Talk:Lair of the Shadow Broker

Weapons
The screenshots feature the M5 pistol and a new assault rifle. Mention? Or too speculative? JakePT 16:34, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * For now too speculative as we had the M5 featured before and nothing came of it. Keep it here however and here's hoping for the new pistol and a new assault rifle to boot. We'll just have to follow the story, but I am interested in the asari seen.
 * Oh wait I just realized, I've got more walkthoughs to write, and my fingers are already protesting. Lancer1289 16:38, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * There is new shotgun too, I think, look at one of the pictures. Captain Gavorn

I don't play anyone who uses shotgun, so I'm not really sure how they each look compacted, but I think you're right. At any rate, definitely using a new pistol and assault rifle. Just hope they are part of the pack.--Xaero Dumort 17:14, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, looks like all those people who said there would be a Liara/Shadow Broker DLC were right. And all those people who said there wouldn't are wrong. Good thing I kept quite, and opted for a policy of armed neutrality, like the Swiss. :P SpartHawg948 17:20, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

How about a short line saying something like: "Official screenshots depict three new weapons, an Assault Rifle, Shotgun and Heavy Pistol. Whether or not they are included as part of Lair of the Shadow Broker is currently unknown."? JakePT 17:33, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm of the opinion that it's worth mentioning in the article. -- Dammej ( talk ) 17:59, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Why would we add a bit about it being unknown whether or not they'll be included? It seems to me that, if this caveat has to be added, then there is no reason to add any of the above info to this article. I could see that going into the DLC article, but to go into this article, not so much. SpartHawg948 18:00, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, frankly it's pretty obvious that they will be part of the DLC, it's just we don't have 100% confirmation, I don't see an issue with including the info, but hedging our bets. Perhaps unknown was too strong a word, 'unclear' is probably more appropriate.JakePT 18:04, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm still not so sure. Again, what is the point of putting a blurb into an article about ONE SPECIFIC DLC (i.e. this one) that 'there will be new weapons, although it's unclear if they'll be in this DLC' (paraphrasing of course). If it's unclear, why should it even be here? I'm fine adding the weapon info in, just not the caveats about how 'even though these are mentioned specifically in the article for this DLC, they may not be in this DLC'. See what I'm driving at? SpartHawg948 18:07, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum- why not just add the first bit? The "Official screenshots depict three new weapons, an Assault Rifle, Shotgun and Heavy Pistol."? After all, there is literally nothing in there that is inaccurate, and nothing that would be rendered so if the weapons are not in the DLC. They will still have appeared in the screenshots. We're not stating the weapons will be in the DLC, just that they're in the first 3 screenshots for the DLC. And it avoids the silly and needless 'they may not even be in the DLC' blurb. That's the point I'm attempting (rather poorly, it seems) to drive home here. SpartHawg948 18:11, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that, it just seems a little odd having a sentence commenting on the screenshots without tying it back to the DLC in some way. If I were reading it I'd go "And?". JakePT 18:14, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I get that, but I'd rather go 'And?' than read the next sentence and think to myself 'Well that was stupid. If they may not even be in this, why are they even mentioned?' That's just me though. Again, I don't see any need for caveats to factually accurate statements. And you could easily tie it back to the DLC simply by altering it to 'Official screenshots for Lair of the Shadow Broker...' SpartHawg948 18:17, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright then. I added a sentence that sounds OK, but without any caveats. Not sure if it should go where I put it, or in it's own section though. JakePT 18:19, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine where you put it. Adding more sections at this early date seems like unnecessary compartmentalization. When we get more info on the weapons themselves, I can see a separate weapons section, but there simply isn't enough info as of yet. SpartHawg948 18:21, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Why not just put it in the DLC article, as SpartHawg originally mentioned? I believe the Kestrel armor was mentioned there first as being depicted in screenshots. It's possible that this is another "accidental" reveal of another DLC pack. -- Dammej ( talk ) 18:19, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Are y'all talking about the actual Downloadable Content article or the DLC section on ME2? Last I checked, speculative/uncertain stuff like this would go somewhere in the latter. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:23, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Or, maybe... Or [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_CEP2sq99Hc sic semper ty.. cough]. Hadn't given it that much thought, truth be told. SpartHawg948 18:27, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

Apparently concept art from the new Assault Rifle has showed up in the past, much like we saw an early Zaeed months before ME2 was released. For those curious (from the official forums):

http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/9311/beznzvuho.png JakePT 18:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Intriguing. I like the design and color. I'm hoping it turns out to be a good alternative to the Revenant, something with accuracy that also packs a punch. -- Commdor (Talk) 18:37, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

