80611 réponses à ce sujet

[desert_beagle]

magnetite wrote...

From Twitter:

Me: "Will the Leviathan DLC confirm/deny the Indoctrination theory, or continue to leave it ambiguous?"
Chris Priestly: "The endings will remain up to the individual players."

Hate to say it, but what Chris said was probably the right thing. If they disproved the theory, not only would you have the people who didn't like the ending, but the IT people fighting. These forums would probably implode. Not to mention you'd have a bunch of news sites writing articles about it.

They're trying to contain the situation. Worst thing to do would be to start more fires.

More than likely Corporate Commander is sitting in his cushy office at EA counting the millions of dollars he will rake in by continuing to force BioWare to produce DLC as a carrot for fans wanting to really know for sure one way or another.

I'm just saying.  I'd hate to be a downer, but ME2 was great, the best in my opinion because it fixed most if not all of the technical problems of the first, and the story and characters were excellent.  ME3 seems to have had some major design changes that were not necessary for the series that seemed to focus it more towards a Call of Duty market.  If you look in the options menu under gamplay, you can actually turn off all access to dialogue choice options.  The game will make decisions for you based on your character from previous games and how you use the interupts.  EA then forced BioWare to put in a multiplayer gimmick that should have absolutely no bearing on the main story to force those who were content with the single player games that were ME1 and 2 to move into their online shooter market, and play to the CoD'ers who want nothing more than to run around in an online shooting gallery. 

Chris's statement is in direct conformity to what I have said above.  He has to leave it up to the players because if he confirms it, then we will just wait for DLC or the next game that will finish the story, if he denies it then no one will want to continue playing, and EA loses a F***ton capital from DLC sales, and EA has put a gag order on this stuff.

IMHO DLC is killing the gaming industry.

[desert_beagle]

sorry posted twice cuz the sight glitched.

Modifié par desert_beagle, 19 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

@ Hrothdane Is "symbology" a word? You seem to be the right person to ask, as you have an English major right?

Yes, it is a word. 

I'm actually still in school (had to take off a few years because of money), so I don't have the degree yet

Thanks! I guess my microsoft word is just retarded then. It doesn't recognize it. Also, I'm still in school too, but good luck with your degree!

[BansheeOwnage]

paxxton wrote...

The Guardian must guard something. What is it?

Could be anything. My guess? Guardian of the Cycle.

[paxxton]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The Guardian must guard something. What is it?

Could be anything. My guess? Guardian of the Cycle.

Well, yeah, probably.

Modifié par paxxton, 19 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[TJBartlemus]

paxxton wrote...

The Guardian must guard something. What is it?

Hey Paxxton! Haven't seen ya in a while! How's everything going? 

[BansheeOwnage]

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.
So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also suggests that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers[/i] didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 19 août 2012 - 07:29 .

[Simon_Says]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.
So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also suggests that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers[/i] didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Score 1 for "It's not bad writing."

[TJBartlemus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.
So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also suggests that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers[/i] didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

I always thought it was because since EDI was a Cerberus AI and Cerberus favors orange that was why the color was orange. Your idea makes more sense though!!! 

[paxxton]

TJBartlemus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The Guardian must guard something. What is it?

Hey Paxxton! Haven't seen ya in a while! How's everything going? 

Hi TJ! I'm doing fine (was sick for a few days earlier this month). Not posting a lot these days cause waiting for Leviathan.

[FFZero]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.
So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also suggests that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers[/i] didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Huh, I’d never actually noticed that about EDI’s visor before.

I’m trying not to get my hopes up over IT, the endings changing further or anything along these lines but when you raise points like this it does make me wonder what exactly the ME team have planned.

[Simon_Says]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

ozzydude66 wrote...

I like the endings they don't need to be a dream. They could however make the starchild say "I've searched your mind for a form you can understand. That would fix the starchild real quick.

Well, I honestly have no idea what "fix" means to you but the thing reading Shepard's mind unfortunately makes no sense on many levels. But even if you ingore that, the thing is still manipulating you like Drewton said and there is no precedent for mind-reading in Mass Effect.

Oh, and shouldn't a reaper AI in Shepard's mind be enough to doubt his intentions? Just a little?

It's enough. More than enough.

[TJBartlemus]

paxxton wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The Guardian must guard something. What is it?

Hey Paxxton! Haven't seen ya in a while! How's everything going? 

Hi TJ! I'm doing fine (was sick for a few days earlier this month). Not posting a lot these days cause waiting for Leviathan.

Well I am glad you are healthy again!!!  I seem to have a different approach to waiting for Leviathan. I post often to distract myself so time goes faster. 

