80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

Restrider wrote...

(I even started to shoot at Anderson while entering the control room, since I thought it has to be TIM, because the room resembled his office,).

Glad to know I'm not the only one who did that.   "DIE, Jack Harper!"  "... Oh ****, sorry Anderson!"

[demersel]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Hey guys, I was playing through the Rio map on MP last night and noticed something odd: that T78 (or whatever one means infrasound) sign is present in a couple of places on the extraction zone side with an arrow pointing down. Just something to speculate on.

More evidence to the idea that there is going to be a singleplayer mission set in RIO, and it will involve a secret underground facility, that the Rio level is enterance for. 

[demersel]

Rifneno wrote...

Restrider wrote...

(I even started to shoot at Anderson while entering the control room, since I thought it has to be TIM, because the room resembled his office,).

Glad to know I'm not the only one who did that.   "DIE, Jack Harper!"  "... Oh ****, sorry Anderson!"

Also - when you do that - nothing happens to Anderson.  But seconds after he's mortially wounded by just one bullet. 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 01:38 .

[Lokanaiya]

demersel wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Restrider wrote...

(I even started to shoot at Anderson while entering the control room, since I thought it has to be TIM, because the room resembled his office,).

Glad to know I'm not the only one who did that.   "DIE, Jack Harper!"  "... Oh ****, sorry Anderson!"

Also - when you do that - nothing happens to Anderson.  But seconds after he's mortially wounded by just one bullet. 

I don't really think that would count as a piece of evidence because, well, there are other places where you can shoot at friendlies and not get a game over scene, right?

[demersel]

Lokanaiya wrote...

demersel wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Restrider wrote...

(I even started to shoot at Anderson while entering the control room, since I thought it has to be TIM, because the room resembled his office,).

Glad to know I'm not the only one who did that.   "DIE, Jack Harper!"  "... Oh ****, sorry Anderson!"

Also - when you do that - nothing happens to Anderson.  But seconds after he's mortially wounded by just one bullet. 

I don't really think that would count as a piece of evidence because, well, there are other places where you can shoot at friendlies and not get a game over scene, right?

Right. It's just wierd. 


Wait! Actually wrong! In mass effect you can't fire on friendlies outside of combat. And you only can fire on your squadmates - NPC's are off limits - your gun is pointewd up and can't shoot when you point it on the NPC. 
 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 01:45 .

[Restrider]

demersel wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

Restrider wrote...

(I even started to shoot at Anderson while entering the control room, since I thought it has to be TIM, because the room resembled his office,).

Glad to know I'm not the only one who did that.   "DIE, Jack Harper!"  "... Oh ****, sorry Anderson!"

Also - when you do that - nothing happens to Anderson.  But seconds after he's mortially wounded by just one bullet. 

To be honest, you cannot count that as proof. How often have I been running amok on the Citadel in ME 1 shooting a random Salarian into the face, . And I've been shooting my squadmates in ME 2 and 3 accidently or out of frustration (Garrus went gung-ho again, damnit!).
€dit: Awe, I was too slow.<_<

Modifié par Restrider, 26 août 2012 - 01:44 .

[demersel]

Restrider wrote...

To be honest, you cannot count that as proof. How often have I been running amok on the Citadel in ME 1 shooting a random Salarian into the face, . And I've been shooting my squadmates in ME 2 and 3 accidently or out of frustration (Garrus went gung-ho again, damnit!).
€dit: Awe, I was too slow.<_<

Mass Effect one had different engine. And different way it treated enviroment. But starting from ME2 you can't shoot NPCs. I'm still not saying it is an evidence but it is still weird. 

[CoolioThane]

Hanar: "I'm not a troll...I troll people like you"

Hmmm what a knob

[Norlond]

demersel wrote...
Mass Effect one had different engine.

I thought ME 1+2+3 all use Unreal Engine 3?

[Rifneno]

I always headshot Jacob's rapist daddy with a widow a few (dozen) times before going up and talking to him. One time I Cain'd his ass. Never a scratch, sadly.

[Applepie_Svk]

demersel wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

No. Why would the catalyst, that is trying to trick shepard, who doesn't have any idea how the thing works, why would he tell him, "If you shoot this tube you'll kill all reapers, including me.", especially if its true???

Great plan. You could just come up to Almost dead shepard and say - you've got to jump into the beam. That's what the crucible is for. It is the only option. You thought it is for destroying reapers? Na-ha. It does stop the reaper threat, but by fusing all organic life with synthetics. Oh you don't believe me? Excuse me, do you have any kind of sceince degree? Did you actually work on building the thing? Did ever even glamced at the schematics? I thought so. Jump into the beam. What's that? The illusive man? He glanced at the schematics once? And he was sure that it allows a person to take control of all the reapers? Didn't you just shoot him in the head? We'll you you really want to, you can try crabbing those to sparckling electrodes. 

