80611 réponses à ce sujet

[BleedingUranium]

Eryri wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Eryri wrote...

#IcalledIT

The Adjutants will be revealed to be the remnants of either the Inusannon, or the "Intelligence's" original thralls, that it used to harvest the Leviathans.

Maybe, but we also know that when they infect someone that person turn into another Adjutant, so...

Oh yeah, forgot that.

Maybe that makes my "Intelligence's thrall" theory more likely, as it would have needed a way to make lots of thralls quickly from the Leviathan's slave species in order to overthrow them? Maybe Adjutants are prototype husks?

Yep, that could make sense. I think we should find out something interesting about them at least.

[Leonia]

The comics weren't very informative regarding what the Adjutants actually are so hopefully that question will be answered. How that all works into the Reaper's or Leviathan's plans could be very interesting. At least there will be more than "Oh Cerberus had another experiment get out of hand and Shepard has to clean it up". We can hope anyway.

Modifié par leonia42, 21 novembre 2012 - 08:53 .

[BleedingUranium]

leonia42 wrote...

The comics weren't very informative regarding what the Adjutants actually are so hopefully that question will be answered. How that all works into the Reaper's or Leviathan's plans could be very interesting. At least there will be more than "Oh Cerberus had another experiment get out of hand and Shepard has to clean it up". We can hope anyway.

They are officially stated to be Cerberus-controlled Reaper troops, so that's something at least.

[dorktainian]

magnetite wrote...

Observe the texture on the Human Reaper:



Now the same (or similar texture) on the Joker's arm:

remember Harbinger saying 'We will find another way'?

Indoctrination Theory Wins.

[demersel]

Arashi08 wrote...

So kind of an odd question but...how many people in the thread right now are writers?

I'm a director. But i do my share of writing when working on a screenplay, even if i don't write it myself. Good enough? 

[gunslinger_ruiz]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Eryri wrote...

#IcalledIT

The Adjutants will be revealed to be the remnants of either the Inusannon, or the "Intelligence's" original thralls, that it used to harvest the Leviathans.

Maybe, but we also know that when they infect someone that person turn into another Adjutant, so...

I completely forgot about that as well..

Ooh maybe Aria or the turian female or that Cerberus admiral/general whatever he was will get infected. I could see the renegade/paragon trigger now, put a bullet in his head to end his suffering or not and have to fight it out.

[paxxton]

dorktainian wrote...

remember Harbinger saying 'We will find another way'?

Indoctrination Theory Wins.

Aren't those symptoms a person has while being high?  Legalization of marijuana might then suggest an impending Reaper attack on planet Earth.  lol jk jk

Modifié par paxxton, 21 novembre 2012 - 10:57 .

[Fur28]

dorktainian wrote...

remember Harbinger saying 'We will find another way'?

Indoctrination Theory Wins.

Does the dilated eyes has something to do with the oily vision with TIM?

[JMDekker2]

My speculation on omega...cerberus also recovered a collector or 2 from the collector base along with the protoreaper, possibly using lazarus-projecty stuff to bring them back to life and research on them to make there own adjuntants. Just a possibility, only because of the theory that they wouldn't implement the collectors in me3 just for the multiplayer. I reckon they'll at least make an attempt to fill the "how the heck did they salvage the human reaper" plothole.

[paxxton]

JMDekker2 wrote...

My speculation on omega...cerberus also recovered a collector or 2 from the collector base along with the protoreaper, possibly using lazarus-projecty stuff to bring them back to life and research on them to make there own adjuntants. Just a possibility, only because of the theory that they wouldn't implement the collectors in me3 just for the multiplayer. I reckon they'll at least make an attempt to fill the "how the heck did they salvage the human reaper" plothole.

And how did Cerberus become a mainstream terrorist organization?

[Davik Kang]

Arashi08 wrote...
#1 - Change
#2 - Go back to the beginning
#3 - Look at your characters
#4 - Set the mood

EDIT:  and also I agree with you about BioWare having great writers, which is why it doesn't make sense that they would create such an...unfavorable ending while knowing how integral endings are to ANY story.

Just popping in for a bit...

