80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Norlond]

So.. it's monday... Mark IV imminent

Good afternoon!

Jos on twitter

Ah yes, a quicktime event mini bossfight. I thought we had moved past those by now.

That's one more thing for the list "things we'll never see in a ME game"?

[Steelcan]

CoolioThane wrote...

Where did you get your iPad from Steel? My dad recently got his stolen, so am wondering the best place to get one!

School issued, sorry can't help

[Steelcan]

Restrider wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Just because I'm a literalist doesn't mean I trust the Catalyst, I still think he's trying to get me to pick Synthesis.

Of course he is! Even literally he is! But you not trusting him doesn't mean your Shepard can not trust him.

Shepard isn't given an option to say that he doesn't trust the Catalyst.  Refuse Shepard doesn't even bring it up.

I beg to differ.
In the speech it is not that obvious, but when Shepard talks about "winning on our own terms" it implies that a victory on the Guardian's terms is not wanted.
And I would think that shooting the Guardian is a statement of distrust.

. Shoot him is a statement of anger, and the speech is a call for conventional victory

[KyreneZA]

Breaking indoctrination in the mythical "IT DLC" should go somehting like this...

The-JoeBlack

[Restrider]

Steelcan wrote...

Restrider wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

Just because I'm a literalist doesn't mean I trust the Catalyst, I still think he's trying to get me to pick Synthesis.

Of course he is! Even literally he is! But you not trusting him doesn't mean your Shepard can not trust him.

Shepard isn't given an option to say that he doesn't trust the Catalyst.  Refuse Shepard doesn't even bring it up.

I beg to differ.
In the speech it is not that obvious, but when Shepard talks about "winning on our own terms" it implies that a victory on the Guardian's terms is not wanted.
And I would think that shooting the Guardian is a statement of distrust.

. Shoot him is a statement of anger, and the speech is a call for conventional victory

As I stated several times, but it is a call for a non-Crucible/Guardian victory.
And you may call it a statement of anger - and yes it certainly is that as well - but I think you should see it as a statement that you do not want to cooperate with this thing. Either because you just hate it or for other reasons, such as not trusting it.

Even in Destroy you somewhat cooperate with the Guardian.

[Restrider]

Kyrene wrote...

Breaking indoctrination in the mythical "IT DLC" should go somehting like this...
--snip--

That picture is so wrong... . That kid should be at least glowing.

[MaximizedAction]

Norlond wrote...

So.. it's monday... Mark IV imminent

Good afternoon!

Jos on twitter

Ah yes, a quicktime event mini bossfight. I thought we had moved past those by now.

That's one more thing for the list "things we'll never see in a ME game"?

AC3: quicktime, quicktime everywhere!
But wasn't the Rannoch Destroyer just an advanced quicktime mini boss fight?

[Steelcan]

I do not understand how Destroy is in any way a compromise with the Catalyst.

[demersel]

Restrider wrote...

I beg to differ.
In the speech it is not that obvious, but when Shepard talks about "winning on our own terms" it implies that a victory on the Guardian's terms is not wanted.
And I would think that shooting the Guardian is a statement of distrust.

That is what you want being said and happen, not what actually being said and happens. 

[masster blaster]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I'm sitting in London right now staring at rubble.

BansheeOwnage wrote...

The legend of Shepard needs to be rewritten. I hope I'm there for the last chapter.

Holy moly. It ends with your death!!!! This right here I don't even.

[dorktainian]

so we begin Mass Effect 1 and pretty much from the get go we're introduced to the decision wheel. We proceed through the game series and then we begin to get paragon/renegade choices, We rely heavily on the choice wheel until right at the end we get choices - which require choosing from a massive choice wheel, choices given to us be a reaper - but missing the most important choice of all.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

masster blaster wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

I'm sitting in London right now staring at rubble.

BansheeOwnage wrote...

The legend of Shepard needs to be rewritten. I hope I'm there for the last chapter.

Holy moly. It ends with your death!!!! This right here I don't even.

There is little doubt that Shepard might not make it out of it alive, however I believe with the right assets and choices he/she can.

[Andromidius]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Holy headcanon much

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

We've gone a bit off-topic now. The point being made is that because organic life and synthetic life has no meaningful difference, Synthesis, even if it does exactly what it's said to do, can't solve any (alleged) problems.

actually, no, as synthesis doesn't change/hybidize, as many proclaim. It merely represents the idea of organic dependence on Leviathan technology in the MEU for survival. The balance of them(synthetic life) vs. us (organic life).

We pit our tools against nature to survive nature. So it's natural to become "more" like the tools.. or vis a vis.

That guy is an utter tool.  He's gotten EVERYTHING wrong about it.

The game outright states we get hybridised, and become MORE reliant on that technology.

I'm boiling with irritation.

[Andromidius]

Steelcan wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

anyone got an actual answer as to why the crudible ejected the large dome before docking? what was the point of that dome in the first place?  Also who was flying it?

Armor plating

That they remove right before sending it into the biggest and most dangerous battle of all time?

[draconian139]

Andromidius wrote...

Steelcan wrote...

dorktainian wrote...

anyone got an actual answer as to why the crudible ejected the large dome before docking? what was the point of that dome in the first place?  Also who was flying it?

Armor plating

That they remove right before sending it into the biggest and most dangerous battle of all time?

The way I saw it was that they sent it into the battle armored and removed the armor when it got close enough to the objective to be used.

[BleedingUranium]

Andromidius wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

Holy headcanon much

Wayning_Star wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

We've gone a bit off-topic now. The point being made is that because organic life and synthetic life has no meaningful difference, Synthesis, even if it does exactly what it's said to do, can't solve any (alleged) problems.

actually, no, as synthesis doesn't change/hybidize, as many proclaim. It merely represents the idea of organic dependence on Leviathan technology in the MEU for survival. The balance of them(synthetic life) vs. us (organic life).

