80611 réponses à ce sujet

[spotlessvoid]

estebanus wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Sure, but instead of making the EC, they could have just released the IT DLC. That would've been much smarter to do, since they wouldn't have had to spend money on making the EC. Plus, the fan reaction would've been much more positive than what happened after the EC.

EC had nothing in it. As little effort as possible went in to it. There's no way they would have blown their reveal on that craptacular joke. They didn't have time to wait to make a proper DLC due to the backlash so they made that thing. Jingle Jingle. Out

[ThisOneIsPunny]

IsaacShep wrote... This is EA we're talking about.

Cool story.

Restrider wrote...

Yes, that is true.
But you have to consider that Refuse in the light of IT =/= believing in conventional victory.
Heck, this is a main problem of IT, if you believe that the Crucible is a trap (and many here do).
How do you beat them without the Crucible?
-snip-

Not really.. I've seen it explained several times that destroy is present as one of the choices by Shepard's will/thoughts/whatever, and that is primarily why the catalyst presents it with so many cons and the one pro being that the reapers will be gone.

I wouldn't even call it a main problem, that's implying that we have a solid interpretation and we mostly don't.

[paxxton]

RavenEyry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Firewalker was free...

Really? Could you elaborate?

Someone was saying EC being free was damaging the lucrative early DLC time period.

It's quite surprising for me that the DLC was once free. It goes for 160 BWP now.

[GethPrimeMKII]

estebanus wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Refuse doesnt make much sense in the literal view. Why would the catalyst be angry if you refuse to do anything? Wouldn't that allow his solution to continue on unchallenged? It also brings up the question: Why Shepard? Why is she needed to make any of these new solutions work?

Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

By choosing refuse, the catalyst can't fulfill it's reprogrammed primary objective. As such, it goes back to its old solution.

But how has Shepard altered the variables? All the crucible is is a giant battery according to the catalyst. Did the Citadel always have the ability to control all reapers and synthesize all life? If so then why? Why would the reapers built something that would allow a lucky organic to overthrow their master and control them all? 

If the catalyst is the intelligence that created the reapers then how can it also be the citadel? The reapers are the ones who built the citadel.

And if anyone's going to argue that perhaps the catalyst uploaded itself into the citadel, then answer this: Why use the keepers? Why have a reaper vanguard? The catalyst ought to be able to monitor the cycles and open the relay to dark space every 50k years. Why would the catalyst put itself in a position where it'd be powerless to do anything unless tampered with by some lucky organic?

[paxxton]

demersel wrote...

Firewalker was actually awesome.

Yeah, it's nice cause there is no Mako equivalent in the main game.

Modifié par paxxton, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:08 .

[shepskisaac]

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

IsaacShep wrote... This is EA we're talking about.

Cool story.

And a true one.

[Xd2delo]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

estebanus wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Refuse doesnt make much sense in the literal view. Why would the catalyst be angry if you refuse to do anything? Wouldn't that allow his solution to continue on unchallenged? It also brings up the question: Why Shepard? Why is she needed to make any of these new solutions work?

Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

By choosing refuse, the catalyst can't fulfill it's reprogrammed primary objective. As such, it goes back to its old solution.

But how has Shepard altered the variables? All the crucible is is a giant battery according to the catalyst. Did the Citadel always have the ability to control all reapers and synthesize all life? If so then why? Why would the reapers built something that would allow a lucky organic to overthrow their master and control them all? 

If the catalyst is the intelligence that created the reapers then how can it also be the citadel? The reapers are the ones who built the citadel.

And if anyone's going to argue that perhaps the catalyst uploaded itself into the citadel, then answer this: Why use the keepers? Why have a reaper vanguard? The catalyst ought to be able to monitor the cycles and open the relay to dark space every 50k years. Why would the catalyst put itself in a position where it'd be powerless to do anything unless tampered with by some lucky organic?

THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

[BleedingUranium]

paxxton wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

paxxton wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

Firewalker was free...

Really? Could you elaborate?

Someone was saying EC being free was damaging the lucrative early DLC time period.

It's quite surprising for me that the DLC was once free. It goes for 160 BWP now.

I believe it's free with the Cerberus Network, meaning, if you bought the game new.

