80611 réponses à ce sujet

[lex0r11]

Very tense in here, guys.

Just keep it to making a point, not insulting the person it is directed at in the process.

Please.




Good morning from Europe btw.

Modifié par lex0r11, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Andromidius]

spotlessvoid wrote...
You are right. Logging off now.

Pretty much any time I leave mid-conversion on here is if I'm annoyed and need to get away before losing my temper.  Its for the best, see you later on though! 

[Andromidius]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

I tried to rationalize the literal interpretation and it hurt my head. Thats the nicest way I can put it. It completely unravels and destroys the trilogy. 

Though, in a way, assuming the Catalyst is a mind reader is a literal interpretation.  Its just the nature of the mind reading that's the 'non literal' interpretation.

Ironically, a lot of 'literalists' aren't viewing the ending in a literal sense.  Such as when the argument that Shepard was able to sprint back to the conduit sprang up - that's pure conjecture, and goes against what is shown in the game!

[byne]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

And the oily shadows, whispers, and hallucinations are also supposed to happen when you're awake.

I've no clue where you pulled this factoid from. If you could cite this fact to a source other than 'because I said so,' I'd greatly appreciate it.

But what I came here to point out is that, unless Shepard sleeps in a chair while holding a datapad, the second dream happened when she was awake

Anyhow, I'm still sick. I'm going back to sleep.

Modifié par byne, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:42 .

[Andromidius]

byne wrote...

Anyhow, I'm still sick. I'm going back to sleep.

Get well soon, slacker!

[Home run MF]

lex0r11 wrote...

Very tense in here, guys.

Just keep it to making a point, not insulting the person it is directed at in the process.

Please.

*cute*


Good morning from Europe btw.

Morning? already? I should go...

Edit: byne!!! nice to see you. Get well soon.

Modifié par Home run MF, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:47 .

[Lokanaiya]

The Grey Nayr wrote...


Leviathan added a tidbit to the lore that shields can block those fields. When they showed that the fragment of Sovereign was shielded. Shepard has shields up most of the game.

There's actually a difference between kinetic barriers and the shield that the Sovereign fragment most likely has. From the Mass Effect wiki regarding kinetic barriers:

Kinetic barriers, colloquially called "shields", provide protection against most mass accelerator weapons. Whether on a starship or a soldier's suit of armor, the basic principle remains the same.
Kinetic barriers are repulsive mass effect fields
projected from tiny emitters. These shields safely deflect small
objects traveling at rapid velocities. This affords protection from
bullets and other dangerous projectiles, but still allows the user to
sit down without knocking away their chair.
The shielding afforded by kinetic barriers does not protect against extremes of temperature, toxins, or radiation.

On the other hand, Reapers indoctrinate using ultrasound/infrasound whicha are just sound waves, obviously, that we cannot hear. If kinetic barriers were able to stop Reaper indoctrination signals, then it would also stop normal sounds, like conversations, gunfire, etc.

But how would the Sovereign fragment be shielded then? Simple. You see, there's a little phenomenon called destructive interference that occurs when you project the exact inverse of a wave. Basically, they cancel out. The Sovereign fragment probably has tiny speakers all around it, projecting the inverse of the infrasonic or ultrasonic sound Sovereign emits as it occurs. It's really not that hard. In fact, if we found a Reaper fragment today, we could probably use this technique and study it freely.

So, no, the fact that Sovereign is "shielded" does not mean that it uses the type of shields that Shepard uses.

And thus, Physics scores another point for IT.

Edit: Slight formatting corrections

Modifié par Lokanaiya, 17 septembre 2012 - 04:55 .

[lex0r11]

Home run MF wrote...

[...]

Morning? already? I should go...

Edit: byne!!! nice to see you. Get well soon.

If you are close too my time zone and haven't slept that's maybe a good idea.

[Iconoclaste]

Andromidius wrote...

Best way to strength a theory or argument is to fully explorer the alternative viewpoints.

I've tried to rationalise a literal interpretation. Problem is, it just doesn't work without at least some degree of mental manipulation being involved. At the very least, 'The Catalyst' looking like a child from Shepard's memories and dreams has to imply the Catalyst is a mind reader (or a mind projector). And once you've got the main villian rooting around inside the hero's brain, things rapidly go downhill in regards to trusting said villian.

