80611 réponses à ce sujet

[spotlessvoid]

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Even if Harbinger doesn't have eyes, you'd think he would've gone, "Hmmm, now why the hell did Shepard just disappear into that Reaper over there? That's kinda... that's kinda strange....oh wait! He's back. Oh God, I haven't been firing my laser this entire time."

Lol. Harbinger is shooting everyone during the beam run via echlocation.

[plfranke]

Anyone have some good speculations? I'm tired of so much arguing lately on this forum, I just wanna sit back drink some water and listen to some good old fashioned speculations that are with or without merit.

[Davik Kang]

masster blaster wrote...

Hey did we ever go in depth about Chakwas and Adams debate? Or Donnaly and Adams debate? In ME3 we see our crew for the first time actually debate against one another. I don't mean like ME two were people are trying to kill eachother, but argue.

Adams is telling Donnaly that EDI is alive, but Donnaly is just saying EDI is just a ship.

I wish Bill casey was here. Bill if you are can you post these two conversations please.

Also on that notewhy did Bioware give us a choice to get EDI and Joker together. Well it's optional, but really why.

Mabye that's why the brat uses this against Shepard because deepending on how on if you got EDI together with Joker, the brat uses this against Shepard in Destroy. I mean the play is told to take care of EDI by Joker Shepard knows if EDI died then Joker would be a mess. Also why is Joker happy in Destroy if EDI is dead. Shouldn't joker be holding EDI's body and cry.

Unless she is not dead. That goes for the Geth.

If you notice everything in all the endings came true, however Destroy didn't. One nobody is starting the cycle all over again. Why didn't we see EDi, and the Geth die. That would have made the scene more dramatic.

TTG made a strong case that EDI and Geth DO NOT die.  I think he's confusing evidence with facts, but it certainly is possible to interpret that they survive.


As for the Chakwas Adams conversation, I really think it's one of the most important in the game.  I spent ages and ages thinking about who to side with during that conversation, and it had a big impact on my final choice in the Chamber.

[CmdrShep80]

Rifneno wrote...

CmdrShep80 wrote...

 Omg! I just made the connection about when we were talking about the Normandy picking up the squad and not being blasted by Harbinger who is right in front of the Normandy

Fridge logic says:

Why do the Reapers never just blast the Normandy out of the sky whenever they have the chance? Why take out two shuttles full of civilians when the most advanced warship in the Alliance fleet and the Reapers deadliest enemy is just hovering there?

 It's simple - they can't[/i]. The Normandy has a Reaper IFF installed, thanks to the events of Mass Effect 2. The Reapers simply don't target Shepard's ship because it doesn't register as an enemy. They couldn't destroy the Normandy even if they wanted to

As far as we know Reapers can't look outside a porthole because they are a mix of synthetic and organic and who wants to use organic eyes when you can use superior synthetic eyeballs

The IFF only works at very long range.  In visual range, they know very well what the Normandy is.

The key word is "visual". How do the Reapers see?  If it is only via synthetic sensors then even if the Normandy is right there they can't physically see the Normandy in the real world.  The Geh would be the same if you have a Geth version of the IFF they wouldn't be able to see you either. 
To explain ME2. If the IFF can be powered on and off then if its powered off that would explain the surprise attack being successful. Though for some reason there's no actual codec for the IFF. I wonder why?

[DoomsdayDevice]

abnocte wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

I only purchased the games and I came up with a pseudo IT interpretation on my own....

I don't think you need any of that stuff. It helps support IT, but it isn't necessary.

Well I did notice something was odd, but I didn't really put all the pieces together, partly because I played ME3 for the first time just a few days ago... and I had already a preconcieved idea about the ending due to all the uproar...

The real problem for me is that ( by the looks of it ) a large amount of players didn't get the ending ( assuming the IT is correct ), if Bioware had done a better job explaining what was going on ingame the number of people that reached the conclusion of everything being a mind-battle against indoctrination should have been larger...