As tweeted to me by lead gameplay designer Christina Norman: "All I can say is, no, the new weapons you see in those screenshots are not from Shadow Broker. Can't say where they are from!" Case closed I guess. JakePT 19:15, July 22, 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting clarification on that. It increases the possibility that this DLC might be post-ME2 as adding new weapons with it would likley mean otherwise as Bioware would want players to experience any new weaponry thoroughly. --The Illusive Man 19:30, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * So Liara's DLC wasn't phony as we thought, sweet :D Shadowhawk27 20:49, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting real tired of weapons and armor being shown off in DLC teasers that they have nothing to do with. I'm also still hoping for more appearance packs soon. Everyone needs that third costume.--Xaero Dumort 20:52, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... hate to ask, but why is Twitter being treated as a valid source? Not questioning JakePT's info or anything, but we do have sourcing standards, and Twitter, to the best of my knowledge, does not meet those requirements. If we accept Twitter for this, we really need to accept it as a source for everything, and I personally am pretty opposed to that idea. I mean, we also don't allow MySpace and Facebook as sources. SpartHawg948 22:01, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * OK I missed this whole thing so I have two things to comment on. First, I do think that it is very annoying that BioWare shows screenshots with new weapons and then we have a source claiming that they aren't being used. Really, I mean come on, if you aren't going to put the weapons int he pack, then don't show then and get everybody's hopes up.
 * Second the source, I do agree with Spart that accepting Twitter as a valid source really does set a very dangerous president. If we were to get something from a more valid source, then I have to agree, but Twitter I really do have problems with, along with any social networking site. They seem to be good for communicating information, but as a valid source, not so much. As with Spart, not questioning the info, but using Twitter, or any other social networking site sets a dangerous president, and puts us on a slippery slope if you know what I mean. Lancer1289 22:07, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * "Twitter" really isn't the source here. It's a tweet by Christa Norman, whom I would consider a valid source. If it was just some random person tweeting this, then I'd agree with you, but this is her twitter account. Why wouldn't we consider information she tweets to be accurate? -- Dammej ( talk ) 22:09, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * But Twitter is the source. After all, what independent verification do we have that it is her? We also wouldn't accept statements from her if they were sourced using an article from a website or publication that is known to print unproven or false information, which has happened in the past. She may be the end source, but the means of transmission is suspect. SpartHawg948 22:12, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but this is probably the most ridiculous thing you've ever done. JakePT 22:22, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * I happen to think I've done more ridiculous things than this. I mean, what did I do? I stated that a social networking site with no real means of independent verification is not an acceptable source. We don't consider IMDB a valid source in and of itself, nor 'official' forum comments other than those that are clearly labeled as from BioWare staffers. We didn't accept Christina Norman's own comments on this very site until it was determined it actually was her. Hardly ridiculous. SpartHawg948 22:25, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems JakePT doesn't get it at all, cause he keeps posting up this info when you guys state it's not valid. Shadowhawk27 01:47, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually if you would look at the page history, it was Spart that reposted it once Jake had provided backup about the Twitter account. I'm not comfortable using it, but since he has backup, to quote Spart in his edit summary, "[w]ell, now that I've been presented with ALL the relevant info, not just some of it, I can say (much as I hate to make sole exceptions) that THIS ONE AND ONLY Twitter account is valid for sourcing". So I guess we'll make an exception, JUST THIS ONCE. I just hope this doesn't set a president for people to start posting form Facebook, MySpace, other unknown Twitter accounts, or from any other social networking sites. Lancer1289 02:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well we don't know if she's the real deal or some imposter claiming to be that person. I however am still doing my best to get some answers from Chris Priestly about the guns that are shown in the pics. Shadowhawk27 02:43, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, we do know she is the real deal and not some impostor. That's why I re-added the info. I do have at least some idea of what I'm doing, contrary to your expressed opinions. Thanks for demonstrating a total lack of faith in my basic competence though. That's always appreciated. SpartHawg948 02:51, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive me SpartHawg948, i didn't know, i was only following protocol. :( Shadowhawk27 02:58, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I must have missed the protocol that says that when two admins say a source is valid and re-add an item, you're supposed to question them and accuse a third user of not listening to those very same admins. That protocol must have gotten introduced on my day off. SpartHawg948 03:04, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * I think part of the confusion here arises because the evidence was presented on mine and JakePT's talk pages and not here. For the benefit of other editors coming to this page, here's the link that JakePT provided as corroborating evidence that the twitter account "truffle" does indeed belong to Christina Norman: http://meforums.bioware.com/viewtopic.html?topic=683748&forum=144
 * Note that about half way down there is a post by Christina Norman (her affiliation with Bioware can be verified by the presence of the "Bioware" image under her name), and note that her signature says: "twitter: truffle". Therefore, the twitter account "truffle" belongs to Christina Norman. -- Dammej ( talk ) 03:06, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok ok, i was only following the rules to this site, and you say this info is legit then i have nothing againest it. I'll try to get some answers from Chris Priestly about the guns that are shown in the pics. Shadowhawk27 03:13, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again though, what rule to this site were you following? That's what I'm driving at. After all, one of the main rules of the site is that the admins are the ultimate arbiters in these matters. Validity of sourcing is something we have final say over, and even after one admin told you that it was valid, which is why another admin had added it, you still said it wasn't legit. That's what got me steamed. Questioning the competence of not one, but two admins. Saying 'I was following rules' or protocols or whatever only works when an actual rule was being adhered to, and I can't think of any offhand that fit. SpartHawg948 03:18, July 23, 2010 (UTC)