About your "endings checklist above", ME3 does meet it:

#1 - ME3 has the end of the Reaper war, via the use of a superweapon, so change is there

#2 - The very beginning was about the kind of person it would take to become the first human Spectre, and ultimately the kind of person it would take to beat the Reapers, if they were even beatable.  The end is all about Shepard, the kind of person he or she is, and what s/he's prepared to do to stop the Reapers

#3 - The motivations of Anderson, TIM, Shepard, and the Reapers are all called into question in the finale, and you have to decide who's ideology you will follow.  The EC gives more reflection on how other characters will react to your choice

#4 - The mood in ME1 was set as dark, sinister, horrific, corrupt, and sometimes hopeless:
> Humanity as a mistrusted and violent race; galactic war and war crimes involving krogans, rachni, and the coucil races;
> political scheming and power, including the centre of power focused at the Citadel and the desire for other races to share in that power (join the Council);
> various horros: instant death of a squadmate (jenkins), people forcibly mutated into husks, survivors out for themselves, a 'crazy' (i.e. not crazy) man babbling about visions and the death of everybody, betrayal (Saren shooting an old friend in the back), a giant demon spaceship, and all capped by a vision of sheer violence and terror (the beacon).

The ending follows this mood exactly.  The galaxy was always portrayed from the beginning as something so big that no individual could solve every problem in it.  The horror was added to: in ME1 we see a close friend die; in ME2 we see members of our crew get liquified alive, and possibly numerous squadmates additionally killed in the final encounter.  The very ends of ME1 and ME2 were relatively uplifting, but maybe this distracted players from what happened in the other 99% of ME1 and ME2, which was mostly dark and with serious implications.

It was always about doing your best in an unforgiving galaxy.  There was always a taint of corruption and power behind every story and side story.  Imo a more straightforward, celebratory atmosphere after a straightforward victory over the Reapers would have been a betrayal of what we saw over the series.

[dorktainian]

Davik Kang wrote...

Arashi08 wrote...
#1 - Change
#2 - Go back to the beginning
#3 - Look at your characters
#4 - Set the mood

EDIT:  and also I agree with you about BioWare having great writers, which is why it doesn't make sense that they would create such an...unfavorable ending while knowing how integral endings are to ANY story.

Just popping in for a bit...

About your "endings checklist above", ME3 does meet it:

#1 - ME3 has the end of the Reaper war, via the use of a superweapon, so change is there

#2 - The very beginning was about the kind of person it would take to become the first human Spectre, and ultimately the kind of person it would take to beat the Reapers, if they were even beatable.  The end is all about Shepard, the kind of person he or she is, and what s/he's prepared to do to stop the Reapers

#3 - The motivations of Anderson, TIM, Shepard, and the Reapers are all called into question in the finale, and you have to decide who's ideology you will follow.  The EC gives more reflection on how other characters will react to your choice

#4 - The mood in ME1 was set as dark, sinister, horrific, corrupt, and sometimes hopeless:
> Humanity as a mistrusted and violent race; galactic war and war crimes involving krogans, rachni, and the coucil races;
> political scheming and power, including the centre of power focused at the Citadel and the desire for other races to share in that power (join the Council);
> various horros: instant death of a squadmate (jenkins), people forcibly mutated into husks, survivors out for themselves, a 'crazy' (i.e. not crazy) man babbling about visions and the death of everybody, betrayal (Saren shooting an old friend in the back), a giant demon spaceship, and all capped by a vision of sheer violence and terror (the beacon).

The ending follows this mood exactly.  The galaxy was always portrayed from the beginning as something so big that no individual could solve every problem in it.  The horror was added to: in ME1 we see a close friend die; in ME2 we see members of our crew get liquified alive, and possibly numerous squadmates additionally killed in the final encounter.  The very ends of ME1 and ME2 were relatively uplifting, but maybe this distracted players from what happened in the other 99% of ME1 and ME2, which was mostly dark and with serious implications.

It was always about doing your best in an unforgiving galaxy.  There was always a taint of corruption and power behind every story and side story.  Imo a more straightforward, celebratory atmosphere after a straightforward victory over the Reapers would have been a betrayal of what we saw over the series.

