57139 réponses à ce sujet

[savagejuicebox]

Seriously though, is TIM base said to be in a certain nebula in the past? Books? In game content? Im sincerely curious!!

[byne]

savagejuicebox wrote...

Seriously though, is TIM base said to be in a certain nebula in the past? Books? In game content? Im sincerely curious!!

He moves it around from time to time

[ynh]

kilgorek wrote...

ynh wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Something to keep in mind here:
Mass Effect 1 was released in 2007 (development starting in 2005).
Mass Effect 2 was released in 2010.
Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012.

They managed to shave a whole year off of their development cycle. It took them three years to make ME1, three years to make ME2, but two years to make ME3.

There probably was some pressure to release early 2012.

No. ME 1 was released in late November of 2007. Mass Effect 2 was released in February of 2010. That's barely over two years. They've spent about two years a piece to make each game.

Dev for ME1 was already in progress as of Oct 4, 2005 (when it was announced). In fact, judging by this article, they were well into it. I'll give you the point about ME2 though. My mistake on that.

[Big Bad]

I think that there is nothing wrong with speculating about the ending (indeed, given the information at hand it's basically impossible to form a coherent framework of an explanation with speculating), but I think it's useful to list the things that we know to be true:

- Shepard is seen alive at the end on what appears to be Earth, despite having apparently died in the previous scene

- The godchild presents TIM's view as the paragon choice, which directly contradicts basically everything we've been told in the game (including what was said in the previous scene).

- When the ****storm over the ending first hit, some of the devs posted cryptic but excited tweets about what they had planned in response to all the outrage (I believe we were told to keep our saves at one point as well, but I never personally saw that one).

- The last part of the game takes a drastic and unprecedented turn towards the surreal without any explanation whatsoever.

- Harbinger, despite being a huge part of ME2, is largely irrelevant to ME3. Shepard has no dialogue or fights with him.

I'm sure there are more than I'm forgetting, so feel free to add to the list!

In any case, I don't know whether or not IDT in its current form is close to being correct, but the above facts (along with some others) leads me to conclude that we have not yet seen the real ending of Shepard's story.

[Dendio1]

I got a feeling the secrets gonna be out a day or so before pax.

[savagejuicebox]

byne wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Seriously though, is TIM base said to be in a certain nebula in the past? Books? In game content? Im sincerely curious!!

He moves it around from time to time

I dont know about you but i think i would have done this on purpose if i had something huge planned for PAX...

Thats just me though:whistle:

[byne]

Big Bad wrote...


- When the ****storm over the ending first hit, some of the devs posted cryptic but excited tweets about what they had planned in response to all the outrage (I believe we were told to keep our saves at one point as well, but I never personally saw that one).

They actually told us to keep our saves before the game even came out, which kind of implies they saw this reaction coming.

[ynh]

Big Bad wrote...

I think that there is nothing wrong with speculating about the ending (indeed, given the information at hand it's basically impossible to form a coherent framework of an explanation with speculating), but I think it's useful to list the things that we know to be true:

- Shepard is seen alive at the end on what appears to be Earth, despite having apparently died in the previous scene

- The godchild presents TIM's view as the paragon choice, which directly contradicts basically everything we've been told in the game (including what was said in the previous scene).

- When the ****storm over the ending first hit, some of the devs posted cryptic but excited tweets about what they had planned in response to all the outrage (I believe we were told to keep our saves at one point as well, but I never personally saw that one).

- The last part of the game takes a drastic and unprecedented turn towards the surreal without any explanation whatsoever.

- Harbinger, despite being a huge part of ME2, is largely irrelevant to ME3. Shepard has no dialogue or fights with him.

I'm sure there are more than I'm forgetting, so feel free to add to the list!

In any case, I don't know whether or not IDT in its current form is close to being correct, but the above facts (along with some others) leads me to conclude that we have not yet seen the real ending of Shepard's story.

One thing that is not speculation is, why the hell is our last save so far back? That's very strange isn't it? You get restored right back to before you attack Cerberus. You have to replay that whole chunk of the game unless you quicksave. The counter to that is it's because it's the start of the 'suicide mission', but my question is, why can't I 'actually' save (non-quick save) all the way up until I hit the citadel? It feels a bit strange to me at least.

[balance5050]

clennon8 wrote...

UKillMeLongTime wrote...