I'm a "literalist" and don't have a problem with that. Reapers do read inside their target's minds. I think the fact Chris Priestley said IT was as valid as literal means, like Bleeding Uranium said, that they both need some filling-in by the players. I also believe there are parts of "indoctrination" process / attempt in the Catalyst scene. I only have problems with proposed "facts" prior to that, and some interpretations to support IT with those facts. Sometimes it makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. I understand that any interpretation of the endings need some speculation on some points, literal, IT or other, because Bioware voluntarily designed the game in that way, except for glitches and bugs. Trying to "match" Bioware's writing and design after the fact, ignoring the discussions and decisions made by them regarding the content  (why this part is shown and not this other "important one")  is like investigating a murder without the corpse, with no witness, in the dark.

[Andromidius]

Iconoclaste wrote...
I'm a "literalist" and don't have a problem with that. Reapers do read inside their target's minds. I think the fact Chris Priestley said IT was as valid as literal means, like Bleeding Uranium said, that they both need some filling-in by the players. I also believe there are parts of "indoctrination" process / attempt in the Catalyst scene.

Which is perfectly fine.  I was also going to say that the 'truth' (if there is such a thing) is somewhere between the two extremes.

[WhiteKnyght]

BleedingUranium wrote...

I would like to remind everyone that Chris Priestly recently said that IT is as valid as the literal interpretation. "As valid." Those were the words he used, and they can only be interpreted one way.

That means, as far as BW is officially saying right now, they are on the same level of correctness.

And there's a whopper of a double standard staring me in the face. If I were to use a Bioware employee's words to support myself I would be met with "they lied before" or "they are covering their asses" but apparently it is okay when Bioware says something relatively supportive of what you think.

So yeah, if, for the sake of fairness, it's my turn to try the enemy's tactics. I think I'll throw out there that Evil Chris isn't an ME writer, he's a community manager. What he said might be his opinion, not the opinions of the writers themselves. And also point out that the other community manager, Jessica Merizan, also said that the Geth and EDI can survive destroy, which was later proven inaccurate and she also "confirmed" that Shepard was on the citadel, which could be interpreted as a statement that Shepard is actually making the choices and isn't hallucinating back in London. I would also point out that Mass Effect's ending is meant to be open ended, they will probably say that any and all interpretations are valid(like if someone made an interpretation that the entire series was a red sand induced nightmare by the Earthborn gangbanger Shepard after reading too many sci-fi comics)

*scrubs* sheesh, I feel slimy. I dunno how you guys can do that so much.

Also I have to notice the striking similarity between Mass Effect 3 and Neon Genesis Evangelion in terms of ending-hate and following events.

Back in the day, people said the last two eps sucked and made no sense and complained so much that they made a series of movies to retcon the ending by making the last two eps an event in Shinji's mind(except that the human instrumentality project was always meant to be just that and was honest about it) while a whole other series of apocalyptic events were happing in reality.

[WhiteKnyght]

byne wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

And the oily shadows, whispers, and hallucinations are also supposed to happen when you're awake.

I've no clue where you pulled this factoid from. If you could cite this fact to a source other than 'because I said so,' I'd greatly appreciate it.

But what I came here to point out is that, unless Shepard sleeps in a chair while holding a datapad, the second dream happened when she was awake

Anyhow, I'm still sick. I'm going back to sleep.

Watch the video logs on the Derelict Reaper.

Dr Chandana's team were experiencing headaches, visual and audiatory hallucinations(one mentioned seeing something come out of a wall where they had recently moved a panel) and eventually ended up in a state of dilerium that lead them to impaling themselves on spikes and believing the Reapers to be gods.

[Andromidius]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Watch the video logs on the Derelict Reaper.

Dr Chandana's team were experiencing headaches, visual and audiatory hallucinations(one mentioned seeing something come out of a wall where they had recently moved a panel) and eventually ended up in a state of dilerium that lead them to impaling themselves on spikes and believing the Reapers to be gods.

Isolated incident on a dead Reaper.  And even then, how does that change anything?

If anything, its a pro-IT piece of evidence.  How could it possibly be anti-IT?

[BleedingUranium]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I would like to remind everyone that Chris Priestly recently said that IT is as valid as the literal interpretation. "As valid." Those were the words he used, and they can only be interpreted one way.

That means, as far as BW is officially saying right now, they are on the same level of correctness.

