1258 réponses à ce sujet

[AsheraII]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

People metagame, so they'd figure it out soon enough, and start complaining anyway. What people actually want, but what they'd also start to complain about, is that while the synthetic matrixes are heavily damaged, that EDI somehow survived within the Normandy's core system, and that a group of Geth had an outpost located far enough from the Mass Accelator Network to not be affected. Though that would mean that some Reapers might've survived as well, in the outer reaches of dark space.

[CronoDragoon]

thefallen2far wrote...

As for the other part, renegade options weren't moralistic. They were following the standard rules of moral law and directly opposing it. It was established as a set of moral law by 2 facts in the game.... 1. It seperated itself from the other options and color coded it. 2. Made the individual choices follow unanimously up until the end conventional morality. So in the game, it was acknowledging moral choices and compartmentalizing them. Blue.... save puppies. Red..... drown puppies. And if you're going to use the arguement you couldn't kill puppies, blue, sacrifice ships to save the council. Red - forget the council. While it's true, general morals are argueable, if a game follows an obvious pattern of moral vs. immoral then it I following a pattern of simplifed morals. The game did that in its design. So you design a game that follows tha pattern of "conventional moral truth" and at the end make that conventional moral truth results in the end of civilization, then you're objectively stating that conventional morality is a lie. The only option is to abandon that conventional truth and [with enough EmS] acknowledge that current existence is senseless and without meaning and rewrite the basic laws of the universe acknowledging life as it is doesn't matter.

Renegades are only immoral seen from an idealistic Paragon perspective. Renegades subscribe to a different moral paradigm: they believe that the goodness of the act is contained in the end result instead of the act itself. The simplest way for you to discover whether or not Renegade players are nihilist is to simply ask them. "Do you believe in morality?" They will answer, "Yes, but that morality is centered around producing the best consequences." If they were nihilists, they wouldn't even claim, as Renegades tend to do, that the ends justify the means.

Simply put, consequentialism is what the endings focus on (besides Refuse) and that only makes them immoral when analyzed from within a deontological perspective. But that still doesn't make Renegades nihilistic: it just means that idealists believe consequentialists are wrong about the moral beliefs they hold... *but they still hold moral beliefs.*

You are literally, the first person I've ever encountered..... ever, in my philosophy classes, my study groups.... articles, teachers.... anyone.... who said that to Nietzsche, the Übermensch is a warning of nihilism.

That's not what I said. The Last Man and the Overman are different ideas within Nietzsche's writing, but they are two sides to the same coin.

The central question of Nietzsche is: now that God is dead, on what basis do we found morality? Before, divine truth propped up morality and its unquestionable truth. Now that we no longer have that, what do we do? Nietzsche sees two paths stemming from this central dilemma, and they are related because they both reject the ascetic ideal as the basis for morality: on the one hand a person might be crushed by the realization that morality has no objective truth; this person will become nihilistic and reject higher goals, meaningful change. He will retreat from society and become nothing more than an animal pursuing base needs. The Overman is different because the realization will not crush his hopes but strengthen them; he will embrace the fact that morality has no objective truth, develop his own personal morality, not focus on whether something is "true" or "false". This is exemplified by Zarathustra, who has rejected the common paradigms for morality but nevertheless sets out to teach the world. Is Zarathustra a nihilist? Absolutely not.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 31 janvier 2013 - 04:54 .

[futurepixels]

The Interloper wrote...

For me, the problem is not that there is no happy ending. That's just a symptom of the real issue--there isn't enough variance in the possible outcomes.

THIS 

The fact that we end up in the Crucible talking to the Intelligence IN EVERY PLAYTHROUGH is the worst part for me.

If there was even an option for the entire crew to die and fail before Earth, I would pick it sometimes. 

Modifié par futurepixels, 31 janvier 2013 - 05:59 .

[Slashice]

Personally I don't need a happy ending. I need an ending that is not full of story inconsistents and unexplained retcons. I would be more than happy even if that mean my Shepard dies anyway.

Modifié par Slashice, 31 janvier 2013 - 06:52 .

[AlanC9]

thefallen2far wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
It isn't a question of belief. Words have meanings, and it looks like you really don't know what " nihilistic" means. 

