Aller au contenu

Photo

Was the Ending a Hallucination? - Indoctrination Theory Mark III!


  • Ce sujet est fermé Ce sujet est fermé
80611 réponses à ce sujet

#20551
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

Home run MF wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Can you guys help me, I need info for the second half of my wall of text. For all of the people who had slides, how many did each have? I think Samara had 2, etc. Please help! The slides are very buggy and confusing. Thanks. Posted Image


I might be able to help you with that, what exactly do you need?

I'm back! Okay, I just need to know how many slides each person has. I know Kasumi has at least 2, but I don't know if she has 3. I know Jack has 2, but many only have one. So, for anyone that has more than one, I want to know how many. Does that help?

Edit: Top! Yes! Estebanus come back! Posted Image

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:26 .


#20552
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Not sure which one is worse...
FOR LOLZ:

*snip*

I stopped laughing when I realized this is exactly what ME3 is. The reapers are said throughout the game to be invulnerable to conventional attacks, and indoctrination is an unstoppable force. Shepard is a symbolic immovable object. Her resolve is her greatest weapon, similar to how the reapers' greatest weapon is indoctrination. Think about it... It's an epic battle.


Wow, I hadn't thought of it quite like that before. Just another reason to want to believe in IT :lol:

#20553
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Can you guys help me, I need info for the second half of my wall of text. For all of the people who had slides, how many did each have? I think Samara had 2, etc. Please help! The slides are very buggy and confusing. Thanks. Posted Image


I might be able to help you with that, what exactly do you need?

I'm back! Okay, I just need to know how many slides each person has. I know Kasumi has at least 2, but I don't know if she has 3. I know Jack has 2, but many only have one. So, for anyone that has more than one, I want to know how many. Does that help?

Edit: Top! Yes! Estebanus come back! Posted Image


Kasumi has two, Jack has two, Miranda has two (though they're only for Synthesis and Control, respectively), Samara has one as far as I know, Grunt may have two (I've only seen one, however), Jacob I believe has one, Zaeed has one...who am I forgetting? :pinched:

#20554
Norlond

Norlond
  • Members
  • 569 messages
Do the slides have a hidden meaning? I don't really get what you are doing :whistle:

I can't help though, I never finished the game with DLC to be honest, it was too painful the first time :lol:
Just seen the new endings on YT

Oh and my Origin ID is Skyzzed, feel free to add me but be warned: I'm the avatar of noobiness in MP ;)
One reason for that could be that I rarely play MP at all, I should investigate
Just wanted to post it, since everyone seems to have done it

#20555
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

DrTsoni wrote...

Kasumi has two, Jack has two, Miranda has two (though they're only for Synthesis and Control, respectively), Samara has one as far as I know, Grunt may have two (I've only seen one, however), Jacob I believe has one, Zaeed has one...who am I forgetting? :pinched:

Hey DrTsoni! :) Nice to see you again. Also, I just mentioned you, so that was a little weird. Do you know, if you destroyed the greybox, does Kasumi have a slide? In case anyone missed the memo, I am doing this to complete my wall of text analysing whether or not the Extended Cut passed or failed in its job. Did anyone miss the first half?

#20556
401 Kill

401 Kill
  • Members
  • 1 553 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Kasumi has two, Jack has two, Miranda has two (though they're only for Synthesis and Control, respectively), Samara has one as far as I know, Grunt may have two (I've only seen one, however), Jacob I believe has one, Zaeed has one...who am I forgetting? :pinched:

Hey DrTsoni! :) Nice to see you again. Also, I just mentioned you, so that was a little weird. Do you know, if you destroyed the greybox, does Kasumi have a slide? In case anyone missed the memo, I am doing this to complete my wall of text analysing whether or not the Extended Cut passed or failed in its job. Did anyone miss the first half?

I did, can you repost it?

#20557
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Kasumi has two, Jack has two, Miranda has two (though they're only for Synthesis and Control, respectively), Samara has one as far as I know, Grunt may have two (I've only seen one, however), Jacob I believe has one, Zaeed has one...who am I forgetting? :pinched:

Hey DrTsoni! :) Nice to see you again. Also, I just mentioned you, so that was a little weird. Do you know, if you destroyed the greybox, does Kasumi have a slide? In case anyone missed the memo, I am doing this to complete my wall of text analysing whether or not the Extended Cut passed or failed in its job. Did anyone miss the first half?


