A few things stand out to me as being rather suspicious about this entire situation, one that leads me to believe otherwise regarding the validity of Tank and Xio's information.
- Contradiction of sourcesThere were several points at which both Tank and Xio's information failed to line up. Tank said MP was absolutely necessary for one of the endings. He also somehow mistook Hackett for Anderson. Tank said there were only three endings. The interview with Mac Walters says there's six endings. Novem says the Prima guide states SEVEN endings, including two "perfect" endings (one of which was the one everyone wants to exist). Xio stated three endings with three variations each.
- Inconsistency of sourcesTank is a tester who was fired for breaking his NDA by speaking about the game and showing pictures. How did he suddenly know more about the game after having only been a tester back in November? Xio is someone who proved he and his "wife" got two copies via the Space Edition. Xio claimed to be under an NDA as well, but started becoming lax for no reason once Tank started "spoiling" the endings. On top of that, for someone claiming to be on an NDA, he still "confirmed" certain portions of the story. However, the only screenshots we have are of his copies of the game, and supposedly a picture of the credits being played.
At no point does he ever show any part of the game we haven't already seen. And what he has told us is simply more detail on parts we already knew existed. It's been told to me that "enforcing" an NDA is near impossible, and not everyone who went in to get the Space Edition signed the affidavt for the NDA. If this is true, there's really nothing to stop him from trying to post videos or screenshots. And Tank's screenshots only prove that he was a tester.
In general, this is the point at which we should be able to get tangible evidence, and yet none has been provided to us. Xio claims NDA when he feels like it, but continues to spoil anyway, leaving me to question the validity of his statements. There's also the fact they both seem to release "more" information based on what the other person gives out.
- Inconsistency of MaterialIt's been stated before as a point of contention that everything we've heard seems to run diametrically opposite of what Bioware is known for. The endings are only minor variations on each other, and there exists no "perfect" ending, a la ME2. This after a proven track record of games in which endings are both distinct, and "optimal" endings do exist.
"
There are many different endings. We wouldn’t do it any other way. How could you go through all three campaigns playing as your Shepard and then be forced into a bespoke ending that everyone gets? But I can’t say any more than that,"
"There are many ways to end Shepard’s story, right? I wouldn’t necessarily say ending Shepard’s story means one thing or the other, like life or death or whatever."
"As in the previous games, you’ll make a decision and you’ll see the outcome - and there are huge risks to all of those decisions. It’s not cut and dry,"
www.nowgamer.com/news/1230154/mass_effect_3_ending_shepards_story_not_necessarily_life_or_death.html
So we have a game where people (specifically BSN) claim "our decisions do not matter" and "endings aren't different, only slight variations" on each other. Which runs counter to what is an established pattern of behavior in Bioware's previous titles, hell, even within their own franchise. It seems highly suspicious to make us believe that this pattern exists for the first two games, then suddenly turn it inside-out and 180 degrees around for the finale, without any warning or sign that such a change was coming.
- Patterns in InformationAs someone pointed out in my own thread, both Xio and Tank's information is practically identical to the first early leak, with a few exceptions (such as the Prothean no longer being vital to plot advancement). This seems odd considering that the script would've undergone a large number of alterations (even if only minor ones) between then and now. Now you might wonder: "But shouldn't it follow that what they tell us is what we know?" And you might be right. But it also smells of foul play. After all, the easiest way of propogating misinformation would be for your "information" to be internally consistent with what is already "common knowledge"
For the record, back during ME2? We had someone from SA claiming to have played the game as well, and I believe there was a spoiler group back then as well. While they got some of the information correct (Prothean/Collector connection) other portions were dead wrong (Samara is an LI). And while Xio claims to have "checked the game's files", he took only an hour or so. BSN's famous user Diddy took weeks, months even to meticulously sweep ME2's files and found scads of information and dialog. I don't believe that Xio's brief skimming would be nearly thurough enough to turn up anything.
In short, there are too many things that stand out. I'm not saying Xio is part of some conspiracy, but it's clear that even his information is suspect, considering his own inability to get his facts straight. Tank is, simply put, an Unreliable Narrator. I have no doubt they are both accurate on perhaps some parts, but then we're already aware of those things (TIM, The Crucible, etc). However, despite his personable and friendly attitude, I believe that he may not have the best intentions when it comes to his "sharing the experience."
Ce sujet est fermé
Retour en haut
