80611 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

So what did I miss in the last 16 hours?

Wow 20 pages since I left.

[GethPrimeMKII]

For what its worth, there are several sources that suggest the reapers constructed the citadel and the relays. The leviathans flat out tell you the reapers constructed them as do the reapers themselves.

[Humakt83]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

ME 3's ending was phenomenal in the way how thought provoking it is. No other game comes even close.

That is as long as player gives the ending a chance and do not dismiss it as a bad writing right away as some lazy thinkers do.

Modifié par Humakt83, 22 décembre 2012 - 03:16 .

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

And again you and the insults, are you really so bitter that you have to resort to that 24/7?
Still getting some things right doesn't necessarily mean they got that right.

Stop pestering me with your misinformation, and I'll stop calling you on it.  And yes, they did get that right.  I'm refering to the CDN story around Arrival where researchers found a way to date the relays and the galaxy found out the Protheans didn't create them.

Anyone interested can start here and just follow the "Origin of Mass Relays Questioned" story arc.  Key quote: "Only a small fraction of the mass effect relays date back 50,000 years"  In other words, the Reapers are still making new relays every cycle.

This still doesn't give you the age of the Citadel and doesn't say if it predates the Reapers or not. It's only logical to assume the Reapers use the technology of the species they harvested. Including the Leviathans. Some being built the last cycle doesn't exclude the majority being built by the Leviathans.

Anymore irrelevant things to say?  It doesn't explain why there's no unicorns either.

It's not irrelevant, your point was the mass relays are built by the reapers, but that some of them are doesn't discount the fact that most could be built by the Leviathans, so could have been the Citadel in the first place, which was the thing you tried to invalidate... which you failed to do.

[Rifneno]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It's not irrelevant, your point was the mass relays are built by the reapers, but that some of them are doesn't discount the fact that most could be built by the Leviathans, so could have been the Citadel in the first place, which was the thing you tried to invalidate... which you failed to do.

You brought up the Citadel. As in, it was not part of the conversation before you started talking about how dating the relays doesn't explain it. It doesn't need to. We don't know who built the Citadel. It doesn't matter. We're talking about the relay network. It's possible the Leviathans built a few of the initial relays, but that's merely conjecture. We know that the Reapers build most if not all. The fact that some relays date back 50,000 years means that they're adding new ones to each cycle. Given that we've had tens of thousands of cycles, it's obvious that the majority (if not all) of the relay network is the Reapers' work.

[MegumiAzusa]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It's not irrelevant, your point was the mass relays are built by the reapers, but that some of them are doesn't discount the fact that most could be built by the Leviathans, so could have been the Citadel in the first place, which was the thing you tried to invalidate... which you failed to do.

You brought up the Citadel. As in, it was not part of the conversation before you started talking about how dating the relays doesn't explain it. It doesn't need to. We don't know who built the Citadel. It doesn't matter. We're talking about the relay network. It's possible the Leviathans built a few of the initial relays, but that's merely conjecture. We know that the Reapers build most if not all. The fact that some relays date back 50,000 years means that they're adding new ones to each cycle. Given that we've had tens of thousands of cycles, it's obvious that the majority (if not all) of the relay network is the Reapers' work.

Or they just rebuild the ones that get destroyed each cycle?

[GethPrimeMKII]

Humakt83 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

ME 3's ending was phenomenal in the way how thought provoking it is. No other game comes even close.

That is as long as player gives the ending a chance and do not dismiss it as a bad writing right away as some lazy thinkers do.

I think thats the problem with gamers and the gaming industry. Most video game's have plots no more complicated than a Dr. Suess book. Gamers have gotten used to story lines that take no real effort to understand, then along comes a trilogy like Mass Effect whose ending is impossible to understand unless the player pays close attention.

[MegumiAzusa]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

ME 3's ending was phenomenal in the way how thought provoking it is. No other game comes even close.

That is as long as player gives the ending a chance and do not dismiss it as a bad writing right away as some lazy thinkers do.

I think thats the problem with gamers and the gaming industry. Most video game's have plots no more complicated than a Dr. Suess book. Gamers have gotten used to story lines that take no real effort to understand, then along comes a trilogy like Mass Effect whose ending is impossible to understand unless the player pays close attention.

Problem is there is nothing to suggest literal wasn't planned, the only reference for Control being bad is the model, which has bad in its name which is circumstantial because it can very well also mean they see both destroy and control as bad and synthesis as the good end. Any other internal naming rather supports the literal interpretation.

[SixG90]

Hey guys, how is it going? Anything important over the last 18 hours?

p.s: it's only me or Origin today isn't working properly?

[ThisOneIsPunny]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I think thats the problem with gamers and the gaming industry. Most video game's have plots no more complicated than a Dr. Suess book. Gamers have gotten used to story lines that take no real effort to understand, then along comes a trilogy like Mass Effect whose ending is impossible to understand unless the player pays close attention.