Okay, now I think you're an insulting troll making crap up in order to get a rise out of people and and I feel like an idiot for believing you were in any way a reasonable conversationalist, and will take care to avoid your meandering drivel. If there is anything of value in you comments, I may respond but outside that unlikly event, I'll hae to settle for "good day, sir".

You really don't know the meaning of the words you're using. I don't mean to insult you by pointing that out, but you just don't. CronoDragoon's handling the substance nicely, so I'll leave it to him.

Ponting out a factual error is neither insulting nor trolling.

[Reorte]

futurepixels wrote...

The Interloper wrote...

For me, the problem is not that there is no happy ending. That's just a symptom of the real issue--there isn't enough variance in the possible outcomes.

THIS 

The fact that we end up in the Crucible talking to the Intelligence IN EVERY PLAYTHROUGH is the worst part for me.

If there was even an option for the entire crew to die and fail before Earth, I would pick it sometimes.

It's certainly true that it would be pretty dire if it could only end happily.

[AlanC9]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Renegades are only immoral seen from an idealistic Paragon perspective. Renegades subscribe to a different moral paradigm: they believe that the goodness of the act is contained in the end result instead of the act itself. The simplest way for you to discover whether or not Renegade players are nihilist is to simply ask them. "Do you believe in morality?" They will answer, "Yes, but that morality is centered around producing the best consequences." If they were nihilists, they wouldn't even claim, as Renegades tend to do, that the ends justify the means.

Part of the problem here, I think, is that an actual nihilist Shepard... assuming anyone anywhere ever tried to play one -- would probably end up picking a fair number of Renegade options.

But I don't see how a nihilist decides to become Commander Shepard in the first place. It's not a great career path if you don't believe in what you're doing.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 janvier 2013 - 08:08 .

[kobayashi-maru]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

That's a weakness of EC. Just because people are graetful to"the Shepard" for comitting a given war crime, down't make said war crime okay.

Although no one besides Shepard would have known about what went on on the Citadel. To them, Shepard stopped the Reapers.

That was my biggest issue with game. The old man and child talk about what Shepard did but how the heck did he know what happened on Citadel?

[AlanC9]

kobayashi-maru wrote...


That was my biggest issue with game. The old man and child talk about what Shepard did but how the heck did he know what happened on Citadel?

In high-EMS Destroy Shepard tells them..... something. In Control the Sheplyst tells them... something. Doesn't have to be the actual truth. Mine would tell the truth, but YMMV.

In other cases, Shepard vanishes, the Crucible fire, and the war stops.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 janvier 2013 - 09:13 .

[thefallen2far]

CronoDragoon wrote...

Renegades are only immoral seen from an idealistic Paragon perspective. Renegades subscribe to a different moral paradigm: they believe that the goodness of the act is contained in the end result instead of the act itself. The simplest way for you to discover whether or not Renegade players are nihilist is to simply ask them. "Do you believe in morality?" They will answer, "Yes, but that morality is centered around producing the best consequences." If they were nihilists, they wouldn't even claim, as Renegades tend to do, that the ends justify the means.

Yeah, I'm sure when people pressed the red button to throw a guy off a roof, shoot the priceless artifact, knock out the reporter or stab a guy in the back, they were thinking, "the morality is centered around producing the best consequences."....And when I beat prostitutes in GTA IV, I was thinking "My moral paradigm is altered to a sense of pragmatic outcome."

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. The consequences were the same. If you paragoned a hug to the frantic colleague or shot the guy who looked at her funny, you still effectively got the same loyalty points. Effectively, it was the same outcome, it was merely how you presented the character through the majority of the choices.....the story effect was for all intents and purposes the same.

Simply put, consequentialism is what the endings focus on (besides Refuse) and that only makes them immoral when analyzed from within a deontological perspective. But that still doesn't make Renegades nihilistic: it just means that idealists believe consequentialists are wrong about the moral beliefs they hold... *but they still hold moral beliefs.*

I understand the intent, but the practical application of the game wasn't so much benefit to consequentialist thinking as it was basically stating that in a game where you can be moral throughout the game without suffering major consequences, in the end, holding to that same truth results in the end of civilization. You have to accept those moral outcomes as shallow idealism without practical applications to not effectively tear down the fabric of civilization. I find it very nihilistic, and I don't see any reason to not think of it as nihilism. What part of the ending defies:

ni·hil·ism
noun \\ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-\\
Definition of NIHILISM
1
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

Adding consequentialist or moralistic or idealistic or any other perspectives: how is this an inaccurate way of looking at the endings by accepting moral truth as a common theme through paragon storytelling?