I caught on to it on my first playthrough.

The first thing I noticed was the dreamy quality of the sequence after Harbinger's blast. To be honest, I thought I had died and was just looking at a glorified game over screen. I was getting ready to load a savegame because I thought I should have dodged the laser. (Note, this was pre-EC, so there was no scripted cutscene event leading up to the blast, it happened more or less in the middle of your run.)

Then I thought things were just this dreamy because Shepard was severely wounded. Okay.

The next thing I thought was weird was the inky black borders on the edges of the screen and the Reaperish rattle (which is actually a Reaper horn sound if you play it at double speed - see signature). I didn't associate those effects with TIM at all, and I honestly thought at that point that there was a Reaper somewhere in the vicinity that was trying to indoctrinate me. Then TIM died and everything seemed back to normal. I honestly thought that had been the entire indoctrination attempt, and wasn't really impressed.

Note: I didn't actually for one second think I wasn't really on the Citadel. I was taking my surroundings at face value.

Then I met the "catalyst". The fact that he looked exactly like that kid back on Earth, the kid from my dreams, made alarm bells go off for me all over the place. Then there was the fact that he was referring to the Reapers as "us" and "we", and his explanation of harvesting organics to save organics didn't make sense at all to me.

Then on top of that, he goes ahead and asks me if I think I can control the Reapers. I honestly couldn't believe my eyes and ears when Shepard stood like she was stoned out of her mind and saying things like  "so the illusive man was right after all...", "... but I can?" and "... but the Reapers will obey me?". I.just.could.not.believe.it. I had just spent five minutes trying to tell the Illusive Man that he was indoctrinated for thinking he could control the Reapers, and this kid tells me - I- can? I just couldn't bring myself to believe that could be true. Besides, Shepard just told me that it is power too big to be wielded by us, too dangerous, too much of a gamble, humanity's existence was at risk.

Then synthesis just sounded like too good to be true. I didn't really make the Saren connection immediately (that thought came two hours after I finished the game). I thought it sounded ridiculous, and that machines don't even have DNA. And I just didn't agree with the catalyst in general because my Shepard had made peace between Geth and Quarians, and I couldn't even bring it up in the conversation.

So I went for destroy, because I didn't trust anything about the other two options. I felt like I was being tricked.

So, on my way to destroy the next thing that confused the hell out of me was the fact that destroy was the thing that was red, and control (which I recognized by the shape of the thing -you know, the moment when you see TIM taking the controls-) was blue. I was completely confused. I had expected the thing that the Illusive Man wanted to be renegade, and I had expected destroy to be paragon, like it was when destroying the collector base, and because Anderson told me to destroy the Reapers. I stood there for a second or two, but really couldn't bring myself to go for any of the other options and went to destroy, reluctantly, because I was playing my canon 100% paragon Shepard who had never so much as thought about using a renegade interrupt or dialogue option. However, when I started shooting at the damn thing, it felt so good.

So yeah, I didn't immediately realize the part with the kid was actually an indoctrination attempt (I though that had happened before, when speaking to TIM), because I expected to lose control over Shepard when being indoctrinated. (Don't ask me why). I did feel like being tricked and I did feel like the boy was in fact a Reaper who just appeared to me as a boy.

So 2 hours later, when speaking to my friend, I made the Saren connection with synthesis, and realized both control and synthesis had to be indoctrinated options.

And then I saw the breath scene (didn't get it in my first time, because I hadn't done any multiplayer), and then I realized I may never have even left Earth.

Mind was completely blown.

So no, I don't have any of the comics or novels, I just played the three games, and no, I hadn't even heard of the Indoctrination Theory, and yet I figured it out completely in the timespan of about an hour or two.

Of course I didn't notice the many instances of foreshadowing, hints and other subliminal stuff in the game. That only came on my second playthrough, which was a complete feast with IT glasses on.

Opening scene of the game:

We see (and hear!) an alliance fighter, hey it looks weird, hey it's just a toy, of hey, the boy is controlling it!