Hi! Nothing bad about me, I hope ;) And yes, if you destroy the greybox Kasumi sits staring at it, though she stands with Keiji in Synthesis regardless of whether you destroyed it or not. I'm not exactly sure if she simply looks at it regardless of your choice in Control - I'm fairly confident that that is the case, but I could be wrong - but I think she's meant to have the same slide in Destroy as in Control. She seems to be glitched, if that's true.

Could I get a link to your wall of text? I'd love to read it, since I actually have some time right now.

#20558
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Copy that. Firing now. Thread will be neutralized in 5...

Pass or Fail?: The Extended Cut

Note: I will refer to the child using his original title: The Guardian. I will also include information about the Leviathan DLC in this. If you don’t want spoilers, don’t read the marked sections.

So, I decided to try to objectively asses the performance of the Extended Cut DLC to see how it stacked up in actuality compared to their promises. That said, I know some will be subjective, so feel free to disagree, but I’m writing this from my point of view. I also want to note that this is strictly written from a literal point of view, so no IT, WNT, or other alternate-reality interpretations apply here. For the most part, this is not trying to persuade you to pick certain choices, nor will it touch the moral and ethical debates about the choices.

What did the EC promise? Simple. 2 things: For us to be able to see the consequences of our choices on the galaxy, and to provide additional closure.

Impacts of choices: The EC, in my opinion, did an merely adequate job of showing the impacts. It was passable, though a lot of parts were vague.

Destroy: Basically Hackett’s entire speech is vague. He doesn’t mention the Geth or EDI once. Why not? They have to die in this ending, supposedly. So why not mention them. On that note, why doesn’t he mention Shepard? I shouldn’t even have to say this. There is even a low EMS version of this ending, where Shepard dies. He doesn’t mention Shepard’s sacrifice in the low EMS version, and doesn’t mention any of his/her achievements is high EMS. How do you have an ending to a trilogy like this and not even mention the main character in the end speech? He also states quite confidently about how they can rebuild. When did they learn how to make mass relays? In fact, I remember a certain asari matriarch who suggested studying them, and she was essentially laughed at, which makes sense, considering the relays are reaper tech; the reapers wouldn’t want any organics to learn their secrets. So we can assume there has been next to no studying of relays. How would the decimated survivors be able to study and build them? A better question: how would they coordinate linking the relays, without the communication necessary to do so? The Crucible is a weapon battery precise enough to change the “matrix” of synthetic and organic life down to the DNA, yet it can’t target only reapers in destroy? Really? Levy spoilers: I don’t know about you, but I think the leviathans are just as dangerous as the reapers. With the reapers gone, and the galaxy in utter ruins, this is a perfect opportunity for the leviathans to retake their former throne. Since there are no slides involving leviathans (why?) we can only guess at what happens, adding to the vagueness of this choice. [/Levy spoilers]

Control: This one probably wins for being explained the best. It is much better in EC than it was originally. It definitely still has some vague elements though. For instance: does Shepard replace the Guardian, or just exist at the same time? If he betrayed his creators, who’s to say he won’t betray Shepard too? The Guardian stated that he was the “collective intelligence of all reapers”. Does this mean when Shepard becomes the new reaper-guiding AI, that (s)he becomes the reapers? Or does it mean Shepard kills the reapers and personally uses all of their bodies? Does Shepard simply replace the Guardian and the reapers simply obey him/her? An interesting question: If the crucible does not discriminate, and therefore targets all synthetics in destroy, this leaves us with 2 options.

1. Shepard also controls the Geth, as well as EDI, because the control beam will not discriminate and will target all synthetics. If the destroy beam also destroys/disables VI systems as well as ships and weapons as stated by the Guardian., that would also mean Shepard should basically control all starships and computers, as well as weapons. That’s a lot of power for one entity.

2. The crucible does in fact discriminate, and will only target reapers. This in turn means the Guardian was lying to you.