We pit our tools against nature to survive nature. So it's natural to become "more" like the tools.. or vis a vis.

That guy is an utter tool.  He's gotten EVERYTHING wrong about it.

The game outright states we get hybridised, and become MORE reliant on that technology.

I'm boiling with irritation.

Then don't go here or here.  I don't know why I bother. I guess I just enjoy faceplaming all the time

[draconian139]

demersel wrote...

Restrider wrote...

I beg to differ.
In the speech it is not that obvious, but when Shepard talks about "winning on our own terms" it implies that a victory on the Guardian's terms is not wanted.
And I would think that shooting the Guardian is a statement of distrust.

That is what you want being said and happen, not what actually being said and happens. 

This goes without being said.  The fact is that Shepard doesn't say anything when shooting the child, nor does he start yelling or growling incomprehensibly like some caveman.  The player can assign whatever reasoning they want for shooting the starbrat.

[demersel]

EC did one thing. It made Destroy HARDER to pick. Both thematically and gameplaywise. If the ending is a final battle - they made it more difficult and challenging.

[Norlond]

MaximizedAction wrote...
But wasn't the Rannoch Destroyer just an advanced quicktime mini boss fight?

More like Reaper Moorhuhn

[MaximizedAction]

demersel wrote...

EC did one thing. It made Destroy HARDER to pick. Both thematically and gameplaywise. If the ending is a final battle - they made it more difficult and challenging.

It's not difficult if you know what you want...which is probably the case for most players by the time the EC was released. I wonder if there is anyone who changed their mind on the choices because of the extra lines of the Guardian or the ending cinematics.

Did people pay too little attention to the trilogy or too much to the Guardian?

[demersel]

MaximizedAction wrote...

demersel wrote...

EC did one thing. It made Destroy HARDER to pick. Both thematically and gameplaywise. If the ending is a final battle - they made it more difficult and challenging.

It's not difficult if you know what you want...which is probably the case for most players by the time the EC was released. I wonder if there is anyone who changed their mind on the choices because of the extra lines of the Guardian or the ending cinematics.

Did people pay too little attention to the trilogy or too much to the Guardian?

It is very difficult if you don't know that there is refuse - and even when you do - I had to be very cerefull as t o not to pick up any of the lines that may lead to refuse. 

To pick destroy, you have to endure all of the catalyst bull****, without snapping, endure your shepard being a complient tool all this time, AND actually remember to pich destroy, while not shooting the damn catalasyst the first time you get.

Modifié par demersel, 07 janvier 2013 - 02:51 .

[ElSuperGecko]

BleedingUranium wrote...
Then don't go here or here.  I don't know why I bother. I guess I just enjoy faceplaming all the time

I'm actually morbidly fascinated by some of the characters we have in the forum.  I realise the irony as an IT-supporter in saying this, but it appears as though some people build such a complex web of headcanon in an effort to rationalize their choice that they've almost managed to legitimately indoctrinate themselves.

Then, when you call them out on the obvious and glaring flaws in their argument, they exhibit a classic case of OSDM.

[MaximizedAction]

demersel wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

demersel wrote...

EC did one thing. It made Destroy HARDER to pick. Both thematically and gameplaywise. If the ending is a final battle - they made it more difficult and challenging.

It's not difficult if you know what you want...which is probably the case for most players by the time the EC was released. I wonder if there is anyone who changed their mind on the choices because of the extra lines of the Guardian or the ending cinematics.

Did people pay too little attention to the trilogy or too much to the Guardian?

It is very difficult if you don't know that there is refuse - and even when you do - I had to be very cerefull as t o not to pick up any of the lines that may lead to refuse. 

Oh so Refuse is now a bad choice that has to be avoided actively? Da hell?

[demersel]

MaximizedAction wrote...

demersel wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

demersel wrote...

EC did one thing. It made Destroy HARDER to pick. Both thematically and gameplaywise. If the ending is a final battle - they made it more difficult and challenging.

It's not difficult if you know what you want...which is probably the case for most players by the time the EC was released. I wonder if there is anyone who changed their mind on the choices because of the extra lines of the Guardian or the ending cinematics.

Did people pay too little attention to the trilogy or too much to the Guardian?

It is very difficult if you don't know that there is refuse - and even when you do - I had to be very cerefull as t o not to pick up any of the lines that may lead to refuse. 

Oh so Refuse is now a bad choice that has to be avoided actively? Da hell?

1 - yes it is.
2 - what i meant is when you don't even know there is such an option - it is very esily triggered - the very first uot break of discontent from you, even a slight hint of noncomplience - and it is irreversably triggered. 

Modifié par demersel, 07 janvier 2013 - 02:56 .

[BleedingUranium]

ElSuperGecko wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...
Then don't go here or here.  I don't know why I bother. I guess I just enjoy faceplaming all the time

I'm actually morbidly fascinated by some of the characters we have in the forum.  I realise the irony as an IT-supporter in saying this, but it appears as though some people build such a complex web of headcanon in an effort to rationalize their choice that they've almost managed to legitimately indoctrinate themselves.

Then, when you call them out on the obvious and glaring flaws in their argument, they exhibit a classic case of OSDM.

It's not hypocritical of us because IT is not headcanon, for the simple reason that we haven't made anything up. It's a literary interpretation. It doesn't mean we're right, but we're also not wrong.

They're making stuff up while we're just looking at the story with a different coloured lenses as it were.

What's OSDM?