80611 réponses à ce sujet

[demersel]

masster blaster wrote...

Ya I think that that's not Leviathan. I mean Leviathan is in the ocean right now as it seems, and maybe this Reaper is about to shot down Shepard, but leviathan interviens,

Don't you think that the leviathan will get out of the ocean at some point? 

We see a reaper attacking a shuttle in the air.

From the first trailer we know that when shepard first arrives on this planet the shuttle is disabled by a single sudden blue pulse, that came from out of nowhere seemingly. 

That means that this scene is happennig after that. So it if after shepard came back from the bottom of the ocean. So It is safe to assume that by this point the leviathan is out of the water. It is either leviathan itself or a reaper that will do battle with the leviathan.  (and really the only way shepard can stay alive when facing a reaper in a codiac shuttle that we know of yet, is if something big interwenes and takes down that reaper)

P.S.  Aslo saying GTFO was really called for. But whatever.

Modifié par demersel, 25 août 2012 - 11:45 .

[paxxton]

spotlessvoid wrote...

Keep in mind that they would never confirm IT in a public forum. If it was intentional, it would be an in game reveal Princekail

I think people are interpreting PAX wrong. 1. They don't deny IT
2. The "dedicated" comment: Mike's laugh was a nervous laugh in response to theaudience laughing

Finally someone is starting to read between lines. The whole answer to that question was prepared in advance. He repeats the same word "prescriptive" even though he wants to say something more (but is not allowed).

Modifié par paxxton, 25 août 2012 - 11:46 .

[masster blaster]

paxxton wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

Keep in mind that they would never confirm IT in a public forum. If it was intentional, it would be an in game reveal Princekail

I think people are interpreting PAX wrong. 1. They don't deny IT
2. The "dedicated" comment: Mike's laugh was a nervous laugh in response to theaudience laughing

Finally someone is starting to read between lines. The whole answer to that question was prepared in advance. He repeats the same word "prescriptive" even though he wants to say something more (but is not allowed).

TIM/ " My point exactlly."

[CoolioThane]

I'm incredibly religious. One may call me a mental zealot.

Or

I'm not.

That's me; I'm an enigma. Btw IT is real















In my opinion

[demersel]

Also don't you think that the EC slideshows are made in a very prothean vision fashion? It is the only other instance when slides were used in narrative before.

[demersel]

CoolioThane wrote...

I'm incredibly religious. One may call me a mental zealot.

Or

I'm not.

That's me; I'm an enigma. Btw IT is real

















In my opinion

*high-five* \\*low-five*\\ *fist-bump*\\

You said it. bro! 

[CoolioThane]

Did I miss the *juggling thunder* that is Hanar? Shame lol

Modifié par CoolioThane, 26 août 2012 - 12:01 .

[masster blaster]

Have we ever consider the fact, that at the end of ME2, Destroying the Collector base was Paragon, and saving the Collector base was Renegade.

At the end of ME3, it's reversed. Saving the Reapers is good, but killing them, and all Synthetics is bad. My question is that why this? You would think that saving the Collector base was a good idea, but was it wasn't. Destroying it was, and in Destroy at the end again is the same thing.

[demersel]

masster blaster wrote...

Have we ever consider the fact, that at the end of ME2, Destroying the Collector base was Paragon, and saving the Collector base was Renegade.

At the end of ME3, it's reversed. Saving the Reapers is good, but killing them, and all Synthetics is bad. My question is that why this? You would think that saving the Collector base was a good idea, but was it wasn't. Destroying it was, and in Destroy at the end again is the same thing.

The reapers reverse traditonal polarity, to further confuse the player. Also why do even say that control is paragon and destroy is renegade? It is never stated. You don't get paragon or renegade points for it, and there is now paragon\\renegade points check required to make the choice. 

Also Paragon isn't good, and Renegade isn't bad. It isn't like light and dark side of the force. 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 12:08 .