[ZerebusPrime]

Hrothdane wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

@ Hrothdane Is "symbology" a word? You seem to be the right person to ask, as you have an English major right?

Yes, it is a word. 

I'm actually still in school (had to take off a few years because of money), so I don't have the degree yet

Hey, taking time off for lack of money is better than taking time off for lack of passing grades.

[ozzydude66]

Heres a theroy the reapers know sep saw the boy die.

[Hrothdane]

The evidence points to IT and it being intended.

I follow the evidence. Nothing else matters. CSI taught me that.

Granted, it also taught me that crime scene techs look like models.

[BansheeOwnage]

Simon_Says wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

ozzydude66 wrote...

I like the endings they don't need to be a dream. They could however make the starchild say "I've searched your mind for a form you can understand. That would fix the starchild real quick.

Well, I honestly have no idea what "fix" means to you but the thing reading Shepard's mind unfortunately makes no sense on many levels. But even if you ingore that, the thing is still manipulating you like Drewton said and there is no precedent for mind-reading in Mass Effect.

Oh, and shouldn't a reaper AI in Shepard's mind be enough to doubt his intentions? Just a little?

It's enough. More than enough.

Good read as usual. It's another one of those things that is true in a literal and IT perspective. There is the fact that the Guardian is altering Shepard's perceptions like you said, and also that the reapers are attempting to control Shepard. The Guardian admits that he is a reaper (basically) and admits he controlled TIM. Therefore it (the reapers) attempted to control Shepard. I wonder how many other things like that there are, right under our noses, just waiting to be found.

[BansheeOwnage]

Hrothdane wrote...

The evidence points to IT and it being intended.

I follow the evidence. Nothing else matters. CSI taught me that.

Granted, it also taught me that crime scene techs look like models.

Basically. IT is true, because it has more evidence than any other interpretation I've seen. There is more evidence for IT than for the literal ending. That is a fact. You need to resort to plot-armour and poor writing to explain that. Not with IT though. Also, the literal interpretation requires more grasping-at-straws than IT. Much more.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 19 août 2012 - 07:50 .

[Arashi08]

desert_beagle wrote...

magnetite wrote...

From Twitter:

Me: "Will the Leviathan DLC confirm/deny the Indoctrination theory, or continue to leave it ambiguous?"
Chris Priestly: "The endings will remain up to the individual players."

Hate to say it, but what Chris said was probably the right thing. If they disproved the theory, not only would you have the people who didn't like the ending, but the IT people fighting. These forums would probably implode. Not to mention you'd have a bunch of news sites writing articles about it.

They're trying to contain the situation. Worst thing to do would be to start more fires.

More than likely Corporate Commander is sitting in his cushy office at EA counting the millions of dollars he will rake in by continuing to force BioWare to produce DLC as a carrot for fans wanting to really know for sure one way or another.

I'm just saying.  I'd hate to be a downer, but ME2 was great, the best in my opinion because it fixed most if not all of the technical problems of the first, and the story and characters were excellent.  ME3 seems to have had some major design changes that were not necessary for the series that seemed to focus it more towards a Call of Duty market.  If you look in the options menu under gamplay, you can actually turn off all access to dialogue choice options.  The game will make decisions for you based on your character from previous games and how you use the interupts.  EA then forced BioWare to put in a multiplayer gimmick that should have absolutely no bearing on the main story to force those who were content with the single player games that were ME1 and 2 to move into their online shooter market, and play to the CoD'ers who want nothing more than to run around in an online shooting gallery. 

Chris's statement is in direct conformity to what I have said above.  He has to leave it up to the players because if he confirms it, then we will just wait for DLC or the next game that will finish the story, if he denies it then no one will want to continue playing, and EA loses a F***ton capital from DLC sales, and EA has put a gag order on this stuff.

IMHO DLC is killing the gaming industry.

You know, There's a song about that...

[TJBartlemus]

 So I was looking up the definition of Leviathan and here is what I have found:

Leviathan (/lɨˈvaɪ.əθən/; Hebrew: לִוְיָתָן, Modern Livyatan[/i] Tiberian Liwyāṯān[/i] ; "twisted, coiled"), is a sea monster referred to in the Bible. In Demonology, the Leviathan is one of the seven princes of Hell and its gatekeeper (see Hellmouth). The word has become synonymous with any large sea monster or creature. In literature it refers to great whales, and in Modern Hebrew, it means simply "whale." It is described extensively in Job 41 and mentioned in Isaiah 27:1.

"... Later Jewish sources describe Leviathan as a dragon who lives over the Sources of the Deep and who, along with the male land-monster Behemoth, will be served up to the righteous at the end of time."