  

Point of Indoctrination is that all happening in Shepard´s mind - the Catalyst can gave you illusion of prosperity and hope but he cannot change your ideal why are you fighting against the Reapers. Let´s go to ideals - there are three ideals which we were given by Catalyst ideal of synthesis aka Saren ideal of control aka TIM and ideal of destroy aka Shepard/Hacket/Anderson/Legion and many others.
Catalyst cannot change the fact which you are fight for but he can paint it in different color [don´t take it literally]  - look at the ideal again:

- blue - whole time was Shepard saying to TIM that it´s not possibile and now Catalyst saying right oposite of what Shepard believed into. 
- prosperity and safety

- green - whole ME1 was Shepard hunting Saren which had doubts into relationship with Sovereign but in the end he fall to effect of indoctrination in the blind faith that Reapers want to ascend us and Catalyst present this way in same manner - Hell even epilogue by EDI is stated in the same manner.
- prosperity and safety

- Red - this ideal was what Shepard fight for - to stop Reapers once and for all but in the end, but Catalyst paint this ideal as worst possibile solution which solve nothing, the Reapers will die as will die all curent synthetics which Shepard gathered as allies and in the future will raise new synthetics to destroy organics.
- unsafety and grim future

demersel wrote... 
And that's it. If the decision chamber is literal, and not methaphoric, not taking place iscide Shepard's mind, AND if we the catalyst is trying to trick shepard into something, and is in fact a reaper - there is no way and no reason for him to even give you a destroy option. It would be extremly stupid and crazy of him to do so. 

The only way for the decision chamber to be real and the effects of the crucible to be real is if the catalyst is really some neutral, impartial, benign god-like entitty, or a VI user manual program. Which we know he's not. 

Let´s look for it from other side - there is moral perplexity, Shepard was also fighting for a goal to free galaxy from Reapers but with Catalyst´s explanation that without Reapers will sooner or later everything lost he is forced to think about other choices given by Catalyst as synthesis and control.

If Shepard choose destroy it present that he is able to sacrifice own ideals and allies to destroying of Reapers - he is also refused the gifts given by Catalyst to civilization.

If Shepard choose control or synthesis he/she fully agree with Reapers agenda in meaning of greater good, despite they paint it to be good - they lied him and when he subdue to delusion of those two paths we will be implanted and fall to their control.

For example - Control:
So the Illusive man was right after all ?
Yes, but he could never have taken control... because we already controlled him.
But I can... (and this is part which is very interesting when Shepard just a few minutes ago was saying to TIM otherwise that we are not prepared and we cannot control them)

Synthesis:
Why not the synthetics are already part of you - the cycle will end - the reapers will seize the harvest - synthesis is final part of the evolution.

What is marvelous on whole that conversation is thing how he was trying to lure attention
away from real issue here - the REAPERS:

Created will always rebelled against their creators.

When fire burns, is it at war? Is it in conflict ? Or is it simply doing what it was created to do ? 

He is talking about Reapers as just about mindless tools, which serving to good intention and yet Shepard is looking too calm - he looks more like he start doubt about himself.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 26 août 2012 - 02:07 .

[demersel]

Norlond wrote...

demersel wrote...
Mass Effect one had different engine.

I thought ME 1+2+3 all use Unreal Engine 3?

ME1 sure didn't 
ME2 also didn't but later was remade on it for the PS3 release,

And i don't mean the programming engine itself. Just the way those game approach and treat enviroment and locations. 

[demersel]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

look , you dropped in on a discussion, but completely missed it's point, and just wasted your time really. 

I had a discussion with Twilight God. 
He has a theory that he calls IT-con. Which states, that reapers are trying to indoctrinate and trick shepard, but at the same time everything in the endings happens for real (shepard get's hit by the beam, get's up, goes into the beam, goes to the citadel, meets anderson and TIM, shoot's TIM, Anderson dies, then he meets the catalystwv who tries to trick him into picking anything other than destroy, crucible fires for real. does what you chose it to do for real. The end.
And he is also rejects any suggestion that it is all a dream. I tried to prove to him that his idea is stupid, and makes no sense. Then you drop in and make long post proving to me how everything i wrote, discibing his idea, is stupid and makes no sense. (Or at least i think it's what you wanted to do.) 
 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 02:17 .

[CoolioThane]

Twilights idea is stupid. It's literal with less retard but only a little

O

[demersel]

CoolioThane wrote...