Levy spoilers: We really have no idea how powerful the leviathans are, but we do know they can destroy a sovereign-class reaper with their minds. I can see how this could be problematic for Shepard in control. I also think they would employ thralls to counter Shep-reapers, seeing as how they are essentially the same as normal reapers. Not good. [/Levy spoilers]

Refuse: This is an extremely vague ending “choice”. It raises about as many questions as synthesis. The reason many people can’t really achieve consensus about this ending is because it is too vague to make conclusions about. I mean, it itself is vague as a choice, because we a lot of stuff is implied to happen, but we don’t get to see anything. For instance, what does Shepard do after refusing to activate the crucible? Does (s)he just stand there, watching the allied fleets get destroyed? It’s well established that Shepard’s radio is acting extremely inconsistently is the ending, but why doesn’t Shepard try to contact Hackett at any point? It can be assumed that everyone[/i] dies in this ending, but it does not show anything. No heroic last stands of important characters, no fleets being destroyed save one shot of a reaper destroying an alliance vessel. The only way to know what for sure what happens in this ending, is to look through the game files to show all squadmates being dead. That’s not what I would call a clear ending. It is not clear why the Guardian continues to fight the fleets if he wants Shepard to choose an option. Even if Shepard refused, why wouldn’t he just get any other person to do it? How did Liara (especially if she’s dead) manage to have the time capsules say that the Crucible didn’t work? How would she even know that? If it fired, but didn’t kill the reapers, it would be logical to assume it didn’t work. However, for all anyone but Shepard knows, the crucible, for whatever reason, simply didn’t fire. That’s no reason to say that. How did the next cycle defeat the reapers? I know Mike Gamble said that, they use the crucible, but that is a fallacy. Also, Twitter =/= canon. Here's how I see it:

1. The next cycle used the crucible to beat the reapers. Which option did they pick? They didn’t pick synthesis (no glowing things), so presumably destroy. But it's so vague. We fought a battle (and lost horribly) so the next cycle could win 50000 years later? Makes no sense. Plus if they used the crucible to beat them that just makes refuse pointless. Actually, that means in half of the endings (destroy and refuse) Shepard is too stubborn to accept their enemies logic...

2. How did they use the crucible? It's completely implausible that the reapers would allow them to come anywhere near that end. They even knew about its existence “several cycles ago” and failed to eliminate the evidence. Logic would dictate they would try much harder next time. This leaves 2 possibilities:
A. The crucible is of reaper design, used every cycle to trick the resistance. They next cycle then uses that reaper tech. Great idea.
B. The reapers are retarded and even though they failed at hiding the crucible before, they didn't learn from their mistakes and let the next cycle use it?

3. Ignore Gamble; they didn't use the crucible. Basically impossible. The vanguard would not let them amass such an enormous fleet large enough to take on the reaper armada.

4. They only reason the council cycle did so well was because of Shepard, Sovereign's failures, and a lot of luck. The reapers wouldn't let that happen again.
 
5. Levy spoilers: I’ll let you all wonder how the Leviathans existing and their heavy influence would do to this. [/Levy spoilers]

Synthesis: It is close to refuse in terms of vagueness, but probably takes the cake for Most vague ending ever. Of all time™. Why doesn’t EDI mention Shepard in it? Surely it is only because of Shepard that synthesis is achieved. What a nice send-off... It doesn’t do a good job showing how synthesis actually changes things, besides adding green circuit boards to everything. How does it work? There isn’t even a codex entry on this attempting to explain it. What are its actual impacts, besides, apparently, creating instant utopia? Are plants sentient now? If not, then is it saying plants could never become sentient? What about the Thorian? And if plants do become sentient, what does that do to herbivores? Are they murdering other sentient life when they eat? The same can now be asked about all life. How do we eat anything, if we’re murdering it? Or does synthesis make food no longer a necessity? Or, once again, is it implying certain things just can’t evolve? That’s not how evolution works. Nor does evolution just stop as soon as we get circuit boards. If synthesis doesn’t make all humans able to see in infrared, use echo-location, or grow gills then it is not the end of evolution. I don’t even think there is an end to evolution. Maybe we don’t need to breath anymore in synthesis? EDI also mentioned that the reapers, and the species that they are based on, are now connected to all of us. Does that remind anyone of indoctrination? This would also contradict what Shepard said earlier about this topic.

“You-– Whatever species you came from, before the reapers decided to preserve them? They’re dead. They died thousands of years ago. *Reaper dies* And now they can rest in peace.” – Shepard

So was Shepard wrong, and the reapers do actually preserve species properly? Or was the Guardian wrong? If the latter is true, we should doubt much more than just that thought. Many questions.