Problem is there is nothing to suggest literal wasn't planned, the only reference for Control being bad is the model, which has bad in its name which is circumstantial because it can very well also mean they see both destroy and control as bad and synthesis as the good end. Any other internal naming rather supports the literal interpretation.

Or that they wanted to polarize the fandom... I'm pretty sure that was said by Hudson somewhere, Final Hours maybe? I think in some cases you kind of have to plan the literal interpretation to also have the more ambiguous ones? Does that make sense?

[GethPrimeMKII]

The themes present within the trilogy make their intentions quite clear. But they also want speculation. For there to be speculation there must be at least two popular interpretations.

[MaximizedAction]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The themes present within the trilogy make their intentions quite clear. But they also want speculation. For there to be speculation there must be at least two popular interpretations.

But what about the players who didn't play or finish the previous games OR didn't pay enough attention? For them there are less reasons to root for the IT than a literal interpretation.

I don't think speculations was one of the main motivations to include a literal interpretation. It was so that everyone had something to enjoy.
Besides, I find that it comes naturally. Is there even a possibility to have the ending without a literal interpretation (and NOT have a Gainax ending)?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 22 décembre 2012 - 04:09 .

[Sunnyhat1]

MaximizedAction wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The themes present within the trilogy make their intentions quite clear. But they also want speculation. For there to be speculation there must be at least two popular interpretations.

But what about the players who didn't play or finish the previous games OR didn't pay enough attention? For them there are less reasons to root for the IT than a literal interpretation.

I don't think speculations was one of the main motivations to include a literal interpretation. It was so that everyone had something to enjoy.
Besides, I find that it comes naturally. Is there even a possibility to have the ending without a literal interpretation (and NOT have a Gainax ending)?

See i was just thinking "What's he talking about? This is NGE all over again" and you read my mind.

The difference is NGE was written by a rundown anime director on the verge of a psychotic breakdown. His "success" was more or less an accident. Bioware did it on purpose! -.-

[demersel]

 About the QEC-thingy 




P.S. and ME2 really pisses me off now - it is almost unplayable after ME3 - and it is glitchy as hell - crash to desktop-glitchy. 

[zigamortis]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

The reason why more people are mad about me3 is that me3 was supposed to be a trilogy and the ending was supposed to be the end. AC just kind of stretches the story for more games.

[Eryri]

Rifneno wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

It's not irrelevant, your point was the mass relays are built by the reapers, but that some of them are doesn't discount the fact that most could be built by the Leviathans, so could have been the Citadel in the first place, which was the thing you tried to invalidate... which you failed to do.

You brought up the Citadel. As in, it was not part of the conversation before you started talking about how dating the relays doesn't explain it. It doesn't need to. We don't know who built the Citadel. It doesn't matter. We're talking about the relay network. It's possible the Leviathans built a few of the initial relays, but that's merely conjecture. We know that the Reapers build most if not all. The fact that some relays date back 50,000 years means that they're adding new ones to each cycle. Given that we've had tens of thousands of cycles, it's obvious that the majority (if not all) of the relay network is the Reapers' work.

Also the Citadel doesn't strike me as being designed to accommodate a race of gigantic, aquatic crayfish. There's a lot of small spaces and a distinct lack of water. I suppose the Reapers could have remodeled it later, but that's getting into over complicated headcanon territory. It's simpler storytelling to just assume the Reapers built it.

Unrelated, but I've just realised why I find the Leviathans vaguely disgusting - they look like a giant version of the Facehuggers from the Alien movies.

[DoomsdayDevice]

CmdrShep80 wrote...

Ok, try this with headphones and compare to the ending sequence

(...)

Well there's a set of sounds at 22-24 seconds.

(...)

I checked it out... the sound around the 22 second mark does sound very similar, but it's hard to tell if it's identical. It could be coincidence. I always thought it was garbled/distorted comms in the war room, TBH.

It's interesting, but it's hard to conclude anything from it.

[Linkforlife]

I am not sure if this was brought up, or proven wrong, and I apologize in advance if it is but, at the 23:42 mark of smudboy's video Mass Effect 3: Bookends of Destruction part 5, YouTube user Devilmingy pointed out: "By the way, where did that rise in the center (that Shepard and Anderson are leaning on) come from? Flycam can show it rising up from the floor after Shepard opens the arms, but why? Just to have something for the two to lean on in the last moments?"

Again, maybe it is nothing, and I apologize in advance once again for bringing it up if that is the case.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Xilizhra wrote...

For example, it was the Leviathans, not the Reapers, who built the mass relays.

What? Did I miss anything?

Is there a source for this, can anyone tell me?

