaperKid orders the Reapers to attack the Crucible, and if you spend too long thinking about it, they succeed before you can do anything?

No. Yes.

[paxxton]

Since the Starchild is an AI it might have a kind fof shackles that prevent him from changing his solution. In this interpretation the choice Shepard is about to make would represent the act of unshackling the Catalyst.

But the ending isn't really what it seems so that's not the real Intelligence, but Impostor Harby.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 octobre 2012 - 01:12 .

[NebuchadnezzaRT]

Davik Kang wrote...

Could it not be just that the ReaperKid orders the Reapers to attack the Crucible, and if you spend too long thinking about it, they succeed before you can do anything?

Why would he order them to  attack it if (literally) he wants Shepard to usher in a new future for synthetics and organics? (Synthesis)

Starbrat: You are the first organic to come this far.... The Crucible has creaed... new outcomes... You have hope...

Shepard: I.. don't know

Starbrat (inudible, directed to Reapers) Guys, hurry up! He's thinking about it. 

[Restrider]

As I said, in literal POV it would make sense, if the Crucible was already damaged before docking to the Citadel and showing the Catalyst the new possibilities. If you need too lonk, the Crucible would blow up, because the damage dealt before resulted in a chain reaction and booom.
Anything else would not really make any sense in a literal POV.

And again, in an indoctrination POV the stress resulting from the time constrains would actually benefit the Reapers, since people tend to make wrong choices, if under pressure.

@Dwailing
This is an interesting point. What would you do, when IT comes true?
I think I would look forward to a possible ME4 and open a fresh, cold bottle of beer to celebrate the day.

[Dwailing]

Restrider wrote...

As I said, in literal POV it would make sense, if the Crucible was already damaged before docking to the Citadel and showing the Catalyst the new possibilities. If you need too lonk, the Crucible would blow up, because the damage dealt before resulted in a chain reaction and booom.
Anything else would not really make any sense in a literal POV.

And again, in an indoctrination POV the stress resulting from the time constrains would actually benefit the Reapers, since people tend to make wrong choices, if under pressure.

@Dwailing
This is an interesting point. What would you do, when IT comes true?
I think I would look forward to a possible ME4 and open a fresh, cold bottle of beer to celebrate the day.

What I plan to do is take a nice, long break from thinking (About the endings, anyway. ), and play a lot of ME1-3.  I think, partially, my knowledge of the endings keeps me from enjoying ME as a series as much as I could.  However, once it's revealed that we are right, that problem will be gone. 

Modifié par Dwailing, 13 octobre 2012 - 01:19 .

[Restrider]

I am looking forward to play the whole trilogy (or maybe even tetralogy?) with all DLCs in a few years again, when I am not that aware of what will happen throughout the game and I am not aware of all the consequences of my choices.
On the other hand, I have a damn good memory.

[Dwailing]

Restrider wrote...

I am looking forward to play the whole trilogy (or maybe even tetralogy?) with all DLCs in a few years again, when I am not that aware of what will happen throughout the game and I am not aware of all the consequences of my choices.
On the other hand, I have a damn good memory.

I'll admit, knowing that everything carries over makes me kind of obsessive about getting every.  Single.  Conversation.  In.  The.  Game.  I'm just weird that way.  I miss making it up as I go along. 

[Davik Kang]

Dwailing wrote...

Davik Kang wrote...

Could it not be just that the ReaperKid orders the Reapers to attack the Crucible, and if you spend too long thinking about it, they succeed before you can do anything?

But why would he not stop the Reapers from attacking the Crucible if Shepard using it to create a new solution was so important to him?

Because it's not important to him.  He's just trying to indoctrinate Shepard.  Get Shepard on his side and it's a double victory, but if the Crucible fails, he and his Reaper buddies don't get wiped out.  The key thing is not getting wiped out.  Hence the prioroty is to destroy the Crucible, but if he can indoctrinate Shepard beforehand, even better.

NebuchadnezzaRT wrote...
Why would he order them to  attack it if (literally) he wants Shepard to usher in a new future for synthetics and organics? (Synthesis)

Starbrat: You are the first organic to come this far.... The Crucible has creaed... new outcomes... You have hope...

Shepard: I.. don't know

Starbrat (inudible, directed to Reapers) Guys, hurry up! He's thinking about it. 

Yeah exactly, like this.  The whole conversation could be seen as a stalling process while they rectify the monumental mistake of failing to stop the Alliance from docking the Crucible to the Citadel.  If Synthesis really can happen then it'd be great for Shepard to do it for them, but their #1 priority is not being wiped from the face of the galaxy.

[plfranke]

For that matter, it really makes you wonder how the crucible can be destroyed at all, once Shepard makes it to the decision chamber.

[Dwailing]

plfranke wrote...