Levy spoilers: Again, we have no slides of the leviathans, so we can only guess as to what they would try to do in synthesis. I am going to take a wild guess here and say they would definitely not appreciate being “synthesized”. They already consider themselves to be an “apex race”. Seeing as they are an “apex race”, and care not for any “lesser” species, one could assume they would attempt to regain their former authority. Like EDI said, all races are now supposed to be “connected”. To me, that just sounds like an easier way for the Leviathans to hijack people’s minds. I don’t think they’d like being connected to lesser species either. [/Levy spoilers]

What about the Synthehusk™? Is it, not to mention other reaper thralls like banshees, a part of galactic society now? What about the reapers? If we believe the Guardian about synthesis working, and the reapers actually being benevolent saviours, then we should also believe what Sovereign said about the reapers being at the “pinnacle of evolution”. Or should we just pick and choose what parts of what the reapers tell us to believe? If “synthesis is the final evolution of all life” according to the Guardian, then what how could the reapers, who are already there, be elevated?

One more question among many, and perhaps the most important one: Does synthesis change the way people think; rewrite them? I believe the short answer is yes, based on in-game evidence. Since there are many, many, many, quotes from characters stating they would only accept the reapers if they were dead, I’ll only cite what I thought to be the most important ones.

“Dead reapers are how we win this.” – Hackett

“Because the Reapers are repulsive. They are dedicated to nothing but self-preservation. I am different.” – EDI

“I am here to fight the Reapers. That is my purpose. My only purpose. I am the avatar of vengeance, the last voice of a dead race. I will avenge my people, no matter the cost.” – Javik

I chose these because, as far as I can remember, it is impossible to achieve synthesis with low enough EMS to have squadmates die, therefore Javik must survive. EDI and Hackett also must survive. What do squadmates think of being rewritten?

“If you change who someone is, how they think, you have killed them. They will be something new in the same body.” – Samara

“That sounds dangerously close to indoctrination, unless there’s something I’m missing.” – Garrus

And perhaps the most applicable, seeing as how synthesis seems to create a utopia:

“If you screwed with my head, made me nod and smile at everything... I’d rather you blew my head off. Let me die as me.” - Jack

My point is, synthesis is a no win scenario. If it does not rewrite people, then Javik, Hackett, logically EDI, and many others would continue to fight the reapers. If they do not, they are rewritten and are therefore dead. As you can see, synthesis now raises more questions, and answers few. Not exactly what I’d call viewing the impacts of our choices.

So what do you think? For the first part of EC’s promises, showing the consequences of our choices, does EC pass or fail?

I'm currently writing the second half about closure.


Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 septembre 2012 - 08:54 .


#20559
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

DrTsoni wrote...
Hi! Nothing bad about me, I hope ;) And yes, if you destroy the greybox Kasumi sits staring at it, though she stands with Keiji in Synthesis regardless of whether you destroyed it or not. I'm not exactly sure if she simply looks at it regardless of your choice in Control - I'm fairly confident that that is the case, but I could be wrong - but I think she's meant to have the same slide in Destroy as in Control. She seems to be glitched, if that's true.

Could I get a link to your wall of text? I'd love to read it, since I actually have some time right now.

Thanks for the info. And it was nothing bad. It was about your awesome signature. Posted Image

#20560
401 Kill

401 Kill
  • Members
  • 1 553 messages
@BansheeOwnage- Thank you

#20561
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

401 Kill wrote...

@BansheeOwnage- Thank you

You're welcome. Nice name btw.

#20562
401 Kill

401 Kill
  • Members
  • 1 553 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...




You're welcome. Nice name btw.

Hey thanks! :D It's the name of a song by: Rise Against. I would also like to mention that I've been lurking since before page 1000 of Mark II, but have only made three posts.                                      Edit: Not including those three.

Modifié par 401 Kill, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:07 .


#20563
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...
Hi! Nothing bad about me, I hope ;) And yes, if you destroy the greybox Kasumi sits staring at it, though she stands with Keiji in Synthesis regardless of whether you destroyed it or not. I'm not exactly sure if she simply looks at it regardless of your choice in Control - I'm fairly confident that that is the case, but I could be wrong - but I think she's meant to have the same slide in Destroy as in Control. She seems to be glitched, if that's true.

Could I get a link to your wall of text? I'd love to read it, since I actually have some time right now.