[CoolioThane]

It's not para/rene at the end

It's Shepard/not-Shepard

No true Shep (no offence Paxx) would pick control/synthesis

Refuse no so sure

[demersel]

CoolioThane wrote...

It's not para/rene at the end

It's Shepard/not-Shepard

No true Shep (no offence Paxx) would pick control/synthesis

Refuse no so sure

Refuse is also a trick option. 

Sure, it's the only option with the speach, and shepard is known for solving problems with speaches. 
But the speach itself is very weak. It's more like proudly admiting defeat (i did it my way), then defying the will of the reapers. 

[spotlessvoid]

The renegade/paragon switch is a game mechanic. It has to be attributed to Bioware, not the Reapers.

Demersel...you're right that it didn't start out that way in ME1, but renegade definitely shifted to ahole from just renegade later on. A lot of renegade options were on the edge of evil, this shows in it's effect on Sheps face

[masster blaster]

demersel wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Have we ever consider the fact, that at the end of ME2, Destroying the Collector base was Paragon, and saving the Collector base was Renegade.

At the end of ME3, it's reversed. Saving the Reapers is good, but killing them, and all Synthetics is bad. My question is that why this? You would think that saving the Collector base was a good idea, but was it wasn't. Destroying it was, and in Destroy at the end again is the same thing.

The reapers reverse traditonal polarity, to further confuse the player. Also why do even say that control is paragon and destroy is renegade? It is never stated. You don't get paragon or renegade points for it, and there is now paragonrenegade points check required to make the choice. 

Also Paragon isn't good, and Renegade isn't bad. It isn't like light and dark side of the force. 

Deepeneds how you play your Shepard, and see it. And yes I know about that, but you get what I am saying though right?

[spotlessvoid]

demersel wrote...


Refuse is also a trick option. 

Sure, it's the only option with the speach, and shepard is known for solving problems with speaches. 
But the speach itself is very weak. It's more like proudly admiting defeat (i did it my way), then defying the will of the reapers. 

Good point

[demersel]

spotlessvoid wrote...

The renegade/paragon switch is a game mechanic. It has to be attributed to Bioware, not the Reapers.

Demersel...you're right that it didn't start out that way in ME1, but renegade definitely shifted to ahole from just renegade later on. A lot of renegade options were on the edge of evil, this shows in it's effect on Sheps face

You know, and a lot of paragon options were on the edge of being noble idiot. So i say it evens out. 

The scars were showing from the emotional strain, that prevented the proccess of healing. You could also remove them. 

Renegade isn't evil. Paragon isn't good. 

[The Twilight God]

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Maybe you misunderstand how fiction works:

If BioWare, the creators of this fiction, says something is so, it is so. If BioWare says something isn't so, it isn't so.
[/quote]

Yes, IF they say so in the medium. In this case, the game itself. Nice attempt at handwaving away what you don't like, by the way.

If they wrote it happening in real-time then it occurs or "is said to be so". If they presented it as one individuals hope for something to occur, it's not set in stone and therefore "not said to be so". Bioware did not fullfill the hopes of any narrator in-game. So, to summarize, they have never said it is so.

It is a verifiable fact that Hackett never says anything he hopes actually occurs.

"Now as we take are first steps...", "Imagine what we could achieve if..." and "It will take time..."

It is a verifiable fact that Shepard never says anything he plans to do actually occurs.

"I will rebuild..." "I will create a future..." "I will protect and sustain..." "I will act as guardian.."  

Shepard: Then open the arms, let the Crucible dock, and use it to end this.
The Illusive Man: I... I will.

It is a verifiable fact that EDI never says anything she hopes will occur actually happen.

"Taking our first steps...", "We will reclaim our worlds..." "We may transcend..." "...to reach a level I can't even imagine." 

It's all about what they think, want and hope will occur. Nothing more. Fact.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Yes. I don't want to Godwin this thread, but I know for certain that a certain little German man with a funny mustache said the exact same thing.