 

no it just failed to make sense.  Bad storywriting and structure is ........ bad.

http://www.dailywrit...ight-point-arc/

[Restrider]

leonia42 wrote...
-nothing in particular-

Just updating my signature... you could be surprised.

[ElSuperGecko]

Davik Kang wrote...
#3 - The motivations of Anderson, TIM, Shepard, and the Reapers are all called into question in the finale, and you have to decide who's ideology you will follow.  The EC gives more reflection on how other characters will react to your choice

....not much, however.

Only the Destroy ending is voiced over by an actual, living, breathing survivor of the war, and only Destroy gives us an idea of the thoughts, feelings and emotions of the actual, living, breathing survivors of the war.

Control is voiced over by the ShepardAI, from it's own perspective - we have no idea how the rest of the galaxy reacts.

Synthesis is voiced over by EDI, an AI that has struggled to come to terms with the concepts and ideas of being "alive" throughout the game.

Refuse is voiced over by a recording.

[Rifneno]

Andromidius wrote...

And it also makes other characters more interesting because they are fallible as well, namely Saren. If he was just a 'bad guy' I'd not find him interesting, but its clear he's an Anti-Villian that's a victim of his own zeal and drive. Not to say he's not a ruthless xenophobic arse, even before he became indoctrinated, but his tragedy and redemption make him interesting.

A bit like...you know who...from Dragon Age: Origins. You hate him, you spar words with him, you draw weapons against him... But ultimately he was only doing what he thought was best, and can be respected for it.

You have a lot looser standards for respect than I do. Blah blah blah, doing what he thought was right. What evil bastard didn't? Think of any horrible monster in real life. Wanna Godwin it up? Sure, let's start with Hitler. He honestly seemed to think humanity would benefit from his "purification." Toss in Stalin while we're at it. Totally believed in the totalitarian crap and thought it was best. Too far in the past? Bin Laden sure as hell thought he was doing God's will and we, his enemies, are the real evil. Not far enough in the past? Vlad Tepes, better known for his far less murderous fictionized counterpart Count Dracula, thought himself a beacon of justice as he was torture-murdering people by the tens of thousands. Do you think these people deserve respect?

Judge a man by his actions, not whatever twisted justification he comes up with for his crimes. I take great pleasure in painting Loghain's **** daughter with his blood.

Ditto for Saren. He's a monster, plain and simple. No if's, and's, or but's. He is "just a bad guy". Don't confuse decent characterization with moral ambiguity.

Arashi08 wrote...

I liked the complexity there as well. Logh-*ahem* er...THAT guy, made a hard choice on the battlefield because he knew that Cailan would not be dissuaded and would have lost the entire army had he not retreated. Buuuuuut then a civil war broke out and possibly left Ferelden in even worse shape as the Bannorn would have been more unified had er...THAT guy, stayed and everyone had died. The civil war may well have cost them more men then Ostagar did, but he was still trying to act with the best of intentions to save his people.

Saren is less likeable due to his hatred of humans and ruthlessness, but in the end he can easily still be seen as a tragic figure. He felt more like a foil to Shepard than Kai Leng ever did at any rate.

The matter with Loghain was only that way after RtO. See, Gaider writes fine as long as he doesn't get feedback. The man has no moral compass and as soon as he finds out something, anything, wasn't a grand moral dilemma then it's "TO THE RETCONMOBIBLE!" In vanilla DA, it was quite clear the defeat was because of Loghain's treachery. When Alistair asks why Loghain fled, Flemeth tells him that his heart his darker than the darkspawn. Even Morrigan, who HATED Alistair, never says "you know that he might've left because the battle was unwinnable right?" She probably would've had a spontanous orgasm at getting to throw it in Alistair's face that Loghain even might have made the right call. But no. In vanilla DA, it's crystal clear that Loghain did it to usurp the throne.