Symbolism:

1. It's an illusion!
2. The boy is in control!
3. Things are not what they seem when this boy is around!

****ing BRILLIANT.

I don't know why people still have doubts.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 09 novembre 2012 - 03:26 .

[plfranke]

If the IFF were really that effective, why wouldn't the Alliance's plan have been to fly hammer directly to the beam using the Normandy?

[demersel]

plfranke wrote...

Anyone have some good speculations? I'm tired of so much arguing lately on this forum, I just wanna sit back drink some water and listen to some good old fashioned speculations that are with or without merit.

Opening shots are very important in movies - the first thing you see always sets the tone and context for the entire story you're about to see. 

Lets  approach this from the end to beginning (a common technique to sort thing out in litaterature and lynguistics) - 
So what is the first thing we see in ME3? The ship which turnes out to be a toy in the hands of a child on earth, which shepard observes. Weird choice for a story about the all out galaxy war against the most terrible thing in existense, don't you think? But is it relevant ot further plot, story wise and thematically? Is that particular child important? You bet.

Thought really that is not the thing ME3 starts. ME3 starts with soldiers on a space station monitoring the reaper invasion. With voice over of Hackett and Anderson. 

In that sense ME3 has two beginnings.  (some times things have mutliple endings, like Return of the king, so why not beginnings?)

[Davik Kang]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

abnocte wrote...

Well I did notice something was odd, but I didn't really put all the pieces together, partly because I played ME3 for the first time just a few days ago... and I had already a preconcieved idea about the ending due to all the uproar...

The real problem for me is that ( by the looks of it ) a large amount of players didn't get the ending ( assuming the IT is correct ), if Bioware had done a better job explaining what was going on ingame the number of people that reached the conclusion of everything being a mind-battle against indoctrination should have been larger...

*snip*

To add to what DD said, if they had 'explained it better', it would have been too obvious and no-one would've been indoctrinated, or very few.  It would've taken only the subtlest extra hint to ruin the whole thing.

I'm replaying ME1, and the way Liara talks about 'knowing she's right', but having to piece together all the evidence about the Protheans before she can convince everybody, really reminds me of this.  They made it so that it really takes a lot of dedicated hours to fully explain the ending.  It was an amazing achievement imo, yet another reason why I think it was so good - genuinely the best videogame ending ever, and worthy of praise beyond just that.

Modifié par Davik Kang, 09 novembre 2012 - 03:27 .

[demersel]

spotlessvoid wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Even if Harbinger doesn't have eyes, you'd think he would've gone, "Hmmm, now why the hell did Shepard just disappear into that Reaper over there? That's kinda... that's kinda strange....oh wait! He's back. Oh God, I haven't been firing my laser this entire time."

Lol. Harbinger is shooting everyone during the beam run via echlocation.

- OH!! So you decided to rush the beam un masse? Curse you! You found out my only weakness! I'm blind! But i still can hear you!  I quess i'll just shoot at random! Oh wait, what was that? You're calling the normandy for pick up?? HAHA! Flee, you cowards! I'm invincible!! Damn it, i cant hear all your touchy stuff you say to each other when saying good buy,, i'll have to stop shooting to listen in.... Well that was heart worming, well anyway, where was i? Oh'yes! Die! Die! Die! Die! DIE!!!!

[CmdrShep80]

Was thinking of color blindness when we were just talking about colors of the end sequence:

"Designers should also note that red-blue and yellow-blue color combinations are generally safe. So instead of the ever popular "red means bad and green means good" system, using these combinations can lead to a much higher ability to use color coding effectively"

Did BioWare intentionally choose to avoid a popular and well known concept with colors we use in our daily lives? We all know the answer. We see a red traffic light, we see red danger sign. We see green emergency exit sign, we see green exit sign, we see red closed sign, we see red do not enter sign, we see green enter sign, we see red stop sign. Then we play ME 3 and see red destroy, green synthesis, and blue control...