So yes, in Control the galaxy does live under the dictate of the reapers. The reapers hold all the power. If the Shepard-Catalyst wishes to use the reapers to oppress or destroy the galaxy, he could very well do so.

Just saying that you're a protector and a guardian doesn't make it so. Renegade Shepard might say that stuff, but he says it in a way that it makes me think he's a very strict and oppressive dictator.[/quote]

And just because you say he's space Hitler doesn't make it so. The burden of proof is yours.

You haven't shown any evidence for this. You claim Shepard is space Hitler based on an association fallacy and therefore he is? Sorry, you're going to have to do better than that. I've watched the ending on Youtube and renegade and paragon say the same stuff using different words. At no point is it stated that a galactic dictatorship will emerge. Go over the narrative line by line and point out everything that even so much as hints at a dictatorship. I won't hold my breath.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

The word of god says otherwise. The fact that you personally believe that Controle and Synthesis cannot end in the way they player hopes, regardless of what the EC shows us, is just your personal belief.[/quote]

The EC does not show that Synthesis and Control turn out as the player wishes, as I've proved in this post and my thesis. You could not, will not and cannot dispute this because it is a verifiable fact. You may deny it, but you will not dispute it with evidence. And no amount of pout and willfull ignorance on your part can change that.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

First of all: I did not have to sacrifice the geth in my game when I chose Destroy in my 2nd playthrough. The geth were already destroyed on rannoch. So in my case it was either sacrificing Shepard or sacrificing EDI.[/quote]

Lovely anecdote.

In my game I believed Shepard would die no matter what I picked. In my story he dies. So let's just cancel that out Shepard's death as a sacrifice altogether. Therfore, Synthesis and Control have no sacrifice whatsoever. But in destroy I kill a friend and bring about the collapse of galactic civilization as we know it. 

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Again, just your speculation.[/quote]

Player's interaction are complete. Shepard's story comes to a halt in the chamber. Fact.
One can say he lives in Control. I just said it. Fact.
I personally get no warm and fuzzies from the breathe scene. Subjective reaction. Not a fact, but a truth.

None of it is speculation. 

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

And Shepard is not alive in Control. He does not narrate Control. His A.I. copy which functions as the new Catalyst does.[/quote]

Now THAT is speculation.

I'm not the man (or kid) I was 25 years ago. He saw the world very differently than I do. Through his demise I was born.  

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, peace of mind that these crappy endings aren't the true endings at all. That's the peace of mind the IT offers you. It allows you to be optimistic and believe that there might actually become a new, true, better ending, despite the fact that Chris Priestly repeatedly said there won't be any new, extra, or addition to the ending of ME3.[/quote]

They are all true endings. You really need to read my thesis (read the "conclusion" section) and stop making ignorant assumptions. That goes for any IT argument as not everyone believes in the same stuff.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

[quote]The Twilight God wrote...
I'm waiting for your rivetting rebuttal of my thesis. I can't wait for you to demonstrate how I'm not basing my conclusion on in-game events and that I'm pulling my conclusion out of my backside.
[/quote]

I already did that. [/quote]

No, you didn't. And you know you didn't.

I even have my reasoning process numeric listed step by step for easy reference.

You could not, will not and cannot dispute my thesis apparently. So nothing else you say is relevent. Until you can make a rebuttal you agree with it by default. I'm not going to sit here and continue discussing something when you've already demonstrated that my loigc is superior to yours by sheer virtue of being incapable of finding flaws in it. Meanwhile, I can point out flaws in your reasoning quite easily and do just that in my thesis.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Prove me wrong.[/quote]

Done and done.

You don't have to like or accept it, but since you cannot rebute it you demonstrate de facto agreement with it. If the story is narratively and thematic consistent it isn't objectively bad writting. You may not like it, but that doesn't make it objectively flawed narratively and thematically. 