Thanks for the info. And it was nothing bad. It was about your awesome signature. Posted Image


Oh, then thanks :lol:
If you need any more on the slides, I actually have a save right before the choices now if you need me to check anything.
And I just finished reading your Great Wall of Text. Nicely done, you highlighted most of why I disliked the EC and pointed out, once again, how bad of a choice Synthesis really is. I was terribly disappointed there wasn't a single mention of the Leviathans in the epiloque...thing, so I'm glad you mentioned them, too.

#20564
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

DrTsoni wrote...

Oh, then thanks :lol:
If you need any more on the slides, I actually have a save right before the choices now if you need me to check anything.
And I just finished reading your Great Wall of Text. Nicely done, you highlighted most of why I disliked the EC and pointed out, once again, how bad of a choice Synthesis really is. I was terribly disappointed there wasn't a single mention of the Leviathans in the epiloque...thing, so I'm glad you mentioned them, too.

Thanks. The best part is it was indirectly making synthesis look bad, using neutral info. I didn't even talk about the moral implications (except the reprogramming bit). All I did was ask questions, and it still looks bad xD. Anyway, when you said you have save right before the choices, do you mean the restart last mission save, or something else?

@401 Kill Rise Against is great!

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:12 .


#20565
401 Kill

401 Kill
  • Members
  • 1 553 messages
@BansheeOwnage- Nice catch with control also controlling EDI and the geth. I didn't even think of that possible outcome regarding that dicision. (However you spell dicision)

#20566
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

401 Kill wrote...

@BansheeOwnage- Nice catch with control also controlling EDI and the geth. I didn't even think of that possible outcome regarding that dicision. (However you spell dicision)

It's "decision" and thanks. I also caught something else about EDI, if you missed it.

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 supports 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 didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:19 .


#20567
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

DrTsoni wrote...

Oh, then thanks :lol:
If you need any more on the slides, I actually have a save right before the choices now if you need me to check anything.
And I just finished reading your Great Wall of Text. Nicely done, you highlighted most of why I disliked the EC and pointed out, once again, how bad of a choice Synthesis really is. I was terribly disappointed there wasn't a single mention of the Leviathans in the epiloque...thing, so I'm glad you mentioned them, too.

Thanks. The best part is it was indirectly making synthesis look bad, using neutral info. I didn't even talk about the moral implications (except the reprogramming bit). All I did was ask questions, and it still looks bad xD. Anyway, when you said you have save right before the choices, do you mean the restart last mission save, or something else?

@401 Kill Rise Against is great!


True. I don't think anyone even has to work to make it look bad anymore; it does it all by itself. I mean, even literalists seem to think it's the worst ending. I think Leviathan just solidified that.
My save is right after the talk with the Catalyst, before the actual choice. So I couldn't choose Refuse (though I do have the Restart save, as well), but if you need info on slides or a specific line or something, I could check and tell you what choice I made to get it.

#20568
401 Kill

401 Kill
  • Members
  • 1 553 messages
@BansheeOwnage- Oh yeah! I remember when you first posted this. I find this especially interesting considering when TIM talks to EDI about how she chose to control EVA's body. I take that as although sometimes it is smart use your enemies powers against them, it still doesn't mean that controlling/enslaving them to achieve victory is the way to go. i.e The Reapers. 

#20569
Nightingale

Nightingale
  • Members
  • 756 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

@BansheeOwnage- Nice catch with control also controlling EDI and the geth. I didn't even think of that possible outcome regarding that dicision. (However you spell dicision)

It's "decision" and thanks. I also caught something else about EDI, if you missed it.

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 supports 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 didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?


I noticed the colour difference, though I hadn't really thought that much into it. It's a good point and, while I'd still argue she doesn't actually "die" in Destroy, she does say (not in the exact words, mind you) that she'd rather become "nonfunctional" than to be like the Reapers.

#20570
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

DrTsoni wrote...
My save is right after the talk with the Catalyst, before the actual choice. So I couldn't choose Refuse (though I do have the Restart save, as well), but if you need info on slides or a specific line or something, I could check and tell you what choice I made to get it.

Huh. I didn't know you could save there. You could shoot the kid for refuse. I'll let you know if I need any help, thanks! I'll post what I have done so far on the closure part.