[spotlessvoid]

plfranke wrote...

If the IFF were really that effective, why wouldn't the Alliance's plan have been to fly hammer directly to the beam using the Normandy?

You know. Gunny's Alive Theory

[demersel]

ME2 however opens up with a shat of the plasma of the sun. Two shots. Only the third one is the shoot of TIM's office, with him and miranda inside, debating the fate of the galaxy. That is the first opening. The second opening is normandy getting blown up and Shepard getting spaced. Both are unskippable. Important? yes. Relevant to the overall ME plot? You bet. But to what degree?

ME1 has the same structure.
first opening - Shepard overlooking earth, with vith voice over of two voices debating (same as ME2 and ME3, but ME2 is special in a sense that we can actually se those who do the talking, why is that? They could have made that entire scene with the VO over the shot's of the plasma of the sun would have worked great)
Second opening - normandy making a jump, and shepard making his way to the bridge.


All those openings give us the most crucial info about the games we're about to play and the universe we're in, and how thing work. And sometimes they show us things that we can't really tell what it is at first but it turnes out to be important, and we can understand it better with additional contex that we get further down the road.

[demersel]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Was thinking of color blindness when we were just talking about colors of the end sequence:

"Designers should also note that red-blue and yellow-blue color combinations are generally safe. So instead of the ever popular "red means bad and green means good" system, using these combinations can lead to a much higher ability to use color coding effectively"

Did BioWare intentionally choose to avoid a popular and well known concept with colors we use in our daily lives? We all know the answer. We see a red traffic light, we see red danger sign. We see green emergency exit sign, we see green exit sign, we see red closed sign, we see red do not enter sign, we see green enter sign, we see red stop sign. Then we play ME 3 and see red destroy, green synthesis, and blue control...

Blue is used for giving information and directions. 

[CmdrShep80]

demersel wrote...

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Was thinking of color blindness when we were just talking about colors of the end sequence:

"Designers should also note that red-blue and yellow-blue color combinations are generally safe. So instead of the ever popular "red means bad and green means good" system, using these combinations can lead to a much higher ability to use color coding effectively"

Did BioWare intentionally choose to avoid a popular and well known concept with colors we use in our daily lives? We all know the answer. We see a red traffic light, we see red danger sign. We see green emergency exit sign, we see green exit sign, we see red closed sign, we see red do not enter sign, we see green enter sign, we see red stop sign. Then we play ME 3 and see red destroy, green synthesis, and blue control...

Blue is used for giving information and directions. 

so going by that convention of blue-red; green/red; and blue/yellow. What do they mean individually and what happens to what they mean when you mix them by 3's, blue green red

[CmdrShep80]

We were on the system that red was renegade and blue was paragon. By the end we're confused by the colors because now red is supposed to be renegade and every day we would still use it that way. Yet red to destroy is a bit strange since it conveys the message dont destroy. We're trying to make paragon choices but then we're confronted by a paragon choice of become a reaper. Well being a reaper is bad but blue is good and red over there means stop don't destroy. Then we get confronted with a green option. Well green always means go and good. So then we just go and jump the cliff.

If you had a road with a green light going toward a hill where you can't see over the edge to see if the other side drops off or not, a red light to the right toward a road into the middle of a mountain valley you can't see beyond the curve, and a blue light to the left where you can see the road pretty clearly. Which way do you go?

Mixed messages don't help a choice that's logic based

[demersel]

DD but we really should look more closely into ME2 and ME1 to see if there is also something that we first missed in sense of symbolism. ME3 in that case is pretty straight forward really.

ME1 - we get introduced to concept that there are people deciding the fate of the humanity at least, shepard is chosen, Mass Relay is introduced and shown in action, Shepard is introduced vie heroic walk.