Spoilers for movie The Grey.
*
*

Spoiler

It would be like saying Liam Nieson survives at the end of The Grey because after credits we see the wolf on it's side breathing like the wolf he shoot earlier.

*
*
End of spoiler

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Nope, that is not my premise at all. Nice straw man though.[/quote]

Yes, that is EXACTLY your premise. You have offered no evidence as to why it's crap other than you don't like the implications of indoctrination.  

Show me otherwise. Still waiting for that rebutal. Although I'm betting you're all talk.

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...

No, because Chris Priestly said so, several times!
[/quote]

Blind faith in Chris Priestly is still blind faith. And you just said earlier that Bioware has no comfirmed or denied any interpretation. So what can Chris Preistly say that is of any relevent to our discussion?

And what exactly did Chris Priestly say?

That there is no Kasumi DLC? That there is no prothean squadmate DLC?

What did Chris say this time?

Modifié par The Twilight God, 26 août 2012 - 12:31 .

[spotlessvoid]

demersel wrote...

The scars were showing from the emotional strain, that prevented the proccess of healing. You could also remove them.

Yet they only show up in renegade. And they certainly make Shep look evil

demersel wrote...

You know, and a lot of paragon options were on the edge of being noble idiot. So i say it evens out.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. True, but that doesn't change the intention. True straw man there.

demersel wrote...

Renegade isn't evil. Paragon isn't good.

Agreed, hence

spotlessvoid wrote...

A lot of renegade options were on the edge of evil

So yes, it isn't "good/evil" but paragon/renegade are certainly presented as benevolent/malicious at times

[ebuchala]

spotlessvoid wrote...

The renegade/paragon switch is a game mechanic. It has to be attributed to Bioware, not the Reapers.

Demersel...you're right that it didn't start out that way in ME1, but renegade definitely shifted to ahole from just renegade later on. A lot of renegade options were on the edge of evil, this shows in it's effect on Sheps face

You know this was quite a big deal throughout at least ME2 and 3 that choosing renegade options and building up your renegade character would lead to scars becoming worse (unless you use the special scar-removing equipment in ME2 which says your scars won't come back no matter what kind of choices you make). Any way you look at it, the scarring seems to be an indication of the renegade and, in many cases, less "good" options.

Now consider TIM's face from ME2 to 3. At the beginning and periodically throughout ME2 you see TIM in person not just through the QED or QEC or whatever it's called, which seems to have some kind of special smoothing filter on only TIM's device in ME3 (Hackett's scars show up quite well on the QED when talking to Shep). TIM in person in ME2 has a smooth face and looks marginally older than Shepard but not incredibly scarred or wrinkled. By the time we get to the Mars archive, his face in person is deeply etched along the lower cheeks around the mouth, possibly around the brow as well although I don't remember off hand. However, he looks almost the same in the QED as he looked in ME2. His face in person has gone from smooth and middle aged to deep wrinkles or scars around the mouth area to essentially eaten off in areas at the end of the game (if taken as real and not part of a dream or hallucination). Even taken as a hallucination, I think it shows Shepard's acknowledgment that the choices TIM makes in the last game are very much renegade, borderline evil, options which would, of course, include the whole control-the-reapers thinking.

I still think it's very interesting that TIM has to have some sort of filter on his QED to make himself look smooth-faced. Maybe a testament to his vanity?

Modifié par ebuchala, 26 août 2012 - 12:37 .

[TJBartlemus]

 Holy f**k. What did I just read? There was a giant troll attack from at least 3 of them, then when there is mention of a mod they all run for their caves they came from.... 

My points on the last 5 hours:

- A troll is a person who is a D**K. 

- Basic rule of debating...you cannot debate the undebateable. That being the future. There are no facts or proof for the future. So trolls like I eat unicorns are totally wrong in saying that BioWare will "never" confirm IT. And such like topics...

- Chris is right in saying they will not add to the endings. BioWare doesn't need to change / add to the endings to prove IT. BioWare can in a epilogue DLC like Arrival. It doesn't affect the endings or change them. It just occurs after them. (Sneaky use of wording BioWare... ) Also before saying they disproved that I just want to say you are wrong. They have yet to confirm or deny after ending DLC. They even went out to say they were thinking about it.

- Regarding IT con / IT dream....they are both the same thing. They are both IT. It's just that each person has a different idea on how BioWare is going to / has implimented it. We in this thread mainly believe in the possibility of IT being implimented by using a dream. They believe IT was implimented in a literal sense. Both are IT. 

EDIT - fixed wording a bit...

Modifié par TJBartlemus, 26 août 2012 - 12:49 .

[spotlessvoid]

Can't find the link twilight God...here's the quote though


from Chris Priestly "I answered this. There will be no more new endings. I used the "quotes" as we consider the Extended Cut the ending, the finale, the stop whatever you want to call it of the ending of Mass Effect 3. We do not plan to make new endings, give more closure to the endings, adding or subtracting to or from the endings, etc. We are done with the endings.

That said, we are working on some very cool downloadable story based single player content. In these DLCs there will certainly be elements that will effect the end of the game. As Mike Gamble already said, depending on what you do in Leviathan there will be new dialog with the Catalyst at the end of the game. These sorts of elements are definitely possible for future DLC as well.

And for all those stating "Well if you don't X I am not going to buy another game/DLC/etc from BioWare again". I'm sorry you feel thht way, but I understand it. That is your ability as a consumer. If a company (us, a burger joint, a shoe store, etc) does not live up to your expectations, you go elsewhere. I get it and I do the same thing. I do not fault anyone for feeling this way. Hopefully, the DLC we come up with or a future BioWare title will make you want to give us another try.

However, if you don't like it, feel free to leave. I'm sorry we have disappointed you and as I said, we'll try to make better content or games in the future that you will hopefully enjoy. No one if forced to be here. You don't like it, feel free to take your business elsewhere and stop trying to ruin the funn and enjoyment for those people who do enjoy ME3 and the DLC.

Done now. "

[demersel]

masster blaster wrote...

Deepeneds how you play your Shepard, and see it. And yes I know about that, but you get what I am saying though right?

I get what you're saying. Over the course of two games we were conditioned to think that blue represents peacefull, patient solution, while red represents violent and rash solution. 

Or blue is good for everyone, red is selfish, and calculated, with the disregard for life of others. 

Blue is the noble way
Red is the quick and efficient way

etc. 

You could also generalyse that blue is good, red is bad, (but really it isn't)

In the end we get an option that is coloured red, and the option that is coloured blue.  That could lead you to belive that they represent paragon, or renegade. and thus further affect your decision.
That is the case of classical conditioning
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/classical_conditioning
It makes you more incline to pick a choice not because of it's meaning, but because of it's colouring. 
Because really, ok destroy has red lighting over it, and control has blue lighting over it, why should it factor in my decision about the fate of the galaxy? (it's a serious question, please try to answer it). 


It is a documented fact that most player in most cases try to stick to one or the other line of behevior, while playing mass effect. Bioware has this data. This data also shows that more player pick paragon more often rather than renegade.  You ask me why is destroy red. From a game mechanic - to make it harder to pick. Players won't just see - gee it's blue=paragon. I'll just pick that.   Renegade player won't also just pick it right away cause in most cases before renegade choices tended to agree with the illusive man and his morals and reasoning (no, this is wrong, most choices that agreed with the illusive man and his morals and reasoning were renegade. That's more accurate)  - but the illusive man clearly is shown picking the other option, not the red one. 

I say this is made so that the player should thing about why he's making this choice. And to make picking destroy even harder. 


I played the game making choices i saw more fit for each individual situation. More then a half of them were paragon. But i also made so huge choices, that were renegade. I made those choices not because of their morala alignment, but because i thought that was the thing to do (given the information i had at the moment). 

I killed the rachni queen. because i thought that as far the galaxy is conserned the rachi are extinct, and it took a lot of effort to make them extict, and that this woulnd shift the balance in the galaxy. Aslo - better safe then sorry. 

I let the council die. Not because i wanted them to die. But because, i thought it is crucial to take down sovereign whatever it takes as fast as possible, cause if he opens the door for the reapers - everyone dies. (and the council allowed this situation to happen in the first place). 

I destroyed the collectors base, because i know that al long a s reaper tech functions - it is a threat. It has only one perpuse to build reapers out of millions of human beings, and the only way to make sure that never happens again at least in this particular place (so what that the collectors are wiped out? the reaper tech is still intact, the cerberus will come, will get indoctriunated as they are known for, and the whole thing starts again). 

I chose destroy, because it kills the reapers. And when reapers are no more - there will be plenty of time to think what do with this inevitable rebellion of synthetics, and if there is anything needed to be done at all. 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 01:03 .

[TJBartlemus]

Also Twilight God...I have to disagree on the interpretation of Control. Control turns Shepard into an AI. (Am I wrong?) Sure what we are is shaped by our memories. This is shown in game in the Legion VI. This doesn't necessarily mean that an AI that has Shepard's memories is Shepard. Let's take an example. Dr. Halsey and Cortana. Cortana is an AI that has been copied from Dr. Halsey, but both have totally different personalities and both make different decisions.

There is also another thing. The Shepard that we control is composed of 2 things. Character Shep and Player Shep. Player Shep is essensially us who play the game. Character Shep is Shepard in the game that experiances everything and what he/she is reflects Player Sheps decisions. Well in Control we remove the Player Shep aspect of Shepard and Character Shep takes reign. It can make decisions on it's own without us and probably wouldn't choose what we Player Shep would of chosen.

Pretty much to sum it up my point is that after choosing control, "Shepard" isn't the Shepard we know anymore.

[spotlessvoid]

Twilight God...
As I said in your thread...great work.
TJ
ITCon and ITDream share the same thematic element (the importance of which Simon_Says did a great job of pointing out on page 507 I think)
However, the plot device is radically different, hence the important distinction made by giving different names.

So agreed they are both indoctrination theories.

Still, I think there are enough surreal, impossible things throughout the ending to keep me on the dream side if the fence as things stand

[demersel]

I'd like to point out a fact, that Chris Pristly, while i respect him, isnt' a writer, isn't a producer, isn't a game director, and isn't even a PR manager. He is a communty manager and forum moderator. He says and states only what he is told to say and state. At most he collects the feedback and forwards it to the devs, writers and producers. He also pulishes statements that are released to public. That's it.

[The Twilight God]

demersel wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Ok. Let's start from the top. 
What was our original point of disagreement? 

Let's have a constructive discussion.  

Dream Theory: So Shepard wakes up... then Harbinger finishes what he started and vaporizes Shepard.

Essentially, Dream Theory presents a scenario where Shepard is either indoctrinated or killed. Either way the Reapers win. I'm not saying that it is an impossible, but people here don't take it as that. They go further and state Shepard get's up and the saga continues. In which case it IS incomplete and it DOES require DLC to work. If I have to headcanon the resolution of the series it is incomplete story.

However, I do disagre with everything taking place in his head because of certain aspects of the endings.  For instance, why would Shepard's subconscious in the Control ending involve the Citadel arms closing and the Control eruption reaching the Charon Mass Relay in the form of an energy wave as opposed to reaching it as a beam and causing severe explosions across the Citadel in the Synthesis and Destroy versions? Furthermore, if it is all a delusion why does the readiness of the allied fleets have any relevance whatsoever on what delusions Shepard perceives in the Crucible docking chamber? Why is there a high EMS necessity for Synthesis. Why does the choice to either preserve of destroy the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2 even matter in this regard with low EMS?