And there's a whopper of a double standard staring me in the face. If I were to use a Bioware employee's words to support myself I would be met with "they lied before" or "they are covering their asses" but apparently it is okay when Bioware says something relatively supportive of what you think.

So yeah, if, for the sake of fairness, it's my turn to try the enemy's tactics. I think I'll throw out there that Evil Chris isn't an ME writer, he's a community manager. What he said might be his opinion, not the opinions of the writers themselves. And also point out that the other community manager, Jessica Merizan, also said that the Geth and EDI can survive destroy, which was later proven inaccurate and she also "confirmed" that Shepard was on the citadel, which could be interpreted as a statement that Shepard is actually making the choices and isn't hallucinating back in London. I would also point out that Mass Effect's ending is meant to be open ended, they will probably say that any and all interpretations are valid(like if someone made an interpretation that the entire series was a red sand induced nightmare by the Earthborn gangbanger Shepard after reading too many sci-fi comics)

*scrubs* sheesh, I feel slimy. I dunno how you guys can do that so much.

Also I have to notice the striking similarity between Mass Effect 3 and Neon Genesis Evangelion in terms of ending-hate and following events.

Back in the day, people said the last two eps sucked and made no sense and complained so much that they made a series of movies to retcon the ending by making the last two eps an event in Shinji's mind(except that the human instrumentality project was always meant to be just that and was honest about it) while a whole other series of apocalyptic events were happing in reality.

I take everything they say with a grain of salt, or a bucket. But the whole point of the literal interpretation is just that, everything is literal. Therefore, if literalists are true literalists they also have to admit that IT is just as valid. Something like that.

Also, assuming IT, they have lied about almost nothing, whereas assuming literal, they lied about almost everything.

[Lokanaiya]

I need to get off for the night, guys. See you later.

[WhiteKnyght]

BleedingUranium wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

BleedingUranium wrote...

I would like to remind everyone that Chris Priestly recently said that IT is as valid as the literal interpretation. "As valid." Those were the words he used, and they can only be interpreted one way.

That means, as far as BW is officially saying right now, they are on the same level of correctness.

And there's a whopper of a double standard staring me in the face. If I were to use a Bioware employee's words to support myself I would be met with "they lied before" or "they are covering their asses" but apparently it is okay when Bioware says something relatively supportive of what you think.

So yeah, if, for the sake of fairness, it's my turn to try the enemy's tactics. I think I'll throw out there that Evil Chris isn't an ME writer, he's a community manager. What he said might be his opinion, not the opinions of the writers themselves. And also point out that the other community manager, Jessica Merizan, also said that the Geth and EDI can survive destroy, which was later proven inaccurate and she also "confirmed" that Shepard was on the citadel, which could be interpreted as a statement that Shepard is actually making the choices and isn't hallucinating back in London. I would also point out that Mass Effect's ending is meant to be open ended, they will probably say that any and all interpretations are valid(like if someone made an interpretation that the entire series was a red sand induced nightmare by the Earthborn gangbanger Shepard after reading too many sci-fi comics)

*scrubs* sheesh, I feel slimy. I dunno how you guys can do that so much.

Also I have to notice the striking similarity between Mass Effect 3 and Neon Genesis Evangelion in terms of ending-hate and following events.

Back in the day, people said the last two eps sucked and made no sense and complained so much that they made a series of movies to retcon the ending by making the last two eps an event in Shinji's mind(except that the human instrumentality project was always meant to be just that and was honest about it) while a whole other series of apocalyptic events were happing in reality.

I take everything they say with a grain of salt, or a bucket. But the whole point of the literal interpretation is just that, everything is literal. Therefore, if literalists are true literalists they also have to admit that IT is just as valid. Something like that.

Also, assuming IT, they have lied about almost nothing, whereas assuming literal, they lied about almost everything.

If IT is real, then the game has no ending and the whole story is unconcluded, not just Shepards. When Bioware had promised the game to have multiple endings(literal has seven variants,) and that Shepard's story would be concluded(one/more ending(s) he dies, one he becomes immortialized as an AI, and one gives him a chance at survival) and was.

IT also gives no closure or long term results of your choices, wheras the literal extended cut shows the future while the relevant party gives a beautiful narration

So if IT is real, it breaks EVERY promise, not just a few.

[Andromidius]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

So if IT is real, it breaks EVERY promise, not just a few.

It doesn't need an ending for it to be correct.

Also, by removing IT you're removing multiple 'endings' from the list.