 * Gulp* Don't be mad at me, it was a case of misunderstanding :( I don't want to be banned from this site over over this info *Scared stiff* I didn't mean to hurt anyone. Shadowhawk27 03:26, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, don't worry about getting banned, it's just the NCO in me. When a judgment call is made, it is insanely frustrating to be second-guessed by someone who A) Is not the one with overall responsibility for the situation, and B) Doesn't have all the info. It's even more frustrating when that person then says 'I was just following orders' when no such orders exist. SpartHawg948 03:29, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Understandable, SpartHawg948, it was you who gave me the idea of these rules that i *ashamed* was following, "The info posted to this website has to be legit from this and that place." Shadowhawk27 03:35, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Cristina Norman just said that the weapons in the pics are not from Shadow Broker, but didn't say that they are not coming in this DLC. Ha ha and I don't know how to post a signature. Captain Gavorn.
 * Yes, she said they were not from Shadow Broker. This DLC is Lair of the Shadow Broker, aka Shadow Broker. SpartHawg948 18:55, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * You're right, I did not see that. Captain Gavorn
 * Um Please remember to sign your posts using four tildes Captain Gavorn Shadowhawk27 20:17, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Image
Jake, anyway you can crop Shep's arm out a little more? Lancer1289 16:41, July 22, 2010 (UTC)
 * Did it a little while ago, just posting this comment for posterity. JakePT 17:37, July 22, 2010 (UTC)

So, enough talk about the hypothetical weapons and the validity of twitter statements. How about the actual content of the upcoming DLC? I personally believe that the Shadow Broker is Liara's other mother. It would explain not only much of Liara's general character (motivations, thought processes, objective and independent nature, etc.), Benezia's shame and nondisclosure about her mate, and also Liara's direct and indirect interactions with the Shadow Broker. It just seems to me like the perfect plot progression, almost like from the beginning it was, dare I say, planned?Sever323 20:31, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * And where did that come from. Liara's motiviations for seeking the Shadow Broker is a direct result of what happened in Mass Effect: Redemption. Until then, Liara had absolutly no interacitons with the Shadow Broker. Also we don't konw if that asari is the Shadow Broker, or just another agent, but it will be interesting. As to Benezia's shame, Liara said that she never mentioned why, and the thought Benezia was ashamed but we don't know why. Benezia just didn't mention it for whatever reason, but shame is speculation becuase we only have Liara's opinions on the matter. Lancer1289 20:36, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * And then there's the whole wanting to kill each other thing... not sure that fits in with the mother-daughter concept. SpartHawg948 20:41, July 23, 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of Shadow Broker, I think he hired the Eclipse mercenaries in one of those pics. Remember Kasumi's DLC, they were wearing Black armor instead of Yellow. Shadowhawk27 20:45, July 23, 2010 (UTC)

Something to note
I can't source this because I haven't located the source itself (it's allegedly on BioWare's forums), so take this with a grain of salt: Apparently, the Lair of the Shadow Broker DLC won't be released until late August at the earliest, however the three new weapons will be released in a DLC pack sometime prior to LSB. More info on LSB will be doled out over the course of August, and LSB has a surprise in store that BioWare doesn't want to spoil in previews. So, take that as you will. -- Commdor (Talk) 00:35, July 24, 2010 (UTC)
 * If that is ture and the weapons will be released before hand, the please find the source, because all of those weapons look great. Also if this is released in late August, I'm sure BioWare have their reasons, and to be honest I really don't care as long as it's relaeased before mid-September. As to the surprise, well it would be a very bad idea to ruin it, even hint at what it is before the pack is out. However with BioWare's reputation, it will be a good one. Lancer1289 00:40, July 24, 2010 (UTC)