Some great stuff. Certainly nothing relevant or important, but it's a good read. Two picks from Chris Priestly.
Fredvdp In Mass Effect 1 it was established that the Reapers shut down the relay network in previous cycles so everyone was isolated (said by Vigil). Why did previous generations build the Crucible, a device that requires active relays, when they couldn't deploy it? If they built it during their cycle, how did everyone get there and how did they move it to the Citadel?
Chris Space wizards
jayearls How does it feel knowing I pirate your games since EA is garbage along with Bioware.
Chris I'm comforted in knowing you have learned to interact socially over the internet, which will save everyone the time of learning to hate you in person.
I think the first answer although meant as a deflection is just showing that there really are no answers to some of the big plot holes in the story. It's just bad writing.
Actually wasn't the reliance on the relay system only added during the prothean cycle, who were the only ones who had a back door to the citadel?
Edit: And I sit atop the page on my glorious quote pyramid
Huh, I thought reading forums were a hobby, *sighs* looks like I have to find a real hobby now.
Try Battletech miniature painting. Or Warhammer 40K if BT is too hard to find.
Honestly, this happened to me last summer with inFamous 2 (and the subsequent PSN hack and outtage but that's neither here nor there). I absolutely hated the last third of that game and the direction the writers took. Only in that case, I was clearly in the minority of players. They made the final boss (the Beast) out to be a shades of grey antihero and the primary antagonist became the plague, the damned impersonal, uninteresting plague. The game had shown early on that the plague was caused by rayicite poisoning. It had also shown that the Beast was following the progression of the plague down the East coast, but the game never hit upon the obvious implication that the Beast was itself spreading the very plague it claimed to be combatting: the Beast contained a Ray Sphere and was emitting powerful rayicite radiation in all directions. The ending should have been: kill the beast and stop the plague or become the beast and drive the plague. Instead they relied on a deus ex machina device that made the choices a selection of genocides and then either suicide or becoming a monster.
And then the setting was pretty much trashed and I lost all hope in the inFamous franchise.
Yes! This! All that matters is in-game content. It would be quite easy to make IT invalid; have some mention or implication of the outcomes, literal nature of the Crucible, or the starchild at any point before the end, as in, in a DLC. They haven't, and from what we've heard about Leviathan, it should do just the opposite.
Bioware, or anyone else, would never announce something as earth-shattering as IT at some press conference, it would be an in-game reveal. Think about it this way, BW has to say Synthesis is the best ending, if they said it was Destroy, that would be confirmation you're being tricked. They also can't say whether Shep was on the Citadel or not in the breath scene, because either answer directly answers whether IT is true or not.
Right, right. Just let me go fume for a bit. Not to worry, I'll do it away from this thread. I'll be back to my enthusiast state in a day or two surely.
Ya This like the 10,000 time Bioware has said this. Andd remeber Mike said we will let the game content speak for it's self. So if all of the stuff we have been finding, that means we are on track again, and we are still here.
People being depressed about vague or meaningless press conference statements.
Again.
Yeah... I really don't understand what was posted that was so bad that people are losing all faith.
They're not even saying the same things.
Jessica says there is concrete on the citadel, and when she's told we haven't seen it, she says it might be a new area we haven't seen yet. She's making it up on the go.
On the other hand Chris says he'd sure like to think that by the time we're building space stations, we'll have something better to use than concrete. In other words: concrete on the Citadel? L-O-L.
Ever since I suspected that the ending was a battle of wills against Reaper manipulation (this was before I learnt about IT), I have thought that this is what they intended, but they're leaving it ambiguous, because they like people to ask themselves the moral questions when going with the literal interpretation.
I mean, come ON. They offer us the two choices the two main villains in the series advocated, both of which were indoctrinated and they want us to think it's all legit? No explanation on why they're contradicting their own lore? Or is the point of the game that the villains were right and Shepard was wrong all along?
Choices which are offered to you by a Reaper AI? And it's all legit? Really? Even though anyone who came before thinking that was simply a Reaper puppet? Really?
I'm fine with them leaving it ambiguous. In my IT, Shep was at the London conduit when he saw the decision chamber. When he picked destroy, he shot some tube near the conduit that caused the entire thing to overload and discharge a pulse to the citadel that caused a chain reaction which caused the Crucible to go boom. The ending plays out like we see in the destroy ending, and the other two endings are 'Reaper Matrix' illusions to me.
What matters is, my Shepard stayed true to her ideals, she won the battle of wills and did what she came to do.
Unless they absolutely didn't plan on IT (which I simply can not believe in light of all the evidence) and they run into stuff with DLC which has to debunk IT in order to be released, I can't even see them denying IT at some point. It'll forever be an ambiguous thing. This was my first impression and I still stand by it.
And it's kind of appropriate, because the indoctrinated individual is never really sure. Everything seems fine, but there's this nagging little voice in the back of the head that says something seems off.
I also have the feeling that indoctrinated individuals have no idea unless someone else tells them. Something about the Rannoch Reaper dying when he was told his species went extinct long ago made me think of that. It was almost like that remark 'broke the spell' or something.
Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 19 août 2012 - 02:27 .
Bioware, or anyone else, would never announce something as earth-shattering as IT at some press conference, it would be an in-game reveal. Think about it this way, BW has to say Synthesis is the best ending, if they said it was Destroy, that would be confirmation you're being tricked. They also can't say whether Shep was on the Citadel or not in the breath scene, because either answer directly answers whether IT is true or not.
Sheesh...all this talk over the last few pages just feels depressing to me. It just goes to show you, people shouldn't get so emotionally invested in video games...or any form of media really, but then BioWare makes games that get people emotionally invested... The cycle continues...