Can't have it both ways.

[BleedingUranium]

Andromidius wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

So if IT is real, it breaks EVERY promise, not just a few.

It doesn't need an ending for it to be correct.

Also, by removing IT you're removing multiple 'endings' from the list.

Can't have it both ways.

This is what I tried to say earlier Grey, whether IT is true or not is completely unrelated to whether there's an end to the game or not. Two seperate things.

We'd all like there to be an end, but not ever having one would do nothing to IT.

[WhiteKnyght]

Andromidius wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...
Watch the video logs on the Derelict Reaper.

Dr Chandana's team were experiencing headaches, visual and audiatory hallucinations(one mentioned seeing something come out of a wall where they had recently moved a panel) and eventually ended up in a state of dilerium that lead them to impaling themselves on spikes and believing the Reapers to be gods.

Isolated incident on a dead Reaper.  And even then, how does that change anything?

If anything, its a pro-IT piece of evidence.  How could it possibly be anti-IT?

Intuition, not evidence.

In any case, the person asked to hear my source on the fact that hallucinations and stuff are supposed to happen when awake. Wheras pretty much all of the alleged symptoms Shepard shows are when he is asleep.

Besides, the way you phrased that is innacurate. Contrary to what Cerberus initially believed, the Reaper was alive, just disabled and badly damaged. The core was still active.

[WhiteKnyght]

Andromidius wrote...

The Grey Nayr wrote...

So if IT is real, it breaks EVERY promise, not just a few.

It doesn't need an ending for it to be correct.

Also, by removing IT you're removing multiple 'endings' from the list.

Can't have it both ways.

How so? Without IT, there are still seven different endings derived from different outcomes of three choices.

Multiple = More than one.

And extended cut emphasized the variance between the choices and endings, so the whole "pick a color' thing doesn't work anymore.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

The Grey Nayr wrote...

Watch the video logs on the Derelict Reaper.

Dr Chandana's team were experiencing headaches, visual and audiatory hallucinations(one mentioned seeing something come out of a wall where they had recently moved a panel) and eventually ended up in a state of dilerium that lead them to impaling themselves on spikes and believing the Reapers to be gods.

How many times do you think that video has come up in this threads thousands and thousands of page run time?

Fun fact under the IT Shepard does experience halucinations, the Kid at the start of the game.

Now what did that bit about Halucination on the derelict Reaper specifically say...oh right..."That thing, that grey thing it came out of the wall right where we took of that panel...it disappeared when I looked straight at it." Sound familiar?

But beyond that one of the comics, the one with Paul Grayson I beleive it was, establishes that one can hear Reaper growl or similar when resisting Indoctrination...what sound effects plays just as Shepard looks away from the vent the boy is in?

[spotlessvoid]

Lord help me

Bioware said no abc ending, which is exactly what literal has.

Anyways, "I wouldn't like it" is not a valid logical argument.

What's wrong with a twist ending that's only revealed down the line through dlc?

[Andromidius]

The Grey Nayr wrote...
How so? Without IT, there are still seven different endings derived from different outcomes of three choices.

Basic maths for you.  Even if we're only assuming one IT ending, rather then up to five.

7 + 1 = 8

8 > 7

Bingo!  8 possible endings, depending how you view either of the valid interpretations!  Easy, wasn't it?

[spotlessvoid]

So pre launch statements aren't lies because EC addressed it? Only fan backlash caused that dlc, so it has no impact on the honesty of the original answer.

logging back off

Modifié par spotlessvoid, 17 septembre 2012 - 05:30 .

[Arashi08]

So it pretty much seems to me the whole "religious zealots" thing is a bit subjective don't you think?

Speaking from the standpoint of this thread, the people who come to this thread to say how wrong everyone is all while being condscending and insulting come across as zealots themselves because, like many organized religions they decided to come along and tell us the thread that what they are believing is wrong. Conversely the regular posters here could be seen as zealots by those mentioned in the last sentence because their same condescending attitude caused the ITers to react negatively toward their insinuations.

So would it not seem that based on the perspective of this thread that the argumentative people who challenge IT, but rudely, are in reality the creators of the very "zealots" they always declare ITers to be? After all if some random person just came up to you and said your ideas sucked when you and all your frields and colleagues spent alot of time and effort into putting the framework together, wouldn't it be safe to assume that you would probably feel hurt and offended?

Just saying...