Then the game got released. And holy crap, the fanbase doesn't think Loghain is a neutral character? We must retcon! Then comes RtO. Now we get told flat out that the battle was unwinnable. Cailan was leading the majority of his country's forces into a suicide mission. He knew it was a suicide mission too. So why was he doing it? Because shut up, that's why. Oh, and he was also selling out Ferelden by dumping the ice queen and marrying Empress Celene. One wonders how he planned to do this since he was going to kill himself along with his nation's military for no particular reason, but then again this is the kind of nonsensical drivel you get when Gaider breaks out the retcon after getting feedback.

But I digress... Saren. He's not a tragic figure. He's a monster. I'm assuming you haven't read Revelations? Because it's pretty clear that Saren was simply evil even long before the Reapers got their tentacles on him.

[GhostShadow115]

Rifneno wrote...
*snip*

This guy... I like this guy... he understands...!

[DoomsdayDevice]

Bumping this again, sorry if you're getting tired of it.

I thought the Benezia thing was interesting.

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

This may be obvious to some, but I'll just spell it out:

The "everyone's dying" connection.

The dreams are a means of making Shepard feel guilty about the ones he could not save. When Shep first meets the boy, he says "everyone is dying". Then the boy dies, and Shepard wasn't able to help him. Shepard feels guilty about this, as he feels guilty about all the people he could not save. This theme continues in the dreams, where you hear lines from people that died in your playthrough. You chase the boy, wanting to save him, but you cannot save him, he burns every time.

This is all part of the Reapers' plan to use your guilt about all the people who died that you could not save, and the people who died because of decisions you made. They use that guilt against you. The people who don't pick destroy, their number one reason for doing so is that they don't want to kill EDI and the Geth. They want to pick a solution in which everybody lives, even if it means Shepard will die.

The Reapers simply try to exploit this tendency that people have to leave no one behind, to save as many people as possible. The dreams all play into this. It's a guilt trip. The Suicide Mission, in retrospect, is a genius way to get people to think and feel like this. The point of it was to keep everyone alive.

But as Garrus says: "... a nice sentiment. Let's hope we will be able to live by it."

We know the answer: no, we won't be able to live by it. If we think we can keep everyone alive, and let us be persuaded by the Reapers, everyone will die as a result.

Sooooooooooo, playing ME1 once again, I'm running into things on Feros that support this.

First of all, Shiala says this about Benezia:

Shiala: "She always sought the paths of peace and harmony. She joined with Saren because she hoped to turn him away from his path of destruction."

Shepard: "Instead, she became one of his most powerful allies."

Apart from being great ending foreshadowing in  general (where people don't choose destroy but choose the side of the enemy because they don't want any people to die), that is exactly what you do in control. You take control, because you want them to stop harvesting.

Benezia joined Saren because she wanted to change his destructive ways.
Shepard joins the Reapers because (s)he wants to change their destructive ways.

Shiala: "As I mentioned before, Matriarch Benezia underestimated Saren. Be sure you do not make the same mistake."

We all know now that it's not Saren who is to be underestimated. It's the Reapers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More great ending foreshadowing:

Fai Dan: "I tried to fight it but it gets in your head. You can't imagine the pain. I was supposed to be a leader. These people trusted me. It wants me to stop you but I... I won't. I won't!" *shoots himself*

Ian Newstead (the colonist who tries to resist the Thorian mind control): "I'd rather die fighting. My mind is my own! My mind is my own! My mind is my own!"

Shepard (after Feros): "Wanting to believe everything will be fine? Sounds like human nature to me."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some synthesis lolz on Noveria:

Gianna Parasini:  "Do you know how valuable this planet is? How many advances in genetics and artificial intelligence got their start here?"

Businesswoman: "Peak 15 has a bio- and cyber-hazards lab. If there's a problem, they should nuke it before it spreads."

[Restrider]

Read and agreed.

[Humakt83]

Michael Gamble: "Final touches on the ME3:Omega trailer... "

[Andromidius]

Rifneno wrote...

You have a lot looser standards for respect than I do.

Nah.  Its because he accepts defeat gracefully rather then whining like a **** like many villans do.  Plus I was happy there was no reveal that he was being mind controlled or possessed, and he was just a fallible man.

Though I still killed him.  And splatted his blood all over his daughter.  And then get her to marry Allistair.

Just.  Delicious.