Xd2delo wrote...

estebanus wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Sure, but instead of making the EC, they could have just released the IT DLC. That would've been much smarter to do, since they wouldn't have had to spend money on making the EC. Plus, the fan reaction would've been much more positive than what happened after the EC.

Yeah, this is what worries me. Why NOT have the IT DLC ready to go then, or better yet, just include it in the game? Why wait so long? I suspect, if this IS IT DLC they're working on now, it'll come out on the 1 year anniversary of the release.

Because the purpose of IT is to indoctinate the fanbase, that's impossible with an in-game reveal and hard with an early one.

[paxxton]

IsaacShep wrote...

ThisOneIsPunny wrote...

Lord Aesir wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Just like the rest of EC, it was added because of fan outcry.

-Did the relays kill everyone?
-How did my squadmates get on the Normandy?
-Why can't I ask the kid questions or disagree with him?
-Screw the kid and his options!

Those were the most common things said after launch, and that's all the EC clarified/added. Note that the renegade choices while talking to the kid, why you don't want to do each choice, are each an echo of why the community didn't like them.

I have to be honest, this is one of the points where IT really falls down for me.  I just can't fathom the idea that Bioware would go through the trouble of paying for new cinematics and voice acting, then give it out for free, and have it all be a blatant lie to reveal at a later date... A date that is apparently over a year after the game's release.

I'm not so sure they had to sacrifice too much in profit to make the extended cut

Because developement time costs and the first few months after a game releases are the most lucrative for DLC sales and EC was free so no profit was made and it delayed paid DLC. All in all, EA lost money on EC so why would anyone think they would waste money on polishing what is only a fake/trick ending is beyond me. This is EA we're talking about.

I guess most of the contents in the EC was actually cut from the main game during development, so BioWare probably just chose something from that assortment and cooked up the EC.

[Xd2delo]

Xd2delo wrote...


THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

Is it possible the Reapers don't even know the Catalyst exists?  

EDIT: Realized Harbinger at least MUST know, as the Levis knew, and he is made of Levis.  Unless Catalyst is able to remove that knowledge from his brain?  I somehow think the Reapers would not take kindly to being governed/used. 

Modifié par Xd2delo, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:17 .

[paxxton]

@Blur: That would mean I had it all the time in 2010. Just didn't bother to download it. lol

Modifié par paxxton, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:14 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Xd2delo wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

estebanus wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Refuse doesnt make much sense in the literal view. Why would the catalyst be angry if you refuse to do anything? Wouldn't that allow his solution to continue on unchallenged? It also brings up the question: Why Shepard? Why is she needed to make any of these new solutions work?

Because in the literal version, the catalyst wants to find a new solution. As it itself said: "You have altered the variables. TZhe crucible changed me, created new... possibilities. But I can't make them happen." 

By choosing refuse, the catalyst can't fulfill it's reprogrammed primary objective. As such, it goes back to its old solution.

But how has Shepard altered the variables? All the crucible is is a giant battery according to the catalyst. Did the Citadel always have the ability to control all reapers and synthesize all life? If so then why? Why would the reapers built something that would allow a lucky organic to overthrow their master and control them all? 

If the catalyst is the intelligence that created the reapers then how can it also be the citadel? The reapers are the ones who built the citadel.

And if anyone's going to argue that perhaps the catalyst uploaded itself into the citadel, then answer this: Why use the keepers? Why have a reaper vanguard? The catalyst ought to be able to monitor the cycles and open the relay to dark space every 50k years. Why would the catalyst put itself in a position where it'd be powerless to do anything unless tampered with by some lucky organic?

THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

The leviathans confirm that there is an intelligence responsible for the creation of the reapers. People, somehow I dont know know, manage to twist those words into confirmation that the catalyst Shepard meets is real. 

The VI on Thessia only theorizes that the Reapers are guided by some type of leadership. Again no confirmation that the guiding force of the Reapers resides on the Citadel. 

[jojon2se]

RavenEyry wrote...

jojon2se wrote...

Sallying recklessly forth, in blind, single-minded, bezerker rage and literally leaping right into a trap, that the more levelheaded Shepard has to pull her out of - yep, yep... What were you arguing for again?

What, like the beam run?