That's not what I said. The Last Man and the Overman are different ideas within Nietzsche's writing, but they are two sides to the same coin.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking you saying the Overman was something to avoid was extremely weird. So you were just talking about last men surrounding Zarathuria. The cure for the nihilist. Basically, it was a horrible person not beholden to any form of decency and courtesy..... yeah, he was in contrast to the destructive nihilism that he was preaching indicating that it was self destructive by nature, but it was primarily to make way for his cure for that destructive nihilism. Zarathuria was still the result of the tear down of truth.
It's like tearing down a building and building a newer better building.... like tearing down organic/artificial life in the universe and rebuilding it as a synthesis. Or tearing down the human and using the essence to download into the ultimate death machines.
That doesn't move beyond his basic pieces like Death of God and Will to power which is the basis to nihilistic principals... which is one of the primary reasons his name is so closely associated with nihilism:

“Virtue is under certain circumstances merely an honorable form of stupidity: who could be ill-disposed toward it on that account? And this kind of virtue has not been outlived even today.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power

That sounds like Nietzche's influence in the depressing destruction fest that was the endings.

Modifié par thefallen2far, 01 février 2013 - 05:09 .

[thefallen2far]

AlanC9 wrote...

yadda yadda yadda

.

I said good day, sir.

[f1rebladex]

While I am typing this, I still have the image clear of the Femshep “take earth back” trailer and the music that goes along with the child running through the sunflowers. This is the sadness Bioware manages to put in good use throughout the whole game. But I can’t hold myself. I feel down for quite a while now and I have to speak myself out to the maker of this horrible game.

I bought Mass Effect 1 because I heard it was a nice game but I never started it till just after the summer of 2012. I realized after I was done with Dragon Age, I needed another amazing game. While I was on 1/4 of the game I realized what a stupid idiot I have been not starting before. So thrilling, with sadness and achieving great steps. The moment when Vigil explains you stuff about the Protheans it was so amazing. It was literally breath taking. You can ask my girlfriend about it. For weeks I have been annoying her head with it. The amazing end scene battle… truly epic in all kind of ways.

But sadly, my save game got corrupted half way the game. I was so sad that I had to start all over again and called Microsoft / Xbox live support. I have spend 65 minutes on the phone (have screenshot as proof) trying to fix the corrupted save. But it didn’t work. I had so much love for the game that I willingly spent 65 minutes on the phone for it!

When I finished Mass Effect 1, I instantly went to the store and picked up Mass Effect 2. I wanted more. I couldn’t stop playing now! I was so sad that the whole Normandy was getting attacked. I couldn’t believe it. I couldn’t believe shepard would have died! No not my shepard! And she didn’t. I didn’t know what to think of Cerberus but I found the illusive man a bit creepy anyway. But the game itself was nice. Meeting new people and hooking up with old ones. They were all happy to see you back alive. And the suicide mission was actually a successful mission! I was happy, the whole game went smoothly! But was the Reaper defeated ? I didn’t know. But the big human looked like something really weird.

Mass effect 3 was amazing as well. The efforts my Shepard did to unite the whole [vibrating] galaxy. I mean is there something more epic than this? Convincing the Krogan the help you. Healing the damage between Geths and quarians. I was so proud of my shepard the whole game. I knew it was high risk situation but I believed my Shepard would make it through this war. But sadly… the last 20 minutes screw things really up badly for me.

I mean I tried again with the extended cut download… but Bioware why…? I … I … I just can’t understand? Why would you give a man a gun and tell him to kill himself or the people he loves? Its just [rolled] up man. The whole crucible thing is [puffed] up on its own. But tell me… Why, why we can’t have a happy ending? What bad did I do to you Bioware? Why can’t all the hard work be giving you something nice? Something to make it all worth it? Why does my Shepard have to die with I chose synthesis ending? I am happy with the “one” breath ending when you choose to destroy them. But just give the [cooling] same option at the synthesis ending.

I mean when I watch the stars at night. I remember shepard and I start crying. I have been watching the stars a lot since sleeping doesn’t work. Not with questions like “Was Bioware smoking weed?”. If I knew I could be expecting such a [fired] up ending, I would have never started the Mass Effect series. I am now traumatized. I don’t dare to play any more games because I am afraid my feelings will get destroyed. And btw goodjob Bioware with giving your bad influence to other games like Assassins Creed 3. Now they all started to make [tarted] up endings.