Twilights idea is stupid. It's literal with less retard but only a little

O

THANK YOU! 

Also, pure speculation. but how do you feel about an  idea of killing reapers by throwing huge asteroid into them at extremely high speeds - possibly using mass relays to relate the acceleration (you attach engines to the asteroid just like in the BDtS and Arrival, and drive it as a ship into a mass relay but aiming not to destroy the relay but to actally use it, so it accelerates the asteroid just like it does any ship.)   Of course you'll have to do something about targeting and drift... 

But think about it . For every game we had a storyline involving using asteroids as a weapon. In Arrival it is even use do destroy something that was before thought indestructible. 

Also the ending of arrival really feels very significant and important. (the way it is presented) - as if it is a turning point of some sort (the moment an asteroid destroys that relay). 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 02:31 .

[Applepie_Svk]

demersel wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

look , you dropped in on a discussion, but completely missed it's point, and just wasted your time really. 

I had a discussion with Twilight God. 
He has a theory that he calls IT-con. Which states, that reapers are trying to indoctrinate and trick shepard, but at the same time everything in the endings happens for real (shepard get's hit by the beam, get's up, goes into the beam, goes to the citadel, meets anderson and TIM, shoot's TIM, Anderson dies, then he meets the catalystwv who tries to trick him into picking anything other than destroy, crucible fires for real. does what you chose it to do for real. The end.
And he is also rejects any suggestion that it is all a dream. I tried to prove to him that his idea is stupid, and makes no sense. Then you drop in and make long post proving to me how everything i wrote, discibing his idea, is stupid and makes no sense. (Or at least i think it's what you wanted to do.) 
 

I don´t think that Catalyst-idnoctrination was honest in single one word, too many contradictions - I still prefering classic IT explanation than IT-con. The main problem which I have seen is presence of magic elevator and breath scebe -
unless there is more space magic, ME1 proved that climbing on the top of presidium without suit is little bit dangerous - you know space and organic body - ouch... there is simply no energy field which is sustaining the atmosphere around Citadel.

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 26 août 2012 - 02:37 .

[Rifneno]

demersel wrote...

THANK YOU!

Also, pure speculation. but how do you feel about an idea of killing reapers by throwing huge asteroid into them at extremely high speeds - possibly using mass relays to relate the acceleration (you attauch engines to the asteroid just like in the BDtS and Arrival, and drive it as a ship into a mass relay but aiming not to destroy the relay but to actally use it, so it accelerates the asteroid just like it does any ship.) Of course you'll have to do something about targeting and drift...

But think about it . For every game we had a storyline involving using asteroids as a weapon. In Arrival it is even use do destroy something that was before thought indestructible.

Also the ending of arrival really feels very significant and important. (the way it is presented) - as if it is a turning point of some sort (the moment an asteroid destroys that relay).

Here's the thing. If it's going lower than the speed of light, it won't work. The Reapers can simply dodge at FTL. If it's at FTL speed then it doesn't even need to be anything as powerful as an asteroid. Problem is, FTL technology was designed by the Protheans. And by the Protheans, I mean it's Reaper tech that everyone attributed to the Protheans. It's designed with safety measures so people don't accidentally get themselves killed by using the FTL tech and hitting something with their ship. And by accidentally getting themselves killed, I mean using FTL projectiles to omnimurder Reapers when they invade.

[demersel]

Rifneno wrote...
Here's the thing. If it's going lower than the speed of light, it won't work. The Reapers can simply dodge at FTL. If it's at FTL speed then it doesn't even need to be anything as powerful as an asteroid. Problem is, FTL technology was designed by the Protheans. And by the Protheans, I mean it's Reaper tech that everyone attributed to the Protheans. It's designed with safety measures so people don't accidentally get themselves killed by using the FTL tech and hitting something with their ship. And by accidentally getting themselves killed, I mean using FTL projectiles to omnimurder Reapers when they invade.

Mass Relays accelerate you to speeds faster than the FTL. That's why i suggest using it. It also was designed by the reapers, and it also has safety measures, but that's an ingeneering problem - to figure out how to do it and disable safety measures, and aim the damn thing. )) But i think if they put their mind to it - it's manageble. ))

[demersel]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

demersel wrote...

Applepie_Svk wrote...

look , you dropped in on a discussion, but completely missed it's point, and just wasted your time really. 