Well, the rage and all that, is Aria specific, of course, but despite the limitations of gameplay narrative, which we're all well used to and tend to casually accept as just the way things are, in game context; The uncritical, un-reevaluating, tunnel vision, that the game forces upon us, from the discovery of the Crucible plans, thru focusing all efforts on building, but not researching, it, to Destroy-intending Shepard's supposed doing what he came to do, because that's what he came to do, because that's what he came to do... it really rubs me the wrong way. Single minded, close minded, led down the slaugther chute.

If I were to "lay a trap" for a train, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't dig my hole-with-spikey-poles-at-the-bottom somewhere off to the side of the tracks.

There is *nothing* - nothing at all, in this instance of "the cold calculus of war", that smacks of the same sort of justifications the "catalyst" just tried to sell you, for the whole harvest thing?

There are many many things that is said with regards to both Refuse and Destroy, that I assess almost polar to many others here, based on the same set of data -- I'm for the most time happy to let things end with the knowledge that our interpretations differ, but the barrage of disparaging words, it stings.

As for the beam run; its brand of desperate brainlock is a whole chapter in itself, I suppose.

BleedingUranium wrote:
And again, some people are missing a key point about Refuse: Destroy is not an option presented by the kid, it merely exists and he can't make
it go away. Destroy can't be a trap in IT.

Yes; bar the last part, that's the rather convoluted and twin-edged metaphor, that I, too, had to painstakingly explain to people, before refuse brought something better to the table.

Modifié par jojon2se, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:23 .

[Eryri]

estebanus wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Do you not remember the cluster**** of rage after launch? They were going to struggle to sell DLC without putting that ferocious beast down.

EC wasn't much of a decision. We can debate on what was and wasn't already made, but the EC existing doesn't change whatever the intention was pre-launch.

Sure, but instead of making the EC, they could have just released the IT DLC. That would've been much smarter to do, since they wouldn't have had to spend money on making the EC. Plus, the fan reaction would've been much more positive than what happened after the EC.

But that's assuming that they planned to reveal the IT in a 2Gb-or-less piece of bog standard DLC. What if they were planning something bigger? Something of the magnitude of DA: Awakenings or Baldur's Gate 2: Throne of Bhaal? 

That would have required months of development, if not a whole year. There would be no way they could chuck a piece of content like that out the door in time to quell the outrage. Particularly if they were hoping to sell it for expansion pack prices of $20 or more.

[Xd2delo]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Xd2delo wrote...
THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

The leviathans confirm that there is an intelligence responsible for the creation of the reapers. People, somehow I dont know know, manage to twist those words into confirmation that the catalyst Shepard meets is real. 

The VI on Thessia only theorizes that the Reapers are guided by some type of leadership. Again no confirmation that the guiding force of the Reapers resides on the Citadel. 

I think it's Occam's Razor, mainly, or Chekov's Gun (if you introduce an AI in act 2, it had better go off by act 3...), whichever heuristic you prefer. 

I don't think it's "twisting" those words to assume that when told that there is an AI that created the Reapers, and you later apparently meet an AI that says "hey, I created the Reapers", the two AIs are the same. 

However, I buy into IT, and that implies that the AI I later meet might or might not be real.  The question then remains; where else might that AI be?  It seems strongly hinted that we will meet him.

Granted, that's not guaranteed, and I agree that if the AI IS on the Citadel, then the Keepers seem spectacularly pointless, UNLESS the Reapers are unaware of the AI's existence, which also seems impossible, because the Levis did and Harbinger is made of Levis.  UNLESS the AI is capable of removing himself from Harbinger's memories and for some reason declines to help the cycle continue by doing what the Keepers won't.   Again, something seems flawed in that logic. 

So if he's not on the Citadel, where is he?

Modifié par Xd2delo, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:31 .

[BleedingUranium]

Xd2delo wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Xd2delo wrote...
THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

The leviathans confirm that there is an intelligence responsible for the creation of the reapers. People, somehow I dont know know, manage to twist those words into confirmation that the catalyst Shepard meets is real. 

The VI on Thessia only theorizes that the Reapers are guided by some type of leadership. Again no confirmation that the guiding force of the Reapers resides on the Citadel. 

I think it's Occam's Razor, mainly, or Chekov's Gun (if you introduce an AI in act 2, it had better go off by act 3...), whichever heuristic you prefer. 

I don't think it's "twisting" those words to assume that when told that there is an AI that created the Reapers, and you later apparently meet an AI that says "hey, I created the Reapers", the two AIs are the same. 

