Talk:Kasumi: Stealing Memory

Trivia
I figure we should list all the trivia and references made in this mission here, until all have been compiled.

For example, if you examine the Statue of Liberty head, Kasumi makes a reference to the original Planet of the Apes. She says "How did Hock get Lady Liberty's head? Damn you, Hock!" upon seeing it. 18:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

I think my personal favorite is seeing the name of the achievement for completing the mission. I love the Ocean's series and seeing it possibly mentioned here (looks close enough for me at least) is freakin awesome! Gotta love how Basher just kinda shrugs nonchalantly and goes "Right" like its just another day at the office Skitz470 08:53, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, yea... it was Shepard's Eleven. Now it's like... Shepard's 13, too bad there's no one munching on something everytime the camera's on him :D. Prismvg 20:54, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Alarm clock
Allrighty, so guards attack you if you activate the clock? How does that work? I escaped unnoticed, so now I'm really interested in finding out what triggers this. Prismvg 22:01, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * I investigated the alarm clock like the rest of the items throughout Hock's apartment for DNA and it went off, thus summoning the guards outside the door into the room. I'm rather surprised to hear this hasn't happened for others. --The Illusive Man 22:03, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is level dependent and maybe glitchy so I retry it when I am not as busy. Lancer1289 22:04, April 7, 2010 (UTC)
 * The alarm clock brought in guards for me. Tophvision 19:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)\

Right, so I replayed that part twice. Once with my Normal difficulty character and again with my Insanity diff character. Both level 30. Still no guards, so difficulty isn't the issue. Have to say that the "It's a plant" and "Aha" lines from Kasumi and Shepard respectively cracked me up (how they both chuckle). Also, is that a really ugly Scottish accent in Hock's speech? Prismvg 20:41, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * The alarm triggers the guards IF you didn't enter the bedroom with authorization from Chief Roe. If you took down the room behind the security door, you tapped into Hock's security and their communications. If you read the datapad outside, it mentions Chief Roe's name. If you say that Chief Roe gave you permission to go in, Kasumi uses her omni-tool to impersonate Chief Roe telling him to stop bothering her. If you trigger the alarm in this scenario, no guards come into Hock's private quarters. User:aJay3424007 21:22, April 88, 2011 (GMT)


 * LOL, Scottish! - It's a South African accent. Alarm clock brought guards for me too. It just seems to call the guards early so the exit can be unlocked when you sneak in, as the guards come when you exit the room anyway.
 * Perhaps it is dependent on whether you sneak in or have the guard let you in. I'll try it later, no time now. Invataion for anyone else to test both circumstances for confirmation. Lancer1289 20:49, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * And how exactly do you sneak in? Prismvg 20:51, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I added the details of how to sneak in and cleared it up. The alarm clock will summon guards ONLY if you sneak in. I hope that will clear this up. Lancer1289 22:21, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I also modified some wording based on replaying it again. Lancer1289 22:23, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that settles it. Haven't noticed the balcony railing... Prismvg 08:03, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

""

Dragon Age Statue
Currently we don't really have anything official so please leave it as is until something official or an Admin makes a ruling. Lancer1289 23:11, April 7, 2010 (UTC)

Um why? It's pretty obvious that is an ogre, you guys should really stop it with the official confimartion stuff when there is clear visual evidence. Seriously, get the stick off your butts.
 * Because we have had trivia like this before where while it may be apparent it could also reference medieval tales or the Lord of the Rings. Lancer1289 04:57, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I believe you meant 'get the stick out of your butts', as 'get the stick off your butts' makes absolutely no sense. None at all. SpartHawg948 05:04, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Right, cause this looks exactly like other ogres from other lores and not the one Dragon Age, sorry this doesn't make sense at all.
 * What doesn't make sense at all? The trivia bit notes that the statue is identical to DA:O Ogres, and says it is likely a reference. As with all trivia, unless we have actual devconfirmation (aka confirmation from an actual developer) that it is a reference, we can't phrase it as an absolute. SpartHawg948 17:36, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

So you're not sure, that a statue of a creature from another game by the same company isn't a reference?
 * We need something official becuase look here for trivia sections. Trivia sections are hard because they do have a habit of getting out of hand, fast. Lancer1289 18:18, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

I understand, but this little bit isn't "out of hand". This IS a reference to DAO.
 * The policy is we need something official before changing. Lancer1289 18:24, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

It's right in your face http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_ylHlNv0ChHg/SxNDIpGyISI/AAAAAAAAAdQ/BerBxMMFR34/s1600/Ogre.jpg http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/3739/darkspawn.jpg

right if this isn't a reference to Dragon Age, then Ashley is an atheist. I know this wiki had people running around doing stupid crap, but when there is clear evidence of something, you don't need "official"

Oh, common, who releases statements on references? Did they come out and say "Hey, Tali's drone's name is a reference to Baldur's Gate, write that down"? References are supposed to be subtle. No one tells the catch when telling a joke (well, maybe only if the dumbhead didn't understand the joke - and I believe we aren't dumb, are we?). I'm sorry, but in this particular case, the policy is simply stupid.Prismvg 18:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Writers from BioWare. We've had them comment on this site and on these trivia items before. SpartHawg948 18:33, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

You see? I'm not the only one, also sorry about the pic, I'm trying to make it smaller but it's not letting me.


 * Wow. A poster some guy somewhere created. This changes EVERYTHING! Or NOTHING!. Yeah, definitely NOTHING. We still need something more to go on before changing 'is likely' to 'is'. Don't like it? Direct complaints to BioWare, who couldn't even be bothered to do something more conclusive like name the statute 'Ogre' instead of 'Creature'. For all we know, it was a simple reuse of a model with no reference intended. I'm inclined to agree it's a reference, but we need a definitive statement before we state it definitively. SpartHawg948 18:38, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

The writers aren't commenting about this, and this is a reference to Dragon age...for the love of God.

