Lokanaiya wrote...
snip...
I can see where you're comng from with that, but I think if it was possible for it to be different people, the main perk would be it would add replay value. It would also make the world seem more dynamic and like it was influenced by your Shepard, which is always a good thing in video games.
Modifié par D.Sharrah, 16 septembre 2012 - 04:23 .
401 Kill wrote...
Oh, I see where you're going with this...Home run MF wrote...
401 Kill wrote...
I guess it's possible that he could be looking at the blueprints of one of the ships in Aria's fleet. I just don't think that one of her ships would be that important... I do not know what to make of the Montreal pic.Home run MF wrote...
Uhm, guys when I linked to that holdtheline thread I was referring to this post exactly, this guy datamined leviathan files and found this one wich is new. The ships reminded me of the one in the picture that was showed in Montreal. Look at the file name.
Or they could be planning the attack of Omega with Aria's fleet. I don't know as Big Boss said Montreal team is working on MP it's weird for them to release a teaser pic with Shepard, unless we get a SP DLC connected to the MP that has been speculated should launch this month.
Omega 4 relay and Collectors? Hmm...
D.Sharrah wrote...
Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
D.Sharrah wrote...
The only problem with the bolded part is that control is very much a Reaper thing...and I think that it can not be forgotten that she has Reaper Tech - so if anyone was able to successfully control another being, you would think that it would be because of Reaper Tech. So if EDI fails, it kind of sugests that not even the Reapers can truly "control" something...which may be a whole other arguement...
One thing I always found hard to swallow about the entire "EDI might be a traitor" theory is that by all logic EDI should completely overpower EVA´s systems as also happens from what we are told.
I mean we see the computer core for EDI, it is not exactly a small system, where as all of EVA´s processing power and what else has to be contained within the form she has.
Logic dictates EDI should have a processing power vastly superior to EVA and EDI herself states that in a battle between two AI the one with the most processing power wins in ME2. Sure that was in regards to a physical, ship to ship battle, but the same rules should apply in a battle for control of each others systems.
Now I could imagine something like a an isolated subroutine in EVA´s body constantly broadcasting information to Cerberus without anyone knowing, but EVA in reality beeing in control...no way.
I agree. At times I think that IT has us so paranoid that we are looking for enemies everywhere but at the Reapers...I mean look at all the different theoris out there about who is the traitor and who is indoctrinated...it was a funny feeling that I got while watching Prettz's video last night (that I can't confirm if was the intention or not) - but he was very careful to show that after the first two dreams that Liara is the first person that Shep interacts with...and since my Shep has Liara as the LI...this would hold true for the third dream as well. Am I being paranoid that I see a connection between Liara and the dreams?
A work of art breaks the 4th wall when e.g. an in-game character looks into the camera and addresses the player, or when the expierience somehow influences the player's life. In the case of ME3 I think it's when you pause the game and think about which ending to choose and you consider the consequences and how they would relate to a hypothetical RL situation.401 Kill wrote...
This might be a dumb question, but what is the fourth wall?
Modifié par paxxton, 16 septembre 2012 - 05:03 .
D.Sharrah wrote...
I guess my problem with that then...is that they are forcing a traitor into the story just for that mechanic, and if they are going to do that (for continuity sake) just have it be the same person all the time.
Edit: A good example of this is KoToR II..."there always has to be a betrayer..." - and while they very easily could have had it be different characters for each play through, it always ended up being Kreia, and IMHO that made for a better story.
Edit 2: Kinda starting to feel like I am the only one posting...at least with any frequency.
Yeah that's right. Things like when you're going through a tutorial and it's like "Press B to Melee" and stuff like that. Some people argued that when Shepard says "Harbinger" in London it was an attempt to break the fourth wall, making it all the more strange that he doesn't play a significant role in the Literal interperetation of the ending.paxxton wrote...
A work of art breaks the 4th wall when e.g. an in-game character looks into the camera and addresses the player, or when the expierience somehow influences the player's life. In the case of ME3 I think it's when you pause the game and think about which ending to choose and you consider the consequences and how they would relate to a hypothetical RL situation.401 Kill wrote...
This might be a dumb question, but what is the fourth wall?
EDIT: I hope I got it right, but just in case here's a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_wall
paxxton wrote...
A work of art breaks the 4th wall when e.g. an in-game character looks into the camera and addresses the player, or when the expierience somehow influences the player's life. In the case of ME3 I think it's when you pause the game and think about which ending to choose and you consider the consequences and how they would relate to a hypothetical RL situation.401 Kill wrote...
This might be a dumb question, but what is the fourth wall?
EDIT: I hope I got it right, but just in case here's a Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_wall
lol reminds me of a bunch of people competing for the best answer on yahoo hahaha401 Kill wrote...
Wow, thanks all who helped to answer my question.
Mine's the Best Answer, voted by 106 people.plfranke wrote...
lol reminds me of a bunch of people competing for the best answer on yahoo hahaha401 Kill wrote...
Wow, thanks all who helped to answer my question.
jk
Yes? How can I help you?BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hello?
Modifié par paxxton, 16 septembre 2012 - 05:54 .
Why helooooo there.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Hello?
Correction : being enthusiastically naive doesn't make someone wiser than others. Density is the measure of resistance to bad communication.Bill Casey wrote...
It's not hard to understand...
People are just dense...
Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:01 .