[MaximizedAction]

zigamortis wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

The reason why more people are mad about me3 is that me3 was supposed to be a trilogy and the ending was supposed to be the end. AC just kind of stretches the story for more games.

No I get that, and otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with an unresolved storyline to strech it.
It's just that I have a problem with how they finished Desmond's story. Imo it was unfair and disrespectful towards his character. I used to care about his modern day storyline and found it interesting but for some reason the writer(s) decided to punch him metaphorically in the stomach. Looks like they just wanted to get rid of Desmond.
And they didn't need to copy an ending principle that's based on choices if you have no choices. Just felt odd.

And I think that more people were mad about ME3 was because of the emotional attachment the game builds between you and the characters. Shepard becomes much more of an in-game avatar for the player. And if Shepard suffers the player suffers with him.
And hopefully, at the end it turns out to be just a joke.

[Rifneno]

Eryri wrote...

Unrelated, but I've just realised why I find the Leviathans vaguely disgusting - they look like a giant version of the Facehuggers from the Alien movies.

I disagree. They aren't "vaguely" disgusting.

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Xilizhra wrote...

For example, it was the Leviathans, not the Reapers, who built the mass relays.

What? Did I miss anything?

Is there a source for this, can anyone tell me?

It's Xil. When she says something that makes you go, "Huh?", you can safely assume she's headcanoning it.

[Dwailing]

MaximizedAction wrote...

zigamortis wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Wow, having finished AC3 yesterday I can't even believe how people can write that the ME3 ending was worse.

And since when did endings like...these become so fashionable? Whi u do dis gamnig industri?

The reason why more people are mad about me3 is that me3 was supposed to be a trilogy and the ending was supposed to be the end. AC just kind of stretches the story for more games.

No I get that, and otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with an unresolved storyline to strech it.
It's just that I have a problem with how they finished Desmond's story. Imo it was unfair and disrespectful towards his character. I used to care about his modern day storyline and found it interesting but for some reason the writer(s) decided to punch him metaphorically in the stomach. Looks like they just wanted to get rid of Desmond.
And they didn't need to copy an ending principle that's based on choices if you have no choices. Just felt odd.

And I think that more people were mad about ME3 was because of the emotional attachment the game builds between you and the characters. Shepard becomes much more of an in-game avatar for the player. And if Shepard suffers the player suffers with him.
And hopefully, at the end it turns out to be just a joke.

You know, speaking of the AC3 ending, I don't think Desmond is really dead.  His body might be dead, but remember that everyone thought Subject Sixteen was dead after he killed himself, and... yeah.  I think Desmond's body is dead, but his mind is preserved in the Animus, like it was with Sixteen.  Now, I haven't played AC3, so I don't know is this is contradicted by something in the game, but these are my thoughts after watching the ending on YouTube.

[DoomsdayDevice]

BleedingUranium wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

The reapers did not want or expect Legion to use the reaper code to upgrade the Geth. It wasn't a path that was laid out by them.

How do you know?

For the same reason Vigil can't be a Reaper creation, it's just such an unbelievable gambit.

They give the Geth a code upgrade that is so technologically advanced that it's hard to pass up. How is that any different from leaving mass relays (or any other Reaper tech) for us to use?

Sorry, but I really don't understand how that is an unbelievable gambit.

That's the whole point of Reaper tech / mass relays / Human Reaper (saving the collector base), it's all to tempt us. It's the promise of power.

There's nothing to lose for the Reapers if the Geth don't use the upgrade, and everything to gain if they do. It's not a gambit, it's a no risk deal.

The Crucible has that same kind of lure of the promise of power. We use it without knowing what it does.

The Reapers want us to believe we can't defeat them without using their own technology against them. It's absolutely a theme. And by using their technology... we develop along the paths they desire.

[GethPrimeMKII]

MaximizedAction wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

The themes present within the trilogy make their intentions quite clear. But they also want speculation. For there to be speculation there must be at least two popular interpretations.

But what about the players who didn't play or finish the previous games OR didn't pay enough attention? For them there are less reasons to root for the IT than a literal interpretation.

I don't think speculations was one of the main motivations to include a literal interpretation. It was so that everyone had something to enjoy.
Besides, I find that it comes naturally. Is there even a possibility to have the ending without a literal interpretation (and NOT have a Gainax ending)?

Thats their own damn fault. Who the hell starts with part 3 of a trilogy and expects to understand much anything about it? The designers don't have to deviate from their original intentions to cater to players who don't make the effort to understand the story. 

[DoomsdayDevice]

Rifneno wrote...

And like I said before.  There's people who think "what if" scenarios are a good reason for genocide.  They're called "templars."

That is a very good point. But it's not so much about making a decision based on mistrust, as it is about trying to find out if there could be any validity in what I'm claiming.

I'm just trying to find out if -with what we do know- we can make an informed decision on this.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 22 décembre 2012 - 05:25 .