I don't see what the problem is with having the word "likely" in the trivia. That is merely stating that the visual similarities are uncanny, but not officially a direct reference. I can plainly see it, but I am not going to get into a pointless argument over something so trivial. &mdash;ArmeniusLOD 18:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey, I have no problem with the way it is. I had a problem when this bit was actually deleted from another article a day or two before, invoking the "official statement" stuff. But it seems to me like sometimes these kind of things are treated like a damn criminal case. Prismvg 18:46, April 8, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm gonna have to agree with the anon, the evidence is overwhelming and it is a reference, I think the word "likely" has to go. Sorry but the rules don't really apply here, and we have to learn how to be flexible in certain situations that need it, if we are too rigid it'll just be bad. --Fatherbrain30 18:50, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * But that's the thing. Either the rules always apply, or the rules never do. If there's any middle ground, there is always going to be an argument in any conceivable situation that "well this is just another of those cases in which the rules don't apply". I would be somewhat inclined to agree IF the statue were actually called 'Ogre', but it isn't! It's called 'Creature'. And Kasumi's dialogue doesn't contain any hints at it being an Ogre either. Again, for all we know, it's a simple model reuse to save time and money. As such, the rules dictate that the statement be worded as it is, that it 'is likely' a reference. SpartHawg948 19:07, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

Hey SpartHawg, that's the only picture I found of the staute of the game. This whole thing is stupid, the rules don't apply to this. Also Sparthawg, Capitalism is destroying this country and the world.
 * Talk about out of left field... Please direct commentary bashing me and my worldview to my user talk page, as it doesn't belong here. SpartHawg948 18:44, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Addendum- I guess capitalism can't be that big of a threat... I practically begged the guy to post on my talk page, providing a direct link and everything. Too bad. I was getting all excited, too. Had about 10 counterarguments worked up just off the top of my head. Oh well... I'll stop with this off-topic nonsense now! :P SpartHawg948 01:25, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it is a reference to Dragon Age, but I also don't see the problem. The article admits that the statue is identical to a troll, and connects it to Dragon Age. That should be enough. That poster is funny, though. Tophvision 19:28, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I'm pretty sure it's a reference as well. In fact, I'm the one who added the link to the Dragon Age wiki article and pointed out that they are identical. However, given the complete lack of anything else containing any hint of a reference (ie the statue being labeled 'Creature', not 'Ogre' and the lack of any dialogue or description even hinting at a link) it isn't certain. And again (beginning to feel like a broken record here), for all we know, they just reused an existing model rather than taking the time and money to come up with a new one. I'll admit, I don't really think that's the case, but barring a statement from an official source, it is a possibility. The 'likely' stays. SpartHawg948 19:37, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, references are supposed to be subtle. Of course it isn't called "Ogre". It's a different universe entirely. You can't have Legion strolling into Denerim and people saying "Oh, that's a Geth". And the recycled model point is kinda . You don't seriously believe the ME2 team have reused a model from DAO just to save time. Prismvg 19:40, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

No I don't. That's why I said "I'll admit, I don't really think that's the case". There is an outside chance though. And a subtle reference could still include some subtle dialogue reference as well. Maybe a comment about how it looks like it could pick you up and crush you with its bare hands. Still, site policy is site policy. Although I will admit, the idea of Legion strolling through Denerim does bring a smile to my face... :) SpartHawg948 19:52, April 8, 2010 (UTC) I wasn't suggesting the "likely" should go, just saying the article is fine as is. :) Tophvision 20:29, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I will admit, though, as far as the "reuse of an existing model" bit, a small part of me had wondered if this might possibly have something to do with the delay on the release of the DLC. Maybe the original model that was there had something to do with the alleged glitch, so at the last moment they removed it and used the pre-existing ogre model. No evidence whatsoever to suggest it, just an idea I had... SpartHawg948 19:54, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well in that case, I concur! :) SpartHawg948 20:32, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

How about more likely than not? it is exactly the same as a DAO ogre, which looks hardly anything like most other ogres in fantasy lore, the horns are a dead give away, the ape like face is another, the exact same armor also points to this. . . . . vOv. . . . oh and a side not sparthawg, if you have a horribly vivid imagination like mine, get the stick off your butts actually makes perfect sense, i pray to god that it didnt though, the imagery is. . . terrfying ralok 21:34, April 8, 2010 (UTC)

"Likely" a reference because there's no confirmation? Common, SpartHawg, I know you're a stickler for the rules and notability, but this is getting ridiculous. RedViking 22:17, April 8, 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not "a stickler for the rules", I'm the person charged with seeing that the rules are enforced even if I may not agree with them occasionally, as is the case in this instance. Don't try to blow this out of proportion by trying to set me up as something I'm not here. SpartHawg948 00:05, April 9, 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna message one of the Devs, either Chris or David and ask them if this ogre statue is a model reuse because of time constraints. I'm sure they'll have a laugh at that. --Fatherbrain30 01:37, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan! I'm always a fan of a good chuckle. :) SpartHawg948 01:38, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

ya know...kinda sad that people are getting so outraged that the word likely has to be in there...hell if you feel in your mind it IS a reference then shit, its a reference to you, if someone else feels it isnt...then it isnt...this isnt exactly the word of God we are dealing with here....its a site about a video game for christs sake, chill out people and stop complaining....if the rules state that likely has to remain...then they remain...dont like it form your own wiki *shrug* Skitz470 08:50, April 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed! I couldn't agree more! (And no, I'm not just agreeing because the above contributor and I used to work together! :P ) SpartHawg948 09:02, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reference Accordign to this, it doesnt seem that a reference is something that needs to be pointed out, i direct your eyes to the second definition, in a video game is certainly seems to me that re using a model from another game would be basically the same as a character in a book talking about another book. Consider the jak and daxter picture in ratchets apartment in the second ratchet and clank video game. ralok 09:31, April 9, 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact, if it would be clearly pointed out, it would not be a reference but a break of continuity. Really, what would be the point of making references if you actually marked them as such afterwards? Not wishing to offend, i can simply not help but call this entire discussion utterly antic. While I would rather agree that it is good policy to be cautious when in doubt before calling something a reference, this applies only WHEN IN DOUBT. Any more obvious a reference than an almost identical model of a game released [circa] at the same time, by the very same company, who also made a joint pre-order item for both games and it would jump out of the game and hit the player in the face with a Dragon Age-Collectors Edition Box, which would be only slightly less subtle thant the statue is now. The Devs probably don't confirm it because they would feel too silly doing so, as if they were confirming that the Head of Lady Liberty was indeed a 'reference' to said statue...