I see no future in myself. Maybe I should put a bullet through my head with a note to Bioware. Thanks for ruining the only fun thing I had (except my girlfriend and my motor) in my life. Games where literally the nicest way to relax. Now I see a game I am full of tears. Griefing for my Shepard. I see no more point in life if we all going to die with no respect at all like my shepard did. She did so many great things and only thing she gets is a to kill herself. That’s not my hero(ine)! She will find a way to survive!!

Now enjoy your [rolling] game developing bioware. I will buy no more [flan] from you. No DLC, nothing. If this just a way to milk more out of the ending I will literally lose It all. So you enjoy feedback from gamers? You know what my feedback is?

[Jumping jiminy] people which make my blood pressure go insane. I am not happy with the ending of such a trilogy. You went from the nicest developers to the worst insane [fruit salad] up smoking weed developers. And being buthurted saying stuff like “we where happy with the originally ending”. Start [jumping] accepting the bad stuff you did. Don’t try to hide or turn away from it. When I fail at something I get yelled as well. You are no more than a 6 year old. Oh that’s nice? It’s the same [yo-yo string] age of your wonderful catalyst! Goodjob destroying my whole habit of gaming and make me face the truth that you ruin everything. You ruin 100hours of work in less than 20 minutes. It like a [yelling] bird who flies into a gym where people have been putting domino stones for the past 2 moths. In this example Bioware is the [writing] bird which will be a [plumbing] jackass and hit the domino stones and ruin 2 months of hard work.

Just my 2 cents to bioware, didnt find it worth opening a new topic for it.

[No swearing, please.]

Modifié par Ninja Stan, 02 février 2013 - 08:23 .

[CronoDragoon]

thefallen2far wrote...

Yeah, I'm sure when people pressed the red button to throw a guy off a roof, shoot the priceless artifact, knock out the reporter or stab a guy in the back, they were thinking, "the morality is centered around producing the best consequences."....And when I beat prostitutes in GTA IV, I was thinking "My moral paradigm is altered to a sense of pragmatic outcome."

I'm sorry, I don't believe you. The consequences were the same. If you paragoned a hug to the frantic colleague or shot the guy who looked at her funny, you still effectively got the same loyalty points. Effectively, it was the same outcome, it was merely how you presented the character through the majority of the choices.....the story effect was for all intents and purposes the same.

Haha, well, I won't deny that Renegades are often a-holes as well. But when limiting our scope purely to moral decisions affecting the galaxy I think consequentialism is as close as we can get.

I understand the intent, but the practical application of the game wasn't so much benefit to consequentialist thinking as it was basically stating that in a game where you can be moral throughout the game without suffering major consequences, in the end, holding to that same truth results in the end of civilization. You have to accept those moral outcomes as shallow idealism without practical applications to not effectively tear down the fabric of civilization. I find it very nihilistic, and I don't see any reason to not think of it as nihilism.

Substitute "moral" for "idealistic" there and we agree. It is a fact that idealism cannot trump the reality of the situation in the endings. But I do not think that the endings invalidate idealism as a whole. Paragon choices like curing the genophage aren't invalidated by the endings. If the endings had invalidated most Paragon choices you made throughout the series, you might have a point. As it stands, I think the accurate statement the endings make is, "Idealism can be effective and good in many situations, but there are some situations where you cannot overcome the circumstances by will alone." Is it nihilist to suggest this? I don't think so.

What part of the ending defies:

ni·hil·ism
noun ˈnī-(h)ə-ˌli-zəm, ˈnē-
Definition of NIHILISM
1
a : a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless
b : a doctrine that denies any objective ground of truth and especially of moral truths

Adding consequentialist or moralistic or idealistic or any other perspectives: how is this an inaccurate way of looking at the endings by accepting moral truth as a common theme through paragon storytelling?

The part I bolded. To suggest that existence is senseless and useless, the endings would have have to suggest that the entire struggle was meaningless and that Shepard would have done just as much good for the galaxy picking his nose instead of destroying the Collectors and stopping the Reapers. That would ring a little true of nihilism.

Yeah, that's why I was thinking you saying the Overman was something to avoid was extremely weird. So you were just talking about last men surrounding Zarathuria. The cure for the nihilist. Basically, it was a horrible person not beholden to any form of decency and courtesy..... yeah, he was in contrast to the destructive nihilism that he was preaching indicating that it was self destructive by nature, but it was primarily to make way for his cure for that destructive nihilism. Zarathuria was still the result of the tear down of truth.
It's like tearing down a building and building a newer better building.... like tearing down organic/artificial life in the universe and rebuilding it as a synthesis. Or tearing down the human and using the essence to download into the ultimate death machines.
That doesn't move beyond his basic pieces like Death of God and Will to power which is the basis to nihilistic principals... which is one of the primary reasons his name is so closely associated with nihilism:

His name is primarily associated with nihilism because he was really the first one to talk about it like he did. Whether or not others equate exactly  the disbelief in the objective truth of morals with nihilism, Nieztsche does not. Nieztsche confines nihilism exclusively to the realm of those minds that reject objective truth in morals and use it as an excuse to do nothing, to aspire to no higher goals. Zarathustra shows this by both being shown in opposition to nihilism and in opposition to morals based on the ascetic ideal. The key phrase in Nieztsche's On the Genealogy of Morals is "The Revaluation of all Values." In other words, he is not suggesting we discard values but reconsider them.

Modifié par CronoDragoon, 01 février 2013 - 06:06 .

[wright1978]

Slashice wrote...

Personally I don't need a happy ending. I need an ending that is not full of story inconsistents and unexplained retcons. I would be more than happy even if that mean my Shepard dies anyway.

Well for me it is that the ending is a disjointed nonsensical trainwreck driven by the appallingly implemented catalyst plot device rather than any issue with their being negative consequences in an ending.

[Necrotron]

Allan Schumacher wrote...

I'm also curious how destroy would be received if the knowledge of all synthetics being affected was not presented to Shepard (and hence, couldn't affect Shepard's thought process).

The problem is the source of all of that information.  It's presented to the player by the face of a murdered child from the least trustworthy source, an enemy known for enslaving, tricking, and indoctrinating every previous character in the story.

It really doesn't give the player very much choice, they have a gun pointed at their head, and the main villain saying they can either 'die', or choose plan B, C, or D.  Why does the main villain want to allow Shepard to suddenly decide the fate of the universe???  It's never explained.  So, you can blindly choose to try to refuse and see if there is another way (there isn't), or pick one.

If Synthetics were not 'known to die' (of course, at this point, Shepard really has no clue what will happen when he picks any choice because there is no reliable information available), Destroy would obviously be the most popular choice.  It's what the protagonist has been set to do the entire series.  Synthesis and Control take themes from Sare and the Illusive Man, which our hero has spoken out against previously.

Of course, if players found out afterwards that Sythetics died from picking destroy, people would definetly voice some frustration about that, to be sure, so I doubt it would have changed the way people reacted to the ending.

wright1978 wrote...

Slashice wrote...

Personally I don't need a happy ending. I need an ending that is not full of story inconsistents and unexplained retcons. I would be more than happy even if that mean my Shepard dies anyway.

Well for me it is that the ending is a disjointed nonsensical trainwreck driven by the appallingly implemented catalyst plot device rather than any issue with their being negative consequences in an ending.

I never needed a happy ending either.  I can't do anything, but shake my head and laugh everytime I hear that catalyst dialogue.  *shrug*

Oh well, Bioware tried something ambitious and failed.  Not my kind of storywriting.

Modifié par Bathaius, 01 février 2013 - 08:20 .

[ratzerman]

f1rebladex wrote...

But tell me… Why, why we can’t have a happy ending?

Because art.

I've tried to figure out a better reason for almost a year, but that's the best I can come up with.

[vallore]

[quote]CronoDragoon wrote...

[quote]vallore wrote...
What about the question of the credibility posed by his solutions? That is, imo, part of the dilemma posed. Like the O/S question, there is no in game proof that supports that these will work as he states/implies, other than Destroy.[/quote]

Just to clarify, do you mean before you choose or after? Before you choose you have no in-game proof that any decision will work as intended, including Destroy. If you mean that after you choose, Destroy's benefits are immediate and visible while the assumptions about Synthesis and Control made by the Catalyst aren't certain, then I agree. [/quote] [/quote]

You are correct in you assumption, I meant after.