However, I buy into IT, and that implies that the AI I later meet might or might not be real.  The question then remains; where else might that AI be?  It seems strongly hinted that we will meet him.

Granted, that's not guaranteed, and I agree that if the AI IS on the Citadel, then the Keepers seem spectacularly pointless, UNLESS the Reapers are unaware of the AI's existence, which also seems impossible, because the Levis did and Harbinger is made of Levis.  UNLESS the AI is capable of removing himself from Harbinger's memories and for some reason declines to help the cycle continue by doing what the Keepers won't.   Again, something seems flawed in that logic. 

So if he's not on the Citadel, where is he?

In the body of the first Reaper, that's where I'd be. And he was indeed introduced in Act 2.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:39 .

[RavenEyry]

Xd2delo wrote...

I think it's Occam's Razor, mainly, or Chekov's Gun (if you introduce an AI in act 2, it had better go off by act 3...), whichever heuristic you prefer. 

Checkov's gun definately. You cannot apply Occam's Razor to fiction.

I agree it isn't reaching to say the thing we meet is the AI mentioned by leviathan, but that doesn't mean it definately is. However, if there is IT DLC at some point and it doesn't mention the AI it'll be a cop out.

[ElSuperGecko]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...
This sure makes synthesis fun doesn't it!

Well, they did try to warn us... 

Modifié par ElSuperGecko, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:40 .

[Eryri]

IsaacShep wrote...

Because developement time costs and the first few months after a game releases are the most lucrative for DLC sales and EC was free so no profit was made and it delayed paid DLC. All in all, EA lost money on EC so why would anyone think they would waste money on polishing what is only a fake/trick ending is beyond me. This is EA we're talking about.

But IT is not about a "fake" or "trick" ending. That makes it sound like something trivial. It's a battle for Shepard's soul. The outcome of which will determine the fate of the Galaxy. If the lynchpin of the Galaxy's war effort becomes a Reaper slave, then the war is lost. Just because it's not happening in the "real" world doesn't mean it's not important.

To take the debate back to the real world for a second, pulling off something like the IT would instantly transform EA's reputation from being a purveyor of mentally undemanding pap, to an innovative (and yes, even an artistic) risktaker. True it may be something of a gamble that hasn't paid off yet, but the dlc cycle is not over.

Modifié par Eryri, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[Xd2delo]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Xd2delo wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Xd2delo wrote...
THIS.  All of this.  Especially w/r/t to the keepers.

BUT the Catalyst does appear to exist; the Thessia VI and the Levi DLC seem to confirm this.  So if it's NOT on the Citadel where is it?

On a side note, I keep thinking there HAS to be something more to the Keepers.

The leviathans confirm that there is an intelligence responsible for the creation of the reapers. People, somehow I dont know know, manage to twist those words into confirmation that the catalyst Shepard meets is real. 

The VI on Thessia only theorizes that the Reapers are guided by some type of leadership. Again no confirmation that the guiding force of the Reapers resides on the Citadel. 

I think it's Occam's Razor, mainly, or Chekov's Gun (if you introduce an AI in act 2, it had better go off by act 3...), whichever heuristic you prefer. 

I don't think it's "twisting" those words to assume that when told that there is an AI that created the Reapers, and you later apparently meet an AI that says "hey, I created the Reapers", the two AIs are the same. 

However, I buy into IT, and that implies that the AI I later meet might or might not be real.  The question then remains; where else might that AI be?  It seems strongly hinted that we will meet him.

Granted, that's not guaranteed, and I agree that if the AI IS on the Citadel, then the Keepers seem spectacularly pointless, UNLESS the Reapers are unaware of the AI's existence, which also seems impossible, because the Levis did and Harbinger is made of Levis.  UNLESS the AI is capable of removing himself from Harbinger's memories and for some reason declines to help the cycle continue by doing what the Keepers won't.   Again, something seems flawed in that logic. 

So if he's not on the Citadel, where is he?

In the body of the first Reaper, that's where I'd be. And he was indeed introduced in Act 2.

He's the biggest and least vulnerable one too. 

[BleedingUranium]

Eryri wrote...

But IT is not about a "fake" or "trick" ending. That makes it sound like something trivial. It's a battle for Shepard's soul. The outcome of which will determine the fate of the Galaxy. If the lynchpin of the Galaxy's war effort becomes a Reaper slave, then the war is lost. Just because it's not happening in the "real" world doesn't mean it's not important.