 * But they'd have no need to confirm that the head of the Statue of Liberty is a 'reference' to the statue, because it IS the head of the Statue of Liberty, a statue which is known to exist in the Mass Effect universe. It was created in 1886, well before the presumed point of departure from our own timeline. The only way that it could be likened to the Ogre statue is if Ogres were also known to exist on Earth in our modern day and age. Intentionally or not, the comparison to Lady Liberty is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. As for how they could have made it less subtle than it is now, hmmm... let's see. Maybe they could have ACTUALLY CALLED THE STATUE 'Ogre' INSTEAD OF 'Creature'!!! Were it to be labeled as an ogre, it'd be 100% clear that it was an intentional reference, as opposed to just a reuse of a model, or what have you. As they didn't even bother to label it as an ogre, or to insert any other subtle references in dialogue or anything, it's gotta be substantiated with 'likely'. SpartHawg948 17:29, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Why would they label it "Ogre" instead of "Creature"? The art of making a reference is to take a thing of one branch and place it seamlessly into another, to, in this case, transferring an object from dragon age into mass effect without it appearing unnatural. It needs not be blatantly clear or identical. It may be, as it was here, to transform a living, breathing animal (or whatever it may be) into what was arguably a work of art by an unknown artist. He might have called it something different entirely. It matters not: what is important is solely the reconizeability. No one who played dragon age would wonder what the statue depicts. Had it been put in by a different company, there would likely as not be a legal battle raging right now. Or in short: if it has a saucer and two nancelles you need not call it enterprise, that would mark it as a rather unimaginative copy rather than a (unimaginative and unsubtle as well) reference wanting to be found. In fact, to return to the matter at hand, not calling it ogre is precisely what's interesting about a reference and what prompts people to post it on a wiki, and readers (that have not played dragon age, anyway) to chuckle at it. A 'subtle' reference in dialog, about a creature that is labeled ogre, that shares the model of a creature called ogre in a game that... (i would repeat myself here. Look above to complete the sentence) would be as subtle as a secret door that was painted in red, and labeled "secret door".


 * As for your point about the statue of liberty, i completely agree: At no point did I call it an actual reference (to emphasize that point, I had even put 'reverence' in single quotes...), It was the whole point of the analogy that the statue was not a reference, and that it would seem ridiculous to say it were, just as it would be ridiculous to point out that the ogre was one. You are, however, entirely correct when you point out that there was, indeed, a fallacy in my argument, but not the straw man fallacy, which essentially consists of deliberately misrepresenting an opponent's point, but rather a false analogy, since I used an analogy (i.e. a likeness) for something that's different.


 * You say false analogy, I say straw man. After all, a straw man is just creating the illusion of debunking an argument by presenting an easily debunked, superficially similar case that really doesn't relate at all, such as the purported Statue of Liberty reference. A straw man doesn't have to be intentional, it can be done without the person who committed the fallacy knowing they've done it. As for labeling it an ogre, not a creature, regardless of why they didn't, they didn't. Thus, there is still the proverbial 'shadow of a doubt'. And there was no dialogue to suggest a link, even though it could have been inserted without being the equivalent of your 'secret red door'. Example- instead of Kasumi commenting that she wouldn't want to run into it in a dark alley, she could, commenting on its size and massive outstretched hand, have commented that it looked like something that could just pick you up and crush you with its bare hand, or something to that effect. It's likely a reference, but given that it's the same company, we can't say for certain, given the lack of any confirming dialogue or labeling, that it was an intentional reference and not a model reuse. We've stretched the rules to their limit, by labeling it a likely reference, mentioning that the two are identical, and providing a link to the ogre article on the Dragon Age wiki. The only thing we haven't done is violate site policy by changing 'is likely a reference' to 'is a reference', as this is only done when we have developer confirmation of something, which in this case we do not. For the life of me, I can't understand why this is such a huge issue to people. SpartHawg948 18:31, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * would it be a break in continuity if . . . . dragon age origins the video game exsisted within hte mass effect universe, that owuld warp reality i think not to mention cause a few paradoxs ralok 16:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Mine was a poor choice of words, i have to admit. I maintain, however, that it would be a break of atmosphere, if they indulged too much, and too literally, in the world, wording, and lore of dragon age and dwelled on it in order to clarify that the ogre was, in fact, a reference to it, rather than quickly,placing it there, for the player to be discovered and recognized, as it easily is.


 * If we bend the rules here than all it does is open the door for complete abuse of the trivia sections of the articles. Many people have commented that it is a reference, and SpartHawg is the one who added the link and made the comparison. However unless we have something official, we can't change it. As Spart said somewhere earlier in this mess, either the rules apply all the time or they never apply, or something along those lines.