"The body of the Leviathan, especially his eyes, possesses great illuminating power. This was the opinion of R. Eliezer, who, in the course of a voyage in company with R. Joshua, explained to the latter, when frightened by the sudden appearance of a brilliant light, that it probably proceeded from the eyes of the Leviathan. He referred his companion to the words of Job xli. 18: "By his neesings a light doth shine, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning" (B. B. l.c.). However, in spite of his supernatural strength, the leviathan is afraid of a small worm called "kilbit", which clings to the gills of large fish and kills them (Shab. 77b)."

"The Leviathan of the Middle Ages was used as an image of Satan, endangering both God's creatures—by attempting to eat them—and God's creation—by threatening it with upheaval in the waters of Chaos. St. Thomas Aquinas described Leviathan as the demon of envy, first in punishing the corresponding sinners. (Secunda Secundae Question 36) Leviathan became associated with, and may originally have referred to, the visual motif of the Hellmouth, a monstrous animal into whose mouth the damned disappear at the Last Judgement, found in Anglo-Saxon art from about 800, and later all over Europe."

"In Satanism, according to the author of The Satanic Bible[/i], Anton Szandor LaVey, Leviathan represents the element of Water and the direction of West." 

Just some really interesting things about the mythology around Leviathan. Most of what I quoted I believe that BioWare (mythology oriented in producing ME3) will no doubt include to some extent. Something interesting is that in most or all interpretations of Leviathan it decribes it as evil and in league with the devil, being the devil, or the gatekeeper of Hell. So I don't think that Leviathan in ME3 will be a good thing. Potentially even be a trap. 

Just material and stuff to think about. 

Modifié par TJBartlemus, 19 août 2012 - 07:59 .

[BansheeOwnage]

ozzydude66 wrote...

Heres a theroy the reapers know sep saw the boy die.

Well, there is overwhelming evidence that the kid either never existed, or he only existed the very first time you saw him. The most interesting thing about that is that people (a lot of people) figured out the kid wasn't real independent of IT. Some as early as June 2011 in the E3 demo! That's pretty impressive! Likewise, after the demo came out there were many threads about how he seems fake. I think maybe Bioware thought that if so many people figured out the kid wasn't real, they could figure out the same thing about the endings. Unfortunately for all, most people didn't "get it."

[MaximizedAction]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

The evidence points to IT and it being intended.

I follow the evidence. Nothing else matters. CSI taught me that.

Granted, it also taught me that crime scene techs look like models.

Basically. IT is true, because it has more evidence than any other interpretation I've seen. There is more evidence for IT than for the literal ending. That is a fact. You need to resort to plot-armour and poor writing to explain that. Not with IT though. Also, the literal interpretation requires more grasping-at-straws than IT. Much more.

Yeah, with the EC, IT sort of became 'literal' to me. Reasons: what you wrote.

[TJBartlemus]

I kill the thread? 0_0

[BansheeOwnage]

TJBartlemus wrote...

So I don't think that Leviathan in ME3 will be a good thing. Potentially even be a trap. 

Just material and stuff to think about. 

About that part, I doubt it, simply because that would be a pretty pointless DLC. Like if in LOTSB, Liara had to die, but not without it. My opinion of Leviathan relating to its potentially symbolic meaning is simply about the book, Leviathan, that Thomas Hobbes wrote. It discusses his rediculous idea that the world should be ruled by a supreme ruler; a sovereign. The ironic part is I doubt Leviathan would approve of this, because Harbinger seems to be that sovereign. Well see soon enough though. Also, the ME writers know of Thomas Hobbes; Thane mentions him. Anyway, I'm going for a bit. See you all later!

(Read my EDI post if you didn't already.)

[TJBartlemus]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

So I don't think that Leviathan in ME3 will be a good thing. Potentially even be a trap. 

Just material and stuff to think about. 

About that part, I doubt it, simply because that would be a pretty pointless DLC. Like if in LOTSB, Liara had to die, but not without it. My opinion of Leviathan relating to its potentially symbolic meaning is simply about the book, Leviathan, that Thomas Hobbes wrote. It discusses his rediculous idea that the world should be ruled by a supreme ruler; a sovereign. The ironic part is I doubt Leviathan would approve of this, because Harbinger seems to be that sovereign. Well see soon enough though. Also, the ME writers know of Thomas Hobbes; Thane mentions him. Anyway, I'm going for a bit. See you all later!

(Read my EDI post if you didn't already.)

While yes they do have influences from Hobbes works, they also have a large connection to mythology which is present throughout the series. Cerberus, the relay names, etc. So it can be safely assumed they will take influences from known mythology as well. :happy: