1470 réponses à ce sujet

[Cainhurst Crow]

Bill Casey wrote...

It's stupid to explain it after saying it's beyond your comprehension...

I don;t make it a habit of believeing holograms just because they say it, but I digress.

[Bill Casey]

So I take it you don't believe the star child then...

[Silcron]

Bill Casey wrote...

Zombie Saren is Sovereign...

true, it's the first example of "Assuming direct control" that we see in the series, he even gets Sovereign's voice when he talks during the fight (though it's easy to not hear it over all oyur guns shooting at him)

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

Zombie Saren is Sovereign...

More like it's an avatar of Sovereign which is not really the same thing.  Then again by the very end, Saren even before he killed himself (if he did) was little more than an avatar for Soveriegn.  The point is that you fight Saren.  You kill him.  [Stuff happens]  The Villian "gets better" and you have to fight him again.

It's not uncommon in many computer games (or even TTRPG combat encounters)

-Polaris

[Cainhurst Crow]

Bill Casey wrote...

So I take it you don't believe the star child then...

Well no, not initially. I do believe him after I watch the cutscenes unfold in the EC, due to empirical evidence of what he is saying. Which is a lot more than the reapers present when they state that they are beyond our comprehension, since we can understand their phisiology just fine when we see how they are made in ME2.

In truth, I am tired of this game taking every oppurtunity to tell the player to shut up whenever we ask the question of why the reapers reap. It get's on my nerves and I don't see anything to back up this assertion of surperiority.

But, this is just getting me back into my loop once again. So If it's all the same to you, I'd like to just call this a impass.

[Bill Casey]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Zombie Saren is Sovereign...

More like it's an avatar of Sovereign which is not really the same thing.  Then again by the very end, Saren even before he killed himself (if he did) was little more than an avatar for Soveriegn.  The point is that you fight Saren.  You kill him.  [Stuff happens]  The Villian "gets better" and you have to fight him again.

It's not uncommon in many computer games (or even TTRPG combat encounters)

-Polaris

No, it is Sovereign...
Saren doesn't exist any more...

That's like calling EDI EVA...

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

No, it is Sovereign...
Saren doesn't exist any more...

That's like calling EDI EVA...

Thematically sure, but in terms of the actual scene, it's just like the Merethari scene in Act 3 in DA2.  She is possessed by a Demon.  We have to kill it.  If we allow Merethari to convince us that the demon has been killed, then "it gets better" and we have to kill it again.

Yes the details differ, but the basic structure for the boss fight is almost exactly the same.

The point is that Sovereign consists of a different voice in Saren's body, and Saren's body going through a sudden and 'extreme" diet program, and that's it.  Not enough IMO to qualify Soveign as the true Villian.  Merely a plot device (abeit a powerful and malign one)

-Polaris

Edit PS:  If you consider the last fight to be against Sovereign himself in ME1, then you'd also have to consider each fight against the Collector Generals in ME2 to be a fight against Harbinger himself, and I am not willing to go there.

Modifié par IanPolaris, 13 mai 2013 - 08:11 .

[Bill Casey]

So is the true villain of the Exorcist the demon Pazuzu or a little girl?

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

So is the true villain of the Exorcist the demon Pazuzu or a little girl?

You interact with the demon exenstively during the exorcist.  However, it does bring a troubling question:

How much of that is the demon and how much is the girl? 

However, this is a completely different comparison.  We directly interact with Soveriegn once that that's IF you count the zombified Saren (which I don't).

-Polaris

[Silcron]

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS:  If you consider the last fight to be against Sovereign himself in ME1, then you'd also have to consider each fight against the Collector Generals in ME2 to be a fight against Harbinger himself, and I am not willing to go there.

Yet the asusming direct control mechaninc Harbinger has leaves little to no discussions. He is controling directly the Collector General, who in turn is controlling directly a collector in your way. 

Let's put another example. When you shoot collectors in ME who is doing the shooting Shepard, or you with the controller? 

[IanPolaris]

Silcron wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...
Edit PS:  If you consider the last fight to be against Sovereign himself in ME1, then you'd also have to consider each fight against the Collector Generals in ME2 to be a fight against Harbinger himself, and I am not willing to go there.

Yet the asusming direct control mechaninc Harbinger has leaves little to no discussions. He is controling directly the Collector General, who in turn is controlling directly a collector in your way. 

Let's put another example. When you shoot collectors in ME who is doing the shooting Shepard, or you with the controller? 

Shepard.  There is no way that I, IRL would actually have the reflexes and training to survive more than a few seconds in such an environment. The computer interface is assuming much of that for me.  I might control Shepard, but that's not the same.

-Polaris

[The Twilight God]

RydeCrash wrote...

Found a recent interview many of you may find interesting.

http://www.oxm.co.uk...r-future-games/
 
Ryde…

What did Casey Hudson explicitely state about the endings prior to release??? The EXACT opposite of what the ending actually turned out to be. He lied. He lied right to everyone's faces and I have no doubt he's lying some more.

Bioware is now in the business of making promises that they know good and well they have no intent of fulfilling. If they really learned their lesson they'd fix ME3's ending RIGHT NOW instead of more empty promises about what they WILL DO IN THE FUTURE. They haven't learned a thing other than that they can **** all over you people and you'll still come back for more, blaming EA for their f-ups.

If they don't know how obsessive ME fans are they are so out of touch they need to just quit.

[Bill Casey]

IanPolaris wrote...

Edit PS:  If you consider the last fight to be against Sovereign himself in ME1, then you'd also have to consider each fight against the Collector Generals in ME2 to be a fight against Harbinger himself, and I am not willing to go there.

It is though...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mai 2013 - 08:21 .

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Edit PS:  If you consider the last fight to be against Sovereign himself in ME1, then you'd also have to consider each fight against the Collector Generals in ME2 to be a fight against Harbinger himself, and I am not willing to go there.

It is though...

I don't accept that.  Harbinger may be controlling them, but I do not regard it as the same as fighting Harby himself.

-Polaris

[Bill Casey]

[IanPolaris]

Bill Casey wrote...

Which proves nothing.  In fact when you beat them, they are specifically called Collecter generals.  We don't find out it's harbinger controlling them (or that it's a reaper) until the very tail end of ME2.

So no, I don't accept that it's an actual fight against Harbinger.  Just against a puppet controlled by it.  I draw a definate distinction.

-Polaris

[Silcron]

IanPolaris wrote...
Shepard.  There is no way that I, IRL would actually have the reflexes and training to survive more than a few seconds in such an environment. The computer interface is assuming much of that for me.  I might control Shepard, but that's not the same.

-Polaris

We're not speaking of you being in Shepard's position. In an rts you tell a unit to fihgt someone and the unit does the fighting, the unit is doing the fighting (take xcom for example, that makes quite clear the example). If the unit is attacked it defends itself. Same with your squad members, but not shepard. 

You control every single action Shepard does in combat, you do have the reflexes, it's just that you move your fingers not your entire body. It is the player who is fighting. Just as in the multiplayers of Call of Duty or Halo you don't fight other spartans but other players. There's a Shepard and a Collector, one player is called Harbinger, the other one is you. 

[Bill Casey]

IanPolaris wrote...

Which proves nothing.  In fact when you beat them, they are specifically called Collecter generals.  We don't find out it's harbinger controlling them (or that it's a reaper) until the very tail end of ME2.

So no, I don't accept that it's an actual fight against Harbinger.  Just against a puppet controlled by it.  I draw a definate distinction.

-Polaris

EDI doesn't pilot the Normandy, she is the Normandy...

*back and forth infinite loop, etc...*

Modifié par Bill Casey, 13 mai 2013 - 08:31 .

[AlanC9]

The Twilight God wrote...

Bioware is now in the business of making promises that they know good and well they have no intent of fulfilling. If they really learned their lesson they'd fix ME3's ending RIGHT NOW instead of more empty promises about what they WILL DO IN THE FUTURE. They haven't learned a thing other than that they can **** all over you people and you'll still come back for more, blaming EA for their f-ups.

If they don't know how obsessive ME fans are they are so out of touch they need to just quit.

Wait.....  if Bio really can " **** all over you people and you'll still come back for more," then how are they out of touch? Wouldn't that prove that they do know their audience?

(Not that I believe any of this anyway; just trying to figure out what Bio's supposed to be guilty of this time)

[The Twilight God]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Which proves nothing.  In fact when you beat them, they are specifically called Collecter generals.  We don't find out it's harbinger controlling them (or that it's a reaper) until the very tail end of ME2.

So no, I don't accept that it's an actual fight against Harbinger.  Just against a puppet controlled by it.  I draw a definate distinction.

-Polaris

That's the thing about objective facts. You don't have to accept the truth for the truth to exist. It was Harbinger. And that's just that rather you like it or not.

[The Twilight God]

AlanC9 wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Bioware is now in the business of making promises that they know good and well they have no intent of fulfilling. If they really learned their lesson they'd fix ME3's ending RIGHT NOW instead of more empty promises about what they WILL DO IN THE FUTURE. They haven't learned a thing other than that they can **** all over you people and you'll still come back for more, blaming EA for their f-ups.

If they don't know how obsessive ME fans are they are so out of touch they need to just quit.

Wait.....  if Bio really can " **** all over you people and you'll still come back for more," then how are they out of touch? Wouldn't that prove that they do know their audience?

(Not that I believe any of this anyway; just trying to figure out what Bio's supposed to be guilty of this time)

No, it was more of a statement calling them on bs.This idea that that are completely ignorant of how awful the ending was being the bs. They knew and didn't care. They wasted 7 years without figuring out a conclusion and then tossed some crap together at the last minute.

[nos_astra]

The Twilight God wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Which proves nothing.  In fact when you beat them, they are specifically called Collecter generals.  We don't find out it's harbinger controlling them (or that it's a reaper) until the very tail end of ME2.

So no, I don't accept that it's an actual fight against Harbinger.  Just against a puppet controlled by it.  I draw a definate distinction.

-Polaris

That's the thing about objective facts. You don't have to accept the truth for the truth to exist. It was Harbinger. And that's just that rather you like it or not.

I think you overestimate the meaning such a label has.

It's certainly not supposed to reflect the role the opponent serves in the narrative.

Modifié par klarabella, 13 mai 2013 - 08:59 .

[Megaton_Hope]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

Zombie Saren is Sovereign...

More like it's an avatar of Sovereign which is not really the same thing.  Then again by the very end, Saren even before he killed himself (if he did) was little more than an avatar for Soveriegn.  The point is that you fight Saren.  You kill him.  [Stuff happens]  The Villian "gets better" and you have to fight him again.

It's not uncommon in many computer games (or even TTRPG combat encounters)

-Polaris

All my functions are yours

[Archonsg]

Question, if that was Harbinger, would it not have killed Harby once its defeated?

It's a collector, acting as Harbinger's Avatar true, but still a collector.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

IanPolaris wrote...

Bill Casey wrote...

IanPolaris wrote...

This isn't characteristic of a true villian.  The true villian in ME1 is Saren not Sovereign.

Then why isn't the game over after Saren kills himself?


The final boss battle in ME1 is with Sovereign...
The final boss battle in ME2 is with the Human Reaper...

Every single husk, banshee, marauder, brute, collector, etc is a reaper...
They just aren't capital ships or destroyers...

It really is (over when Saren kills himself).  It can be difficult to notice, but the final game save is made just before you fight the Saren-Zombie.  In terms of game/thematic structure, it's really two boss fights (one of which you can avoid with a paragon/renegade option) seperated by a lengthy "Cimax Scene" interlude.  In both cases you fight Saren (or zombie Saren).  Sovereign is destroyed in a cut scene.

-Polaris

"I am Sovereign and this station is mine". Sovereign, not Saren. I think it's a touch unfair to limit who (or what) a villain encompasses to the body they inhabit.  

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 13 mai 2013 - 11:04 .