 * Also I'm sure that if anyone from BioWare is watching this they are having probably a good laugh about it. Lancer1289 18:36, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * Found it "Either the rules always apply, or the rules never do." (SpartHawg948 19:07, April 8, 2010 (UTC)) Lancer1289 18:39, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I'm gonna make this short, because goddamn, Spart and Lancer, if you need verification from the authors that that "creature" is an ogre from DA:O, YOU GUYS ARE MORONS. And laughable ones at that! Simply put! This entire discussion can be used as -verification- that you, sirs, are MORONS. And stuck up ones at that! You have serious ego problems my friends, you can't accept you're wrong, you should talk to a therapist. Hell you could probably get a group session and take the other wikipedia egoists with you.

HAHAHAHAHA.

Wow I can just imagine a Bioware author in an interview being asked this: "Is the creature statue in the Kasumi DLC in fact a reference to the ogres in the DA:O series?" "What statue?" "The one that resembles an ogre from the DA:O series". He'd probably laugh at you just as much as I did.

That is an ogre from DA:O, get over it. FrankHluller 20:26, April 13, 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things... first off, I have gotten over it, as I expressed above. I personally made the trivia comment literally as definitive as it can be without developer confirmation. This is site policy. Nothing but. Don't like it? Leave. As I've said above, I have no idea why people like you keep pinging over this. Second, please refer to the site language policy. Both vulgar language (which you used) and insulting other users (which you did) are violations of said policy, and can get you banned. Third, as for ego problems, nothing points to ego problems like someone who has to keep putting others down to get their jollies. I certianly don't have to resort to mocking others (such as calling them laughable morons, and "HAHAHAHAHA") to make myself feel like a big man. Finally, not sure who these wikipedia egotists are. I have only made 320 edits to wikipedia in over 3 years, and again, I don't need to insult others to get my rocks off. Hardly a 'wikipedia egotist'. SpartHawg948 04:18, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * I am also over the issue becuse I gave up on this conversation but when my character is insulted I feel I have a need to reply. So I have. I had a long worded statement in word but I feel that is just me ranting for the last 20 minutes. So to summerize, I'm over it and calling others names is low. Lancer1289 04:48, April 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * For the love of God, those arguments about "model reuse" and "not-called-ogre" are as likely to be true as Shepard being a remodeled dwarf. You don't design a room filled with, like, 10 models, and use one model from another title to save time. They could've used another krogan, or a thresher maw, or the thorian, anything, or better yet, NOTHING, if they trully wanted to save time. This, in a game filled with references. And not one of those references keeping their target's exact name. Every single DA:O and ME2 player KNOWS that the statue is a reference. Just Google "ogre statue in mass effect 2" and every freaking page callls it a reference, not a repurposed model. Allright, keep the phrasing as it is and "stretch the rules" until we have "confirmation", I get it, these are the standards, like it or not; but seriously, let the ogre be a damn ogre, not spare parts. And this should be my final rant on this topic. Prismvg 21:56, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

But in-game, it isn't an ogre. It's a creature. I know it isn't a model reuse, but I also know that it is, in fact, not called an ogre. As such, and lacking devconfirmation, the current version is as explicit and definitive as it can be. I don't really like it, but the rules are what they are, and I'm not in the habit of breaking rules just because I think they're silly, especially not when I'm also the one who has to enforce the rules. If I were t do this, I'd be a hypocrite. I'm happy that you accept this is the way it is, and I really wish that other people could be so understanding, but I'm also exasperated, because continued comments like yours do contribute to the needless continuation of this discussion, which leads people to be colossal tools, like FrankHluller, as seen above. SpartHawg948 04:23, April 14, 2010 (UTC)

I don't think they can reuse that model anyway, as Dragon Age runs on a different engine.
 * Very true, DA:O does run on the Eclipse Engine, which was designed from the ground up by BioWare, while ME2 runs on the Unreal 3 Engine, designed and licensed from Epic Games (Gears of War and Unreal Tournament). Who knows really, but they could have remolded it for ME2. However, the trivia still stands as maybe because we don't have official confirmation on it, which is what is required on this site. Just felt that I had to say that again based on parts of my comment. Lancer1289 19:14, March 12, 2011 (UTC)

You made up the word devconfirmation to suit your needs. The rules you cling to so tightly make you look like an idiot and they make your site suck. i havent even played DA:O and i recognized the statue immediately, from across the room. you think you are following in wikipedias rules, but you misunderstand them. the ego comments about you (spart) were accurate. you are obviously on a power trip... which is ok, if you can handle it, but you can't... not that its a big deal... no one really cares, but later in life when you have a real job, you will have to make tough calls, and you wont be able to do it, because u depend on hardline policies and statements like, "always rules or never rules" and you think thats how it really is... its so not... and we all know that... you have been blinded by your responsibility and now cant make a good decision about this. you sound kinda smart, when you call out straw mans and stuff (read about those on wiki:logic?) but then can't tell what constitutes confirmation... kinda sad, but luckily this site isnt important enough to hurt anyone.

This needs more attention. Pretty obvious here guys. I say we call a vote either way. Majority chooses. -- Humans Vanish 01:28, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

I mean come on, if it had been Mario all chizzled up, would you just say "Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeell... It only says Plumber on it, so its an italian plumber." Seriously Spart, you gotta cave in on this one. -- Humans Vanish 01:31, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) So where is your devconfimration because I don't see it anywhere. We did not make up the word for our own needs and if you don't have a source that states it, i.e. a dev, then it has to be classified as "likely" until it is. It is not a "[m]ajority chooses" "call a vote" situation, but rather one that is site policy. Either get confirmation that it is a reference, or the trivia stays as is. This piece of trivia is in line with site policy and until there is devconfirmaiton on the matter, it will not be changed. There will be no caving without that devconfirmation and that is site policy in a case like this. Either get it and from a verifiable source, independently verifiable I might add, or the trivia stays as is because, again this isn't a majority rules situation, but rather one of site policy, which is quite clear in this matter.
 * The ego comments here were also completely unnecessary as there is no need to lunch petty jabs against people like that. Lancer1289 01:39, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