Don't mind me. Just responding to old discussions.
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Whisper at 0:08, "the child lies". Use headphones, crank up.
Sorry, but if you're reffering to that growly sound in the background, that's generic reaper noise like the alleged "serve us" just after.
A_Pissed_Iguana wrote...
i loved the idea of the IT, but don't you guys realize that the EC sort of killed it? :/ Also, even if it still had a chance to be true, the IT ending is worse than the endings we have now because it ends (in a BEST CASE scenario) with Shepard waking up, then it ends. You never know what happens to the reaper conflict and all the characters... I would love to see an extension to this ending, but it seems silly to cling on to the IT when you consider what it would mean if it were true...
No it didn't. While it removed the Fridge Horror elements from the ending it didn't address the logical or thematic discontinuity with the rest of the narrative or within itself. In fact it added significantly to IT by making the Beam Run scene even wore preposterous by virtue of Normandy's evac scene and showing Harbinger specifically identifying and reacting to Shepard, and still failing to kill them.
Also, my sig, second link. No, IT doesn't offer the epilogues we wanted, but since it gives a more coherent and appropriate climax to the plot it still is better than the ending as was shown.
MaximizedAction wrote...
And that is a nice with the following interpretation: you know how time goes by slower when you dream? If Harbinger is still in the background in front of the London beam, and Shep is still lying there, then those slowed down Reaper sounds are Harbinger hornin' in real time.
While apparently a common idea even before Inception, this is hardly fact. There've been studies, and although the ones I've read about weren't actually that conclusive (that's what you get for trying to observe a phenomenon that defies observation), they've found that no significant time dilations occurs during dreams. 5 mins in, 5 mins out.
Of course, sometimes the brain can experience time dillation in periods of intense fear or stress. That much has been experimentally demonstrated. Doesn't mean it's a normal occurance of dreams though.
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
paxxton wrote...
DoomsdayDevice wrote...
Also, transferring minds is more of an ethical question than using artificial limbs, wouldn't you think?
Uhm, no. If you gradually substituted different parts of the body with their artificial counterparts, you'd eventually end up only with the brain being original. Why wouldn't one be allowed then to transfer his or her consciousness between platforms?
Because you literally don't know what you're doing. Is it actually being transferred? Or is it just a copy that thinks it's you? You'd never be able to tell.
Maybe by 'copying' someone's consciousness, you're literally creating another individual, who'd have to live with the fact that he's an artificially created individual.
The moral questions are very much the same as when wondering if it's okay to clone human beings. Don't take these things too lightly, it's a really slippery slope.
An interesting debate. One that hinges on a single question: is consiousness a purely classical or a partly quantum phenomenon? The scientific community has so far been unable to reach concensus on the issue, but it seems the majority lean towards purely-classical consiousness. I'm in the camp saying that the actual truth is probably even weirder than either.
Quantum consiousness makes the matter almost trivially simple. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the No Cloning Theorem lay out how basically you can't create a 'perfect' copy of a consiousness. The ME series seems to subscribe to this in its descriptions of AI and their blueboxes.
classical consiousness are the real problem. They can be perfectly observed, replicated, and emulated. Here there be dragons. I can't tell you what to believe of what to expect on the subject, I can only tell you my own take on it. If given the chance, I would copy my consiousness into digital format. Even if it meant my own death by destructive brain scan. If there's an entity that has my knowledge and memories, and feels the same passions, motivations, ambitions and relations as I do, it's for all intents and purposes me. It may not be 'me' in a religious sense, but if my legacy could live forever, I'd give it the chance.
I still say Control can go frell itself. That thing is not Shepard, in actuality or legacy.
Whisper at 0:08, "the child lies". Use headphones, crank up.
Sorry, but if you're reffering to that growly sound in the background, that's generic reaper noise like the alleged "serve us" just after.
You probably need more context.
I looked into this sound because LtBehemoth asked me to. To me it simply sounds like not actual Reaper noises, but noises of Reaper forces, like a Husk or maybe a Cannibal.
I slowed it down, sped it up, reversed it, doesn't seem to be anything special with it.
But then after a few repeated listenings I suddenly heard these words. It's probably just a funny coincidence, because it absolutely makes no sense in-game/in-universe, unlike the other evidence we found. It could be one of those easter eggs they said are included in the EC, but I highly doubt it. Especially because the emphasis seems to be on the second word, 'child', which is just weird.
Doesn't seem legit at all, and that thing that you quoted I merely posted because people were asking what we were discussing.
Just clarifying.
Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 19 août 2012 - 02:54 .
I was thinking more about Arrival, and I was wondering if there was any discussion about a possible connection between the Alpha and Omega relays. Considering we also have the Mu relay in ME1, we can assume humans use greek letters for designating relays in general, but the fact that the Alpha and Omega relays have great story importance seems intentional.
Also, slightly off-topic but I forgot to mention it earlier, to any of my fellow brits in here Jessica and Chris are going to try and come to either Eurogamer or the MCMEXPO this year so lets try and get as many IT fans together as possible.
I might be up for this if any of the UK contingent are going...
Although I have to say if Leviathan doesn't bring anything new to the table I'm thoroughly through with giving a ****
Doing a frame by frame analysis of the Starchild, there does seem to be an oily shadow coming from him. It's kind of hard to see though. Happens pretty fast. It is not an actual shading effect. It's an oily shadow that moves in his hair.
Ce sujet est fermé
![=]](https://lvlt.forum.bioware.com/public/style_emoticons/default/sideways.png)
Retour en haut