There is a difference between reverse engineering and using. The prothean mass relay is an example of reverse engineering. So is Legion's reaper code. So are the thanix cannons. Using the citadel, or the crucible if it is reaper tech, would be using reaper tech. If we made our own citadel, it's ours.D.Sharrah wrote...
plfranke wrote...
So there's a line where Shepard is talking about the Citadel being the catalyst. Shepard says, (these are not direct quotes just the general meaning) I thought the Citadel was built by the Reapers. So we turn their own technology against them.
We've been shown several times throughout the series, that you cannot turn the Reapers' technology against them. The Crucible is a trap, no doubt.
Not entirely convinced of this...after all Thanix Cannons are reversed egineered from Sovereign's lasers and they have proven to be pretty useful.
Very well said, though I don't exactly know what subject prompted that response.Iconoclaste wrote...
Correction : being enthusiastically naive doesn't make someone wiser than others. Density is the measure of resistance to bad communication.Bill Casey wrote...
It's not hard to understand...
People are just dense...
Like Einstein said, something easily understood is easy to explain. If someone has a hard time getting his message through, that's because he doesn't master the subject himself, making it difficult for him to explain it simply. classical reply from this specimen is "You just don't get it". Educated readers can see who is the one missing the opportunity to make a sound point relative to his argument.
If I am a teacher and a student doesn't "get it", it is primarily my fault, not the student's. I emit information, it is my responsibility to make it clear for the recipients, or else I lack communication skills. It's too easy (and unfair) to just throw stuff from the top of our minds to others and then expect them to have the same retroactive thinking process we had to get there.
Wrong. I understand a lot of things, yet, I really am no good at explanations. For anything.Iconoclaste wrote...
Correction : being enthusiastically naive doesn't make someone wiser than others. Density is the measure of resistance to bad communication.Bill Casey wrote...
It's not hard to understand...
People are just dense...
Like Einstein said, something easily understood is easy to explain. If someone has a hard time getting his message through, that's because he doesn't master the subject himself, making it difficult for him to explain it simply. classical reply from this specimen is "You just don't get it". Educated readers can see who is the one missing the opportunity to make a sound point relative to his argument.
If I am a teacher and a student doesn't "get it", it is primarily my fault, not the student's. I emit information, it is my responsibility to make it clear for the recipients, or else I lack communication skills. It's too easy (and unfair) to just throw stuff from the top of our minds to others and then expect them to have the same retroactive thinking process we had to get there.
It is all on the front page though... Evidence collected from in-game.Iconoclaste wrote...
Correction : being enthusiastically naive doesn't make someone wiser than others. Density is the measure of resistance to bad communication.
Like Einstein said, something easily understood is easy to explain. If someone has a hard time getting his message through, that's because he doesn't master the subject himself, making it difficult for him to explain it simply. classical reply from this specimen is "You just don't get it". Educated readers can see who is the one missing the opportunity to make a sound point relative to his argument.
If I am a teacher and a student doesn't "get it", it is primarily my fault, not the student's. I emit information, it is my responsibility to make it clear for the recipients, or else I lack communication skills. It's too easy (and unfair) to just throw stuff from the top of our minds to others and then expect them to have the same retroactive thinking process we had to get there.
Then, what do you think is the problem?BansheeOwnage wrote...
Wrong. I understand a lot of things, yet, I really am no good at explanations. For anything.
Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:04 .
People should teach themselves to communicate their knowledge to others as they gather it. What Iconoclaste says is a classical lecturer and student situation.BansheeOwnage wrote...
Wrong. I understand a lot of things, yet, I really am no good at explanations. For anything.Iconoclaste wrote...
Correction : being enthusiastically naive doesn't make someone wiser than others. Density is the measure of resistance to bad communication.Bill Casey wrote...
It's not hard to understand...
People are just dense...
Like Einstein said, something easily understood is easy to explain. If someone has a hard time getting his message through, that's because he doesn't master the subject himself, making it difficult for him to explain it simply. classical reply from this specimen is "You just don't get it". Educated readers can see who is the one missing the opportunity to make a sound point relative to his argument.
If I am a teacher and a student doesn't "get it", it is primarily my fault, not the student's. I emit information, it is my responsibility to make it clear for the recipients, or else I lack communication skills. It's too easy (and unfair) to just throw stuff from the top of our minds to others and then expect them to have the same retroactive thinking process we had to get there.
Modifié par paxxton, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:05 .
The subject is not really important, it's just the "tone" used that annoyed me.paxxton wrote...
Very well said, though I don't exactly know what subject prompted that response.
With me, or IT?Iconoclaste wrote...
Then, what do you think is the problem?BansheeOwnage wrote...
Wrong. I understand a lot of things, yet, I really am no good at explanations. For anything.
Actually, it's a bit more than that. While someone can say to others he "understands" something, it doesn't mean he understands it enough to be able to explain it to others. And even being a good "communicator" doesn't make it up to not understanding the subject enough.paxxton wrote...
People should teach themselves to communicate their knowledge to others as they gather it. What Iconoclaste says is a classical lecturer and student situation.
Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:08 .
Of course, there are limits to that. Sometimes it's just better to change a field of study and choose one that you are truly good at.Iconoclaste wrote...
The subject is not really important, it's just the "tone" used that annoyed me.paxxton wrote...
Very well said, though I don't exactly know what subject prompted that response.
Modifié par paxxton, 16 septembre 2012 - 06:09 .
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