#20571
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages
Part II: Providing additional (any) closure: I can actually represent this half using some numbers, but we’ll get to that. Probably the most wanted thing in the extended cut was more closure. I for one, just wanted to see my little blue babies, and I know I’m not alone. I’ve spoken to many people, and virtually all of them said they don’t even care how nonsensical the ending is anymore; they just want closure and be done with it. Personally I don’t think that’s too much to ask at all, so let’s get started in actually discussing how well the EC did in fixing this problem.
By the numbers: I am going start my analysis by simply stating whether or not each squadmate had a slide, in reverse order.

ME3: Liara: NO

Garrus: NO

Tali: NO

EDI: NO, although she is featured heavily in Synthesis and dead in destroy

Javik: NO (Personal note: This one really bothered me because he has 3 possibilities for things he would do after t
he war.)

Ashley: NO

Kaidan: NO

James: NO

ME2: Legion: NO, but is dead

Mordin: YES

Jack: YES, 2

Grunt: YES, but not in synthesis (?)

Thane: NO, but is dead

Samara: YES, 2

Jacob: YES, 2

Miranda: YES, 2

Kasumi: YES, 2

Zaeed: YES (Personal note: I loved his slide. If there is one thing I’ve heard after the EC, it’s “What the hell was up with the slides? Zaeed’s was awesome though!”

Morinth: NO, but is dead.

ME1: Wrex: YES

So, out of 20 squadmates, only 9 have slides. That’s a whapping 45% Bioware. Nice.
Moving on to major character that aren't squadmates next.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:43 .


#20572
Restrider

Restrider
  • Members
  • 1 986 messages

Indoctrination takes advantage of an individual's natural motivations
and ambitions and turns them against you. Only by refusing to be greedy or naive in your quest to end the Reaper threat will you be successful in destroying them.

Nice signature.
I was thinking of something.
So, I played ME 3 the first time with EC and I also knew the ending had been discussed controversly (to say the least). But I did not know any details. Now what I was thinking of:

Does the choice at the end reflect your own character under the circumstance that the choices you made are kind of similar to the choices you would do?

I mean, usually you play your first playthrough with your canonical/main character and this character usually resembles your own character. I, for example, used to play paragade femshep (though I am male, I just like Hale and looking at women...lol), but usually did paragon at important points of the game.
So, the first time at the end, I did not know that by using the renegade option while talking to Starbrat I was excluding all my choices and was left with "SO BET IT". I chose Refuse rather randomly without knowing that there was no possible way to still chose one end, I wasn't even sure that there would be only three choices. So I would consider this first end as an unconcious event. After that I reloaded and chose Control... I like it to be in control... :devil:
Though the ending sucks, after I thought about it, but this initial decision showed somehow who I am (I already knew for a fact that I like control in general, so no big surprise :D ).
I assume the biggest part of you chose Destroy first time.

#20573
Home run MF

Home run MF
  • Members
  • 805 messages
Sorry I was playing MP

Take a look at this, maybe it helps

End03 means nothing the S D or C it's what tells in wich ending they play, the flashback only appears if they die (I think)  :)
Edit: @Banshee

Modifié par Home run MF, 09 septembre 2012 - 09:50 .


#20574
BansheeOwnage

BansheeOwnage
  • Members
  • 11 290 messages

Home run MF wrote...

Sorry I was playing MP

Take a look at this, maybe it helps

End03 means nothing the S D or C it's what tells in wich ending they play, the flashback only appears if they die (I think)  :)

Thanks.

#20575
Vinny

Vinny
  • Members
  • 170 messages

BansheeOwnage wrote...

401 Kill wrote...

@BansheeOwnage- Nice catch with control also controlling EDI and the geth. I didn't even think of that possible outcome regarding that dicision. (However you spell dicision)

It's "decision" and thanks. I also caught something else about EDI, if you missed it.

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 supports 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 didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Yeah I also noticed it. In fact It reminded Legion's loyalty mission (A house divided). Rather than posting a wall of text, I'll let Extra Credits explain it : 

Basically, EDI tells us that, rather than be changed in something that she never wanted, she would die knowing that she fought for everything she believed. The color of her visor is just a detail, but it's a pretty important detail.
Nice catch ;)

That's what make the Mass Effect trilogy so important to me. The first one was released in 2007 and i'm still discovering new things about it. There are so many influences, references, messages... it's crazy....