[quote]
A player that believes in the O/S conflict but doubts the viability of Control and Synthesis still will not, I believe, pick Destroy. [/quote]

Indeed; I wasn’t clear enough, sorry. I meant a player that does not believe in either: O/S war and the viability of the solutions.



[quote]As for reasons to pick Synthesis outside of the O/S conflict, both reasons you listed are valid. Ieldra for one likes Synthesis in part because of how it deals with the Reaper problem: he believes they are innocent and deserve a chance to live free. Alternatively my friend picked Synthesis because to him it was "the clear Paragon choice." I took his meaning to be that Synthesis represents a way to save as many lives as possible (more than Destroy) while also preserving freedom (more than Control). It obviously has drawbacks concerning the consent of the people, but the fact remains that after the change the most amount of people (both organic and synthetic) have the most amount of freedom. [/quote]

As I see it, it not a matter of being valid or invalid choices from a player’s perspective, but rather being invalid choices from a story perspective.

Synthesis has clearly a main purpose, directly connected with solving the O/S conflict. If a player did not believe in that conflict, then the story should provide an appropriate solution for that player. In this case Destroy, (or even Control). However if that player picks up Synthesis despite not believing in it, something likely failed in the story crafting. The solution is not being used as intended, for what was intended, likely because the “right” solution for that player was defective, unsatisfying.

[MegaSovereign]

You know what else doesn't have happy endings? Law and Order SVU episodes.

[Iakus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

You know what else doesn't have happy endings? Law and Order SVU episodes.

Not trying to be rude, but what does that have to do with anything?

[Bill Casey]

f1rebladex wrote...

I mean when I watch the stars at night. I remember shepard and I start crying. I have been watching the stars a lot since sleeping doesn’t work. Not with questions like “Was Bioware smoking weed?”. If I knew I could be expecting such a ****ed up ending, I would have never started the Mass Effect series. I am now traumatized. I don’t dare to play any more games because I am afraid my feelings will get destroyed. And btw goodjob Bioware with giving your bad influence to other games like Assassins Creed 3. Now they all started to make ****ed up endings.

I see no future in myself. Maybe I should put a bullet through my head with a note to Bioware. Thanks for ruining the only fun thing I had (except my girlfriend and my motor) in my life. Games where literally the nicest way to relax. Now I see a game I am full of tears. Griefing for my Shepard. I see no more point in life if we all going to die with no respect at all like my shepard did. She did so many great things and only thing she gets is a to kill herself. That’s not my hero(ine)! She will find a way to survive!!

PTSD...
It will be okay...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 02 février 2013 - 02:03 .

[MegaSovereign]

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

You know what else doesn't have happy endings? Law and Order SVU episodes.

Not trying to be rude, but what does that have to do with anything?

It was just a sneaky way to bump the thread.

[V-rcingetorix]

My question; how come the VI from Thessia, which was talking about "interfacing with the Catalyst" is left behind on TIM's station? They left behind a working Prothean VI? With Help files?

[GreyLycanTrope]

MegaSovereign wrote...

iakus wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

You know what else doesn't have happy endings? Law and Order SVU episodes.

Not trying to be rude, but what does that have to do with anything?

It was just a sneaky way to bump the thread.

That's why you never trust a volus, specially a Reaper volus.

[GreyLycanTrope]

V-rcingetorix wrote...

My question; how come the VI from Thessia, which was talking about "interfacing with the Catalyst" is left behind on TIM's station? They left behind a working Prothean VI? With Help files?

Because the writers forgot about that detail since they were focusing more on Kai Leng and the drama, but you can assume Shepard grabbed the VI offscreen while there at the station.

Modifié par Greylycantrope, 02 février 2013 - 02:40 .

[Nightdragon8]

Greylycantrope wrote...

V-rcingetorix wrote...

My question; how come the VI from Thessia, which was talking about "interfacing with the Catalyst" is left behind on TIM's station? They left behind a working Prothean VI? With Help files?

Because the writers forgot about that detail since they were focusing more on Kai Leng and the drama, but you can assume Shepard grabbed the VI offscreen while there at the station.

you have a problem with them "leaving" the VI there?? how bout the fact that Cerburus was able to hack out the VI in the first place, dispite the fact that "Indocertnated forces" where around it. seems to me more annoying than anything. A