ME2 - We get to see people debating how to get about deciding the fate of the galaxy, And this time we SEE those people. But the first shot of that scene is of the plasma of the sun.
And the way Miranda and Illusive man talk about humanity really gives me the impression that at least illusive man does not consider himself part of humanity.
We also see normandy ambushed (on a ghost run mission that the COUNCIL sent them = we see Miranda and Illusive man very disspleased about that fact) and normandy destroyed, shepard getting spaced. Then the lazarus project stuff (the third opening).

There is also the matter of the "press start" -
ME1 - planets
ME2 the view from abourd a derelict reaper.
ME3 the veiw over Earth with debrees reentering...

Why is derelict reaper is so important? And yet is given so little attention? Why does ME2 has two exposition shots of Sun's plasma? (one would have been enough)
Why break the established pattern of a voice over and insted directly show the conversation? (again it would have been just as awesome to listen to that entire conversation while looking just at sun's plasma - we would have been really intrigued by what is happenning and who is talking, and then, we would see miranda in the lazarus scenes and recognized her voice, and then after the firt mission we would have seen the Illusive man and his office -and pieced it all together - most of the thing is unskipppable anyway, and it would have made more awesome the reveal of his office in our first conversation fith him, so again why break the pattern and spend more resources?)

[CmdrShep80]

I guess what I'm trying to say is BioWare did a nice job of using colors to mess with our congenitive thinking. Particularly when synthesis has only one ending option, control has 2, yet destroy has 2 (not counting the breath scene since we wouldn't know that destroy had a 3rd ending when Synthesis pops up  which leads to breath scene going into the end the first time and the strategy guide doesn't print the breath scene at all)

So achieving synthesis on a high EMS (after knowing about 2 control endings {Shepard is Reaperized both times} and 2 destroy endings {Earth destroyed and Shepard perceived dies, Earth saved but everything destroyed}) we then go oh. That must be the right one cause it wasn't there on lower EMS again not realizing there could be a better destroy option. remember green is supposed to be good in the real world not red. 

Modifié par CmdrShep80, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:04 .

[demersel]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

so going by that convention of blue-red; green/red; and blue/yellow. What do they mean individually and what happens to what they mean when you mix them by 3's, blue green red

If you mix all three together - you get white - nothing or everything, depending on your point of view. (physically speaking white is the absence of of colour - everything gets reflected right back at you. 


Which is incidentally the colour of the transition light. 


Aslo this - only by mixing the layers pf colour you get the true picture. That is the way digital image capture matrix work. And not only digital. Technicolour technology also used this. 


But in case of ME3 there is a catch. 

Control ending has a blue filter overlay. 
Synthesys ending has green filter overlay.
Destroy ending DOES NOT have a red filter overlay - it is just in true colour. 

Modifié par demersel, 09 novembre 2012 - 04:01 .

[CmdrShep80]

^. I didn't notice the filter overlay. I'll have to look again. I edited my last post. Added a bit to it

[demersel]

 All three openings:

 Mass Effect 1
 Mass Effect 2
 Mass Effect 3


Note how in ME1 the three people who make the decision are Anderson, Udina and Hackett. Yet in ME3 it is only Hackett and Anderson, and we get to kill Udina over the course of the game.

[CmdrShep80]

Hmm I wonder what would happen if we ran all 3 endings simultaneously on the same screen/wall. Would we get something new that we can't see as they are now with the filer overlays?

[demersel]

Also why does joker say Arcturus prime relay, when we are clerly in Sol? I thought the Sol relay had a different name?

[demersel]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Hmm I wonder what would happen if we ran all 3 endings simultaneously on the same screen/wall. Would we get something new that we can't see as they are now with the filer overlays?

here - www.youtube.com/watch
The filter overlay thing is noticable in the normandy interior scenes.,

[paxxton]

demersel wrote...

Also why does joker say Arcturus prime relay, when we are clerly in Sol? I thought the Sol relay had a different name?

when does he say that?

[demersel]

Check out the noises in the ME2 opening on the shots of sun's plasma - it is as though the thing lives and breathes, and those noises are early familiar.