This is so silly Lancer. And you know it you just refuse to budge on the matter. Alas, the arising Aristocracy here at the wiki side-steps the will of the people, yet again. -- Humans Vanish 01:48, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Again though site policy about this is quite clear in matters like this were deconfirmation would b needed. If we have it, then there is no need to doubt it right? However since we don't, the trivia will say as is. As to your "aristocracy", which was again completely unnecessary, rule exist for a reason, and making an exception here would weaken that rule. It is not a matter of "what the people want" but rather enforcing one very clear rule that has existed since before I got here and one that I fully support. The rule keeps a lot of trivia out of articles that would barely have a connection, if any connection apart from biased and “I like it and I think it’s right”, mostly names and biased visual comparisons. Lancer1289 01:57, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Lancer, we aren't thinking on this issue. We know it's an Ogre... Come on buddy just think about it for a second. I know your smarter than this. -- Humans Vanish 02:02, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Do I know that, yes, there really is no need to insult my intelligence. At the same time, I also have to enforce the rules, and the rules are clear. Therefore, it doesn't matter what I think, rather what the rules say, which are again quite clear in matters like this. Either get devconfirmaiton on this issue, or stop complaining about it because it will not be changed without it. Lancer1289 02:10, May 2, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm with Lancer and Spart on this one. I myself believe that the statue is indeed a reference to Dragon Age, but we can't say that in the article with 100% certainty without explicit confirmation from a BioWare employee. We have these rules for a reason, and this situation is no exception. -- Commdor (Talk) 02:14, May 2, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Lancer1289 02:15, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Information that could doom the alliance?


This is so far the only hint I can find about that information that can implicate the alliance as a hole. A reaper? A robot? An Artificial Inteligent?

Please debate. KaTiON PT 23:35, April 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Council has caught the Alliance working on AIs before, and it wasn't anywhere near as bad as "dooming" the Alliance. There were some temporary economic sanctions that hurt the Alliance for a little bit, but as we've seen, it didn't really affect the Alliance's relationship with the Council at all. So probably not info on an AI. SpartHawg948 23:56, April 10, 2010 (UTC)

This is what the call a foreshadowing, i cant tell if its a foreshadowing of a future dlc or mass effet 3 though, i hope it means more dlc personally, it looks like a reaper lookign thing, maybe ethat one dude ho is having his mind redownloaded from a machine back into his body (i am not sure this is actually heppening) is gettign a reaper downloaded with it ralok 00:45, April 11, 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, pitty it has to be this way. KaTiON PT 19:51, April 11, 2010 (UTC)
 * Judging by the lights segmenting it, it appears to be some sort of VI interface model for a reaper, with legs fully extended. If that's the new hologram reaper hologram then its certainly a welcome improvement over the nigh-unintelligible hologram in ME1.75.7.83.85 23:14, August 10, 2010 (UTC)
 * http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100619044253/masseffect/images/thumb/6/61/Gernsback_VI.jpg/300px-Gernsback_VI.jpg
 * http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/5/51/Virmire_Sovereign_Holo.png
 * http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/masseffect/images/5/51/Virmire_Sovereign_Holo.png

Exploding Tanks
I was trying to hit one of the Eclipse Heavy Troopers in the area where you need to activate the cannon on the ground vehicle to blow up the tanks on the wall. In an effort to save myself the pain of a rocket to the face, I pulled out my Widow and tried to hit her. I missed, but the shot slammed into the tanks that I was supposed to blow up. Most of the time when you hit the thing with a weapon, Kasumi says that you need something stronger (at least, that's what she said when I tried the Vindicator). This time, the tanks blew up (though it may have required a couple of shots to do it). I'm not sure if this applies to any Sniper Rifle in general, or just to the Widow, and I really don't feel like replaying the entire first portion of the mission to find out, but it's an interesting way to get through the wall. Even if it does take a couple of shots to pull off.97.117.253.103 14:13, April 13, 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it is called an Anti-Materia(/e)l rifle, so it would make sense to live up to it's name. Prismvg 15:06, April 13, 2010 (UTC)

I play this part different from the article, in a more easy way. If you take the first wave of troops (usually 4 or 5 Eclipse soldiers along with one heavy) and go straigh to the cannon, two or three more soldiers came out of the room along with only one mech. As you blow up the tanks, usually only one mech survive, easelly killable BTW. But if you put down the first wave, advance passing the truck and take cover, there will be more troops and 4/5 mechs, so i recommend going directly for the cannon. You'll probably take some shots, but nothing that will kill you (unless you stop to watch what is going on, of course. Just blow the tanks and take the last mech) Brfritos 19:38, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

It seems like all weapons that go Ka-Boom set off the tanks. I can confirm the Cain, the missile and grenade launcher, and the Widow. The Claymore or Geth Shotgun don't set it off, neither do the Carnifex, Viper or Phalanx. Havn't tried the Black Hole gun though, since I don't have it. I suppose it'd work too.

Pigeons
has anyone else noticed there are a lot of pigeons on this planet!






 * Do you have developer confirmation they are pigeons, or even birds for thay matter?
 * Why would devconfirmation be needed? Devconfirmation is only for instances in which there is an alleged reference to another work. With devconfirmation, references can be stated as fact, without, they can't be, and need to be qualified with words sich as 'likely' or 'may be'. I see no claim here that these animals are references to anything. SpartHawg948 01:21, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Clearly they are a referenece to birds on Earth, since we are not on Earth, we need undisputable evidence the devs meant for thees to be interperted as pigeons, otherwise the devs would have labeled them as pigeons
 * Not unless someone tries to insert that into the article. Although you did sort of nullify your own question. If the devs labeled them as pigeons (I wasn't sure as I didn't want to stop watching Netflix just to fire up the 360 for 20 seconds to check) then they are pigeons. Now, if they had just labeled them, for example, as 'Creatures', and someone inserted into the article that they were clearly 'pigeons' with no actual evidence to back this up, then yes, devconfirmation would become an issue. SpartHawg948 03:40, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then let's not put it in the article and avoid the issue altogether. Lancer1289 03:42, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's matter if they are piggeons or not? :D For what I've seen they look like piggeons, but perhaps they are eagles or falcons from another planet? LOL Brfritos 19:21, May 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Then let's not put it in the article and avoid the issue altogether. Lancer1289 03:42, May 9, 2010 (UTC)
 * It's matter if they are piggeons or not? :D For what I've seen they look like piggeons, but perhaps they are eagles or falcons from another planet? LOL Brfritos 19:21, May 14, 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a brief reference to Assassin's Creed. Pigeons being where you do leaps of faith, Kasumi, leaping off a ledge that had pigeons on it onto a gunship and all.
 * I would have to say that would be a big stretch. Lancer1289 01:19, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I've seen plenty of games with scenes involving jumping in the air when white birds were involved. Wayyyyyy before AC. I think this is just a coincidence. -- Humans Vanish 01:34, May 2, 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I guess you are right, Humans Vanish. :)

Glitch not caused by Kasumi DLC
The glitch (unconfirmed, though), is related to Legion's loyalty mission. Even with no Kasumi DLC installed, you can activate Legion, immediately go on a mission (I once brought Legion to Tali's loyalty mission, it was hillarious), then talk to Legion to acquire his loyalty mission. Even if you don't acquire Legion's loyalty mission, you can only do at most two missions after you activate the geth. But if you talk to Legion to acquire its loyalty mission right after you activate it, it will be the only mission available to you before the Collectors attack Normandy. Braveangel 12:43, May 22, 2010 (UTC)

Protecting the Page
We've had two more incidents of people editing the reference to the Creature today ... one that I reverted was, in hindsight, almost certainly vandalism, and both edits were made by unregistered users. Admins - can we have this page locked for editing by registered users only? PhoenixBlue 06:26, June 14, 2010 (UTC)
 * Well the edits on the "relationship" between Kasumi and G0-T0 have died down, finally, but speaking from a non admin perspective here, I think that protection is going overboard on this issue. This is just one of those issues that we will just have to deal with, and this matter seems to have also died down as well. Today was the first edits like those in weeks, so protection would be overboard here. That is my opinion. Lancer1289 06:29, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Stargate Reference?
Is it just me, or does the city in the background of Landing Platform look like Atlantis from Stargate series? The "tower" that is very visible when the shuttle is leaving looks just like central spire of City of Atlantis. --AriesCZ 07:52, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * As a huge fan of the Stargate franchise in general and Stargare Atlantis in particular, I can say I see no real resemblance to the Central Spire of Atlantis, not in the city seen in the background of the landing platform, anyways. (see also) It looks no more like Atlantis than do any of the other futeristic looking cities seen in ME2, IMO. SpartHawg948 08:00, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I guess you are right, it just looked very much like Atlantis, with the smaller towers around it... or maybe like the city on Asuras... but I guess all futuristic tower-buildings look like that. --AriesCZ 11:16, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * Another very big Stargate fan here and I have to say that I can't see it either. Many buildings in scifi start to look alike after a while, and I don't see any resemblance other than to other buildings in ME2. I do think that there is no more resemblance to Atlantis than to any other scifi building. Lancer1289 16:43, October 2, 2010 (UTC)
 * After watching the scene again, I agree that it doesnt look like Lost City at all. All futuristic buildings seem to blend together.--AriesCZ 16:11, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Found a bug
If you activate the scene to disable the vault's kinetic barrier, then run out of range the barrier will be disabled but not checked off in the journal, you can complete the mission normally but the quest will remain incomplete after you have Kasumi's loyalty.

Should a player note be made on the mission?

http://yfrog.com/mu85281939p --Actuality 04:16, October 3, 2010 (UTC)

Captain Roe
I think it's significant that if you don't catch Roe's datapad, her name doesn't get included among the dialogue options when you try to talk your way into Hock's bedroom in search of his DNA. Mojo1970 17:53, February 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * It's still there just in a different place. Considering where it was, before you break into the office to hack into the communications system for the guards, rather than after, it seemed more appropiate to mention it where it is now. Also the ! was unnecessary. Lancer1289 17:56, February 12, 2011 (UTC)


 * Very good, thanks. Mojo1970 18:06, February 12, 2011 (UTC)

Trivia II
Once again, Lancer insists on wasting everyone's time by undoing things he has no need to undo. Once again, a talk page article has to be opened to discuss something that everyone will eventually agree should have been left alone by Lancer. Once again, I'm made to seem like the bad guy because I'm trying to improve "Lancer's Mass Effect wiki." This is getting old, Lancer. Either accept that people are going to edit in good faith, and that their edits might not always be exactly what you would do, or step down. Wearing an admin badge does not make you the end-all be-all authority on what belongs on this wiki.

So to satisfy Lancer: this is to discuss the trivia note that during the cutscenes in this mission, Shepard is shown carrying an assault rifle, whether or not the Commander can normally carry such a weapon. I say that not only is this trivia, it's documented exactly as such on other pages on this wiki - see the Virmire article for example. --Snicker 21:29, June 11, 2011 (UTC)


 * First off, talk pages are for discussing the article, not for posting criticism of other users or personal comments directed to other users. Please stay on topic in the future. Secondly, I disagree that this is notable trivia. Oddities in the cutscenes of ME2 like this one are fairly common, and it would serve no purpose to start listing them all. Pointing out the item about the characters' armor in cutscenes on Virmire isn't the most relevant precedent since that occurs in ME, not ME2, and it is explained in that item that those cutscene errors are an exception in ME. Furthermore, the existence of certain trivia items on certain articles does not always mean they've been allowed, it could be that no one has yet noticed them and bothered to remove them. I'm considering removing that Virmire trivia as non-notable myself. -- Commdor (Talk) 22:29, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is no need for petty jabs like this, especially when you ignored site policy in this matter, but as stated that is another issue, but we have no need for things like that here as they do not help the situation.
 * I also completely disagree it is trivia mention, well at least in this article that is. I should point out at this time that what the trivia was describing is not unique to this mission. If it was, then it would be a different matter, but it isn't. There are many instances of Shepard, and even other squadmates who are not trained in Assault Rifles using them, and here's list from off the top of my head, and I'll start with the biggest one first.
 * Freedom's Progress (mission): When Shepard, Jacob, and Miranda burst in on the quarians. All three are wielding assault rifles, yet at least two of them can't use them in the game. There is also a similar instance at the end of the mission where all three are taking cover again, and again they are all wielding assault rifles.
 * Collector Base: Infiltration: End of Mission: When Shepard is waiting for the doors to open, all squad members present, except the tech specialist, are using assault rifles, even if they are not trained in them. This list includes, well everyone: Tali, Mordin, Jacob, Miranda, Kasumi, Thane, Jack, and possibly Shepard (if not trained in assault rifles).
 * Collector Base: The Long Walk: End of Mission: See the above point about Infiltration as is happens again.
 * This mission of course
 * Reaper IFF: End of Mission: Squadmates not trained in assault rifles are again seen using them.
 * As one can plainly see, this is not an isolated case, and if it was, then you might have trivia. However, since this is not an isolated incident, it is not trivia notable on this page. However, because every time this occurs, the people are wielding the Avenger, it is noted on the Avenger's page. See M-8 Avenger and you will see it is the first bullet point. That is where that trivia is, and should be mentioned as it applies to the specific rifle, and saves us repeating the trivia on at least 5 different pages. That is the very definition of redundancy, especially when the trivia is really about one weapon, and therefore should be mentioned on its page. I also believe this came up before and I will try to find that conversation. Lancer1289 23:46, June 11, 2011 (UTC)
 * You guys should probably read up on what trivia is. It seems to me that it is an oddity, because I didn't notice it in any other cut scenes (Shepard and Miranda are wielding pistols in the Freedom's Progress cutscene you mentioned).  But go ahead and do what you want.  Despite the community asking for things, this is apparently not a community wiki.  --Snicker 00:46, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Oh please! Of course this is a community wiki! Get community support behind you, and that'll be that. And recall, I pretty much backed you 100% in your previous dispute with Lancer, so you can't really argue a bias here. In fact, I edited (for clarity) but did not remove the "trivia" item you added. I'd meant to note in the edit summary that I wasn't quite sure if it was really trivia, but forgot to. So again, you can't really argue that I'm just gunning for you or your edits. But the assertion that this is not a community wiki is ludicrous. As is the statement that the community is "asking for things" (apparently meaning they are asking for your "trivia" item). When the community asks for something, so long as a majority of the expressed opinions support it, it's done. End of story. It doesn't matter who voted against it, as long as more people voted for it. For example: Our unique dialogue pages. I hated the idea when it was proposed. (I'm still not over-fond of them). However, I was pretty handily outvoted (6-1 or something like that), so it was implemented. Here you have two admins making cases as to why it's not trivia. Make that two admins and a Bureaucrat, since they make valid points. Want to get it readded? Or, better yet, want to modify "trivia" (per site policy) to mean what you want it to mean? (Since we apparently need to "read up on what trivia is".) Then propose a change to site policy! If it gets enough support, it'll pass.

But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Don't look at this conversation and interpret it to mean that the side with less community support (yours) is what the community wants. I'm sorry if I'm coming across as overly acerbic. But few things make me angrier than someone falsely alleging that the will of the community is not respected here, especially when they are the only person arguing for something that multiple people are arguing against. It's disingenuous, to say the least. SpartHawg948 06:21, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Apologies in advance for the forthcoming wall o' text.
 * Sparthawg, you're a relatively neutral person when it comes to the conflicts between Lancer and I (this makes what, 6 now?), but as much as I respect your neutrality, I have to call you on respecting the will of the community. If you'll just scroll a wee bit up this page, you will see where the community argued for one small change, and the community was overruled.  That little bit of flack actually made it onto two different forums.
 * The fact is, if someone outside of the "core circle" makes an edit on this wiki, it is almost always immediately reverted as unnecessary, and it takes someone like me to stand up for it. That shouldn't be needed.  If the end result of me arguing 5 times now has been that the edit was put back in, that's five times that we shouldn't have HAD to argue.  I'm not always right, and I've acknowledged that.  I've also not argued over every edit that was reverted or altered.  I'm not a perfect wiki editor, and I appreciate when someone corrects my grammar and capitalization issues (yeah, I'm looking at you, SpartHawg).  I've also acknowledged your neutrality, and Lancer's effectiveness at keeping the site vandalism to absolute zero.  But I think some lightening up is in order.
 * Back on topic. I added a trivia note because the cutscenes, which are usually done using the game engine, are usually accurate in ME2.  When Lancer made his case above that this is not always true, I took the time to go play through Freedom's Progress again, and during the cutscene he mentioned, Shepard and Miranda had pistols out, not assault rifles as he suggested (the quarians had assault rifles, but I see nothing wrong with that).  I haven't finished the game yet, so I guess I'll be watching for this in future cutscenes, but since this was the first and only time I'd seen it, it stood out as an interesting thing, which I believed met the requirements for trivia, as per the manual of style.  I also noted that a very similar situation was noted in another article, which lent weight with historical precedent.  We appear to agree that it is interesting.  A similar note does exist on the specific weapon page, so it was interesting enough to be there, and apparently qualifies as trivia for that page.  So if it qualifies as trivia, and might not be happening in as many places as Lancer suggests, then perhaps it is interesting to note when and where it does happen?
 * I know that to you it may seem like I'm arguing something petty and pedantic, and I am (it is just trivia, after all). But I've had to argue my case six times now, and the vast majority of those were settled (or are in the process of being settled) in favour of leaving the change.  If I'm editing in good faith (and it would seem that I am, given how many of them were accepted), then something else must be wrong here.  I'm hoping you can draw the obvious conclusion here.  And I apologize once more for the wall of text.  --Snicker 07:51, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

Dropping the BS flag here. The "minor change" you mention is a blatant violation of site policy. As such, it can't be implemented without the policy being changed. To date, no such policy change has been proposed. If you're going to try playing "Gotcha!", get your facts straight first. I don't take kindly to these false accusations, as I've stated before. The "minor change" involves making an assumption about the intent of the developers, and we just don't play that game here. If you have a legitimate example of the will of the community being overruled, I'd love to see it.

Your concerns about undos and reverts are, by and large, legitimate, even if a bit hyperbolic. For example, the bit about how "if someone outside of the "core circle" makes an edit on this wiki, it is almost always immediately reverted as unnecessary, and it takes someone like me to stand up for it." is just plain wrong. There are plenty, and I mean plenty, of edits by people outside this purported "core circle" which are not reverted. In fact, the majority of such edits are not reverted. Edits are (generally speaking) not reverted without a good reason. In the few instances where there is no good reason, if someone challenges it, the edit (if valid) makes it. However, despite legitimate concerns, there is no need to insult other users ("Once again, Lancer insists on wasting everyone's time") or to brow-beat or berate them, as you did to Lancer in your first post. Doing so would seem to argue against the purported good faith you claim to be editing in, would it not? Ditto for replying to the concerns of not one but two admins (one who was completely neutral/impartial, having not been involved in the previous disputes between you and Lancer) with "You guys should probably read up on what trivia is. It seems to me that it is an oddity, because I didn't notice it in any other cut scenes (Shepard and Miranda are wielding pistols in the Freedom's Progress cutscene you mentioned).  But go ahead and do what you want.  Despite the community asking for things, this is apparently not a community wiki." Such language towards another user is a violation of site conduct policies, and is not to be taken lightly. If you have concerns you feel are valid, bring them up in a mature and professional manner, without accusing people of being ignorant ("You guys should probably read up on what trivia is" - despite the fact that they, not you, seem to be more well-informed on site trivia policy), insulting them, or presuming to know the will of the community, as you did in your first and second posts in this thread. I don't anger too easily (at least not these days, I don't), but things like what I've seen in this thread get me irate. SpartHawg948 08:23, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * SpartHawg, let's address three issues. First, the Dragon Age thing appears to be a sore spot for you, so let's just drop it.
 * Second, my attitude needs a serious adjustment, and I will be taking a wrench and possibly a crowbar to it immediately. I shouldn't allow Lancer to get to me so easily, it's just frustrating to put time and effort into something to have it reverted for no good reason. I let my frustration at him spill over onto you, and that's not fair to you.
 * Third, if my concerns are legitimate, what do you suggest we do about this? I'd like to not have to drag every edit to a talk page, as it's a waste of time, and you shouldn't have to referee every disagreement.  --Snicker 09:05, June 12, 2011 (UTC)

The Dragon Age reference isn't a "sore spot" for me. I think it quite obvious that the statue is a reference to Dragon Age: Origins, but (unlike some people who commented on the issue) also acknowledge that rules exist for a reason, and that if rules are to be taken seriously, they must be applied consistently. As such, the Dragon Age trivia is forced to adhere to the exact same standards as any other bit of trivia alleging a reference to another non-ME work. It's as simple as that.

As for the other items, all I can say on the attitude thing is that your reply is commendable. Many would have responded by becoming even more rude and irate. That you responded calmly and logically is... admirable, to be frank. As for what "we" should do... given the context of this situation, nothing. Following the dispute between you and Lancer that I mediated, I took action I thought sufficient and appropriate. I did not do it on a talk page in front of everybody, because big public chewing-outs are not my thing. They don't work, as several years as a non-commissioned officer in the Air Force has taught me. If you need to address a serious issue with someone, you do it in private, one-on-one. You don't haul them out in front of everyone and administer a tongue-lashing. So, there's that. And, given that Lancer's revert in this situation appears to have been entirely appropriate (Commdor was the first to state that it was justified, and Commdor calls them like he sees them. If an edit is good, he'll say so, and if it's bad, he'll say so too, no matter who made it), no further action needs to be taken. You state your desire to not have to justify every edit on a talk page. This is understandable. However, making an entirely new edit (adding new info like you did, not a mere grammar or spelling edit) is akin to presenting a new argument or piece of information: one should always be prepared to justify or defend it. Especially in a venue like Wikia, where anyone can come along and edit, or revert. And you're right. I shouldn't have to referee every disagreement. I don't like having to intervene like this. Alas, sometimes it's necessary. SpartHawg948 09:22, June 12, 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding "handling it" - message received.
 * Regarding the Creature statue reference... Siiiince you brought it back up ;)... I was wondering if you would accept something besides confirmation from a Bioware employee?  Like... perhaps the filename of the mesh that was used?  I just extracted the files and was able to locate the exact static mesh used for the creature statue.  This can be confirmed by anyone using Umodel to extract the BioA_PtyMtL_300Vault.pcc file from the Kasumi DLC directory.  The mesh name is "Statue_DA01.pskx".  Given that the other meshes have logical names ("Statue_David01.pskx", "Statue_Egyptian01.pskx", "Statue_RachniQn03.pskx"), I think it's safe to assume that DA in this case stands for Dragon Age.  Is that enough evidence?  Sorry if this comes across as hostile in any way, it's not my intent - I'm just trying to clear up something that's been bothering me for a while.  --Snicker 20:14, June 12, 2011 (UTC)