I had a discussion with Twilight God. 
He has a theory that he calls IT-con. Which states, that reapers are trying to indoctrinate and trick shepard, but at the same time everything in the endings happens for real (shepard get's hit by the beam, get's up, goes into the beam, goes to the citadel, meets anderson and TIM, shoot's TIM, Anderson dies, then he meets the catalystwv who tries to trick him into picking anything other than destroy, crucible fires for real. does what you chose it to do for real. The end.
And he is also rejects any suggestion that it is all a dream. I tried to prove to him that his idea is stupid, and makes no sense. Then you drop in and make long post proving to me how everything i wrote, discibing his idea, is stupid and makes no sense. (Or at least i think it's what you wanted to do.) 
 

I don´t think that Catalyst-idnoctrination was honest in single one word, too many contradictions - I still prefering classic IT explanation than IT-con. The main problem which I have seen is presence of magic elevator and breath scebe -
unless there is more space magic, ME1 proved that climbing on the top of presidium without suit is little bit dangerous - you know space and organic body - ouch... there is simply no energy field which is sustaining the atmosphere around Citadel.

Why exactly are you arguing with me? And what is your point that you're trying to convey to me? What do you want to convince me in? 

Modifié par demersel, 26 août 2012 - 02:53 .

[Schachmatt123]

demersel wrote...

Norlond wrote...

demersel wrote...
Mass Effect one had different engine.

I thought ME 1+2+3 all use Unreal Engine 3?

ME1 sure didn't 
ME2 also didn't but later was remade on it for the PS3 release,

And i don't mean the programming engine itself. Just the way those game approach and treat enviroment and locations. 

Of course it did: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

[demersel]

Schachmatt wrote...

Of course it did: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unreal_Engine_games#Unreal_Engine_3

Ok. I'm wrong.

I never suggested it should be used as evidence in the first place. 

[Rifneno]

demersel wrote...

Mass Relays accelerate you to speeds faster than the FTL. That's why i suggest using it. It also was designed by the reapers, and it also has safety measures, but that's an ingeneering problem - to figure out how to do it and disable safety measures, and aim the damn thing. )) But i think if they put their mind to it - it's manageble. ))

Mass relays work in pairs. They can only launch an object to another relay, not at something like a Reaper. Otherwise it'd be a simple matter of realigning a mass relay to launch them into a star or black hole and trick them into using it.

The Protheans were much, much more advanced than our current cycle and they had only barely started to understand mass relay technology (remember the conduit in ME1?). Remember that the Reapers survival depends on people not being able to hack the FTL protections. Seriously, once organics figure out how to hit Reapers with FTL projectiles, it's over for them. Which isn't to say it's impossible. I've been convinced since shortly after finding IT that this is the answer, but it's definitely not just a simple engineering issue.

[jgibson14352]

that and the relays create corridors of empty space, meaning that anything inbetween most likely gets pushed out of the way. they never explain it, but thats probably pretty safe to assume

[Restrider]

My subjective method to explain the ending:

Okham's Razor
"If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffices."

Hanlon's Razor
“Never assume malice when stupidity will suffice.”

These are concepts that should be used for empirical studies (Okham) or when trying to explain events in society (Hanlon) such as conspiracy theories.

If we applied these principles, we can explain everything regarding the end with "bad writing" and/or "coincidence". These principles are often used as counter argument, when discussing the various forms of IT. But one thing has to be considered!

This is a fictional (artificial) story! This means that someone sat down and thought about the story and how everything in the end leads to - well - the ending. Of course, these persons can do stupid things. But compared with Bioware's merits regarding storytelling (eg ME 1, ME 2...) the end of the trilogy is an (maybe even unrealistic) anomaly, if taken at face value.

The other possibility is that they intended something else, let it be IT or whatever (excluding literal interpretation). All anomalies in the period after Harbinger's beam can be explained by one thing, being "bad writing", coincidence or IT.

For me, I am pretty sure many things hinting to IT may be over-interpreted and just coincidence,
but the sheer amount of hints (and some of them are just very fitting) indicates for me that IT is a plausible (even the most plausible) ending. Or deliberately writing a stupid ending (and that is unrealistic).

Another point is how Bioware reacted to the public outcry.
If I recall correct they stated that many did not understand the ending. The implication is that the ending (as it was pre-EC) had to be more complex than a simple literal ending (because a literal ending needs no further explanation and thus it is hard to NOT understand it).
Now they added the EC that gives the literal interpretation more room and closes plot holes, but still leaves the IT intact (seriously, let me say this: "Ah, the "IT-has-been-debunked-theme"! We have dismissed that claim.")
Out of the gut, I would say Bioware has been tending more to IT than to a literal interpretation (see their: "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND!!" at the beginning), but released the EC to please the literalists leaving the community divided and confused.

Who knows what will happen, but I think this discussion is far away from being over and that we will have more information in DLC or maybe ME 4.

Modifié par Restrider, 26 août 2012 - 03:40 .

[demersel]

+1