Oh, and I disagree that the battle was unwinnable as well.  Though at least only he was saying it and no-one agreed.  He was wrong, and his methods were wrong, and his allies were weak.  So I destroyed him, and he saw I was superior.

Hense I give him the respect due to a defeated foe.  Though his methods were still broken and wrong, and relied too much on scaring nobles into siding with him.

Modifié par Andromidius, 21 novembre 2012 - 03:44 .

[ElSuperGecko]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Sooooooooooo, playing ME1 once again, I'm running into things on Feros that support this.

First of all, Shiala says this about Benezia:

Shiala: "She always sought the paths of peace and harmony. She joined with Saren because she hoped to turn him away from his path of destruction."

Shepard: "Instead, she became one of his most powerful allies."

Apart from being great ending foreshadowing in  general (where people don't choose destroy but choose the side of the enemy because they don't want any people to die), that is exactly what you do in control. You take control, because you want them to stop harvesting.

Benezia joined Saren because she wanted to change his destructive ways.
Shepard joins the Reapers because (s)he wants to change their destructive ways.

Shiala: "As I mentioned before, Matriarch Benezia underestimated Saren. Be sure you do not make the same mistake."

We all know now that it's not Saren who is to be underestimated. It's the Reapers.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

More great ending foreshadowing:

Fai Dan: "I tried to fight it but it gets in your head. You can't imagine the pain. I was supposed to be a leader. These people trusted me. It wants me to stop you but I... I won't. I won't!" *shoots himself*

Ian Newstead (the colonist who tries to resist the Thorian mind control): "I'd rather die fighting. My mind is my own! My mind is my own! My mind is my own!"

Shepard (after Feros): "Wanting to believe everything will be fine? Sounds like human nature to me."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some synthesis lolz on Noveria:

Gianna Parasini:  "Do you know how valuable this planet is? How many advances in genetics and artificial intelligence got their start here?"

Businesswoman: "Peak 15 has a bio- and cyber-hazards lab. If there's a problem, they should nuke it before it spreads."

Love it.  Looking back at the trilogy as a whole gives you so much more perspective for the end decision...

[EXMEFan]

Did you guys beat the game?

Then why the thank you note from the developers say "You stopped the Reaper threat", it basically congratulated you.

Also the story is being told from a woman or man to a child.........because it is a legend in the future.

It would not make sense for this whole thing to be an IT theory when the purpose of telling the story to the child was a message of hope and sacrifice. Even when you refuse and let the Reapers win in the EC DLC, the woman tells the child the information Liara left behind saved the future Galaxy and gave them peace, a peace that wasn't possible if it wasn't for commander Shepard.

You guys theory is just wrong.......

Also quoting what people SAID isn't proof. Bad guys say empty things in all games and movies when faced with an opposing threats.

You guys are a sad waste of the ME3 fans. Where most of us realize it was just bad execution and we hold Bioware accountable and they CHANGED the game based on our worries, you guys are pulling for something Bioware hasn't endorsed and have debunked in the EC release.

[Andromidius]

ElSuperGecko wrote...
Love it.  Looking back at the trilogy as a whole gives you so much more perspective for the end decision...

Indeed.  It makes The Consort seem like a much more important character then she seemed to be in ME1 as well.  Though I'm not sad she didn't appear again, too many Asari in the game already.

[Andromidius]

EXMEFan wrote...

Then why the thank you note from the developers say "You stopped the Reaper threat", it basically congratulated you.

Did you buy the DLC as well?

Seriously, shut the hell up if you're not going to come up with a SINGLE original thought that's not been torn to shreds a hundred times already.  You're boring us.

Edit: Also ironic that you're asking if we completed the game when its clear from past posts that you don't actually know what happened even from a literal perspective.  Hilarious.

Modifié par Andromidius, 21 novembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[EXMEFan]

Also you can't ASSUME Shepard was indoctrinated, because he's a free character, YOU control his decisions.

Therefore Bioware would have killed this in the board room. Nobody would have agreed to "yeah lets have him indoctrinated, but never say he was". Thats stupid as hell, bioware wouldn't dare hold that kind of information in. Especially at the END of a saga.