For that matter, it really makes you wonder how the crucible can be destroyed at all, once Shepard makes it to the decision chamber.

Oh, that's simple.  I think it goes something like this:   OK, that was just footage from the movie Independence Day.  But the REAL Crucible destruction would look a lot like that. 

Edit: Points anyone who recognizes what I just referenced. 

Modifié par Dwailing, 13 octobre 2012 - 01:44 .

[Dwailing]

Hello? Anyone still here?

[Davik Kang]

Dwailing wrote...
Edit: Points anyone who recognizes what I just referenced. 

No matter how many such comments you make, you will never have any mojo.  You are just too evil 

[Dwailing]

Davik Kang wrote...

Dwailing wrote...
Edit: Points anyone who recognizes what I just referenced. 

No matter how many such comments you make, you will never have any mojo.  You are just too evil 

I'm hip... *Does Dr. Evil's weird dance* 

[inversevideo]

Lately, I really can't shake the feeling that the performance art piece, of which the devs speak, is that the player is the one who is indoctrinated at the end.

Starkid shoes up, demonstrates it pwns you, and proceeds to lay out your options.
We, the players choose one of the options presented, by our enemy, and 'see' (it's not Shepard seeing, she is dead or laying in rubble depending on our choice) happy shiny people who are doing well.

I find that whole sequence interesting. We are presented with a Hobson's choice.
We the player are force fed our lunch. At this point, Shepard is divorced from the player, either by death, or because she is taking a nap, and we the player are shown what plays out from our choice.

It feels like we the player have been indoctrinated.

Modifié par inversevideo, 13 octobre 2012 - 02:12 .

[Davik Kang]

inversevideo wrote...

Lately, I really can't shake the feeling that the performance art piece, of which the devs speak, is that the player is the one who is indoctrinated at the end.

Starkid shoes up, demonstrates it pwns you, and proceeds to lay out your options.
We, the players choose one of the options presented, by our enemy, and 'see' (it's not Shepard seeing, she is dead or laying in rubble depending on our choice) happy shiny people who are doing well.

I find that whole sequence interesting. We are presented with a Hobson's choice.
We the player are force fed our lunch. At this point, Shepard is divorced from the player, either by death, or because she is taking a nap, and we the player are shown what plays out from our choice.

It feels like we the player have been indoctrinated.

I agree that the player is cleverly subjected to indoctrination to make the sequence more immersive, but I don't think that the player is divorced from Shepard.  Shepard still has to choose, whether s/he's awake or not.

[paxxton]

I want to know what is the correlation between being religious and choosing a specific ME3 ending. You can vote here: http://social.biowar...66/polls/40322/. Thank you!

Modifié par paxxton, 13 octobre 2012 - 02:32 .

[inversevideo]

Davik Kang wrote...

inversevideo wrote...

Lately, I really can't shake the feeling that the performance art piece, of which the devs speak, is that the player is the one who is indoctrinated at the end.

Starkid shoes up, demonstrates it pwns you, and proceeds to lay out your options.
We, the players choose one of the options presented, by our enemy, and 'see' (it's not Shepard seeing, she is dead or laying in rubble depending on our choice) happy shiny people who are doing well.

I find that whole sequence interesting. We are presented with a Hobson's choice.
We the player are force fed our lunch. At this point, Shepard is divorced from the player, either by death, or because she is taking a nap, and we the player are shown what plays out from our choice.

It feels like we the player have been indoctrinated.

I agree that the player is cleverly subjected to indoctrination to make the sequence more immersive, but I don't think that the player is divorced from Shepard.  Shepard still has to choose, whether s/he's awake or not.

See, to me, that is the clever part, Shepard does not choose, we do. We always have.
The photons that make up the image of Shepard, the VA, none of them make a choice.
We can say Shepard would do this, or Shepard would do that. But it is artifice.
There is no Commander Shepard. There is only you, me, and everyone who is immersed in the interactive story.

You, me, whoever is 'the player', we are the one's who select which branches of the story to follow.
At the end of the day, it is I who has to choose genocide, dictatorship, or eugenics, or none of the above and be forced to witness extinction.

The choices are a test of the player, not Shepard, because all along, the player has been guided, manipulated and forced to make selections based on the story state. This is the nature of an interactive story.

At the end, the illusion, of you being Shepard, is stripped back, you are yourself, these are the choices.
What do you choose? Not Shepard, there never was a Shepard. Shepard does not 'see' the results of her actions, she is gone. Your choice killed her. She did as you bade her to do. You made the choice, and after her death, you see how that plays out.

Brilliant!

[DoomsdayDevice]

Wow, the Volus Adept is actually really great!

You can even play him on Platinum if you have the right gear.

Volus Adept on Platinum