To take the debate back to the real world for a second, pulling off something like the IT would instantly transform EA's reputation of being a purveyor of mentally undemanding pap. True it may be something of a gamble that hasn't paid off yet, but the dlc cycle is not over.

Exactly, it's no different than the Geth Consensus mission.

Modifié par BleedingUranium, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:45 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

RavenEyry wrote...

Xd2delo wrote...

I think it's Occam's Razor, mainly, or Chekov's Gun (if you introduce an AI in act 2, it had better go off by act 3...), whichever heuristic you prefer. 

Checkov's gun definately. You cannot apply Occam's Razor to fiction.

I agree it isn't reaching to say the thing we meet is the AI mentioned by leviathan, but that doesn't mean it definately is. However, if there is IT DLC at some point and it doesn't mention the AI it'll be a cop out.

If one actually understood Occams Razor and decided to try to apply it to fiction regardless, IT would still come out being a far more simplistic explanation than the literal view. 

[jojon2se]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...
Aria is usually the level headed one who plans every last detail. That scene in Afterlife proves Petrovsky got to her and clouded her judgement.

A little off topic here, but, well; As far as I interpreted things; Nyreen's death got to her - more than Petrovsky (who wasn't directly involved with the particular event) himself ever could and more than she'd ever admit, to others, or to herself.
At the root of it, Nyreen's blood was on the general's hands and he was already the target anyway, so...

Things really seemed to be rekindling during the DLC, were they not?

Some complained that Shepard had an unreasonable amount of influence on somebody like Aria, especially given the short time frame, but as far as I can see, it's not really Shepard's fable-strength-charisma at work here - (s)he was simply the tiny stone, balanced on top of which, the 5 tonne monolith that is Nyreen, could effortlessly swivel. (ehm... not implying anything about your weight, ma'm - please put that gun away.)
Such a loss can take a person in different directions -- Shepard's input provided only the last ounce to tip the scale towards either honouring the spirit by which Nyreen lived and died, or becoming embittered about it and harder set in cynicism.

[TheProtheans]

Restrider wrote...

Yes, that is true.
But you have to consider that Refuse in the light of IT =/= believing in conventional victory.
Heck, this is a main problem of IT, if you believe that the Crucible is a trap (and many here do).
How do you beat them without the Crucible?

I'd say most people, when using the term "conventional victory" do not mean beating the Reapers head-on rather than a victory without using the Crucible as shown in the endings!
Hell, even Rifneno - the single person that hates the whole conventional victory discussion most - admitted that a victory without using the Crucible as shown in the endings would make a lot of sense (since he also believes that the Crucible is not kosher).

I never did think it was going to end without finding another way, even back not long after I finished Mass effect 3.
Archengeia gave me the understanding that perhaps the Crucible is a Reaper trap.
A way to make the races that want to resist to plunder their resources into false hope.

I can think of a number possible ways/ideas to have a conventional victory(or something similar), there is certaintly possibilites.

Modifié par TheProtheans, 18 décembre 2012 - 06:49 .

[ElSuperGecko]

RavenEyry wrote...
I agree it isn't reaching to say the thing we meet is the AI mentioned by leviathan, but that doesn't mean it definately is. However, if there is IT DLC at some point and it doesn't mention the AI it'll be a cop out.

I for one find it odd that the Ghostchild (if it is indeed the AI) would essentially imprision itself in the Citadel.

Surely, after wiping out it's creators and building an all but indestructable and unstoppable space faing vessel from their processed remains, it would take the helm and upload itself?

I WILL DIRECT THIS PERSONALLY...

Harbinger is conspicious by his absence for much of ME3.  He appears to protect the beam, but then departs... for where?  The Citadel?

If we assume the final scenes on the Citadel are an indoctrination attempt, then what is making the indoctrination attempt?  An answer:  Harbinger, who must still be close by.

If we assume that the final scenes actually do take place, and we enter the Citadel, open the arms and finally encounter the Catalyst... well, maybe the Citadel is where Harbinger was headed after leaving the beam.  The Ghostchild could be a projection of Harbinger's will.

I still believe Harby has a major role to play in the ME3 story yet.  I don't doubt for a second that we'll be encountering Big Evil in DLC form...