Here is gamermd's view on the ending
She knows the series as well as anyone

Mass Effect Talks: Explaining the ME3 Ending (Beings of Light )

I watched that earlier today.  Parts of BoLT are intriguing, but there are some problems with her presentation of it.  She actually spends a lot of time talking about Indoc Theory and why it's wrong, but when she goes through the various elements, such as the duct scene and the dreams with the kid, she just flat out ignores the things that Indoc Theorists consider most important. Such as the Reaper growls, and the oily shadows and the whispers.  She spends a couple minutes talking about the dreams, but doesn't say anything at all about how the oily shadows and whispers perfectly match known descriptions of indoctrination.  Not even to say "Oh, that's just a coincidence" or whatever.  So... FAIL.  BIG FAIL.

Also, I watched part of one of her videos on Indoc Theory, where she was trying to disprove it.  I happened to jump in right at the part where she was talking about the stomach wound the mysteriously appears on Shepard's stomach after Anderson dies.  She said it's false evidence, because the wound was on Anderson's right side, but Shepard's wound is on his left side.  Which is just flat out wrong.  Anderson was shot on the left side.  Again... FAIL.  I stopped watching right then and there.

Plus she just uses that Kelncory planet as a basis. The whole planet is centered around an eccentric Volus who has *visions* of being"s" (plural) of light. It never said he found any such temples containing such a thing. If anything the "beings of light" would be referring to Prothean VI's. But it was all based on *visions* so it actually is pointing even more to the I.T. 

Modifié par balance5050, 02 avril 2012 - 05:14 .

[kilgorek]

ynh wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

ynh wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Something to keep in mind here:
Mass Effect 1 was released in 2007 (development starting in 2005).
Mass Effect 2 was released in 2010.
Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012.

They managed to shave a whole year off of their development cycle. It took them three years to make ME1, three years to make ME2, but two years to make ME3.

There probably was some pressure to release early 2012.

No. ME 1 was released in late November of 2007. Mass Effect 2 was released in February of 2010. That's barely over two years. They've spent about two years a piece to make each game.

Dev for ME1 was already in progress as of Oct 4, 2005 (when it was announced). In fact, judging by this article, they were well into it. I'll give you the point about ME2 though. My mistake on that.

But the first game in a trilogy is always going to take the longest amount of time if they are all using the same engine. First they have to go through the creation of the IP and figuring out what they want to do and what works, plus they have to create the engine that the games will use or tweak it if they are already using an established one like the Unreal engine. In the sequels they can reuse assets.

[savagejuicebox]

ynh wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

ynh wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Something to keep in mind here:
Mass Effect 1 was released in 2007 (development starting in 2005).
Mass Effect 2 was released in 2010.
Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012.

They managed to shave a whole year off of their development cycle. It took them three years to make ME1, three years to make ME2, but two years to make ME3.

There probably was some pressure to release early 2012.

No. ME 1 was released in late November of 2007. Mass Effect 2 was released in February of 2010. That's barely over two years. They've spent about two years a piece to make each game.

Dev for ME1 was already in progress as of Oct 4, 2005 (when it was announced). In fact, judging by this article, they were well into it. I'll give you the point about ME2 though. My mistake on that.

But it would make complete sense that they would gain resources as they gained sucess... thus shortening the time needed and by gained resources i mean exponential growth.

[byne]

ynh wrote...


One thing that is not speculation is, why the hell is our last save so far back? That's very strange isn't it? You get restored right back to before you attack Cerberus. You have to replay that whole chunk of the game unless you quicksave. The counter to that is it's because it's the start of the 'suicide mission', but my question is, why can't I 'actually' save (non-quick save) all the way up until I hit the citadel? It feels a bit strange to me at least.

I always figured its just because once you attack Cerberus all other systems become unavailable, and you can only go to Earth. Restoring to before the attack on Cerberus lets you finish sidequests and such

[Big Bad]

byne wrote...

ynh wrote...


One thing that is not speculation is, why the hell is our last save so far back? That's very strange isn't it? You get restored right back to before you attack Cerberus. You have to replay that whole chunk of the game unless you quicksave. The counter to that is it's because it's the start of the 'suicide mission', but my question is, why can't I 'actually' save (non-quick save) all the way up until I hit the citadel? It feels a bit strange to me at least.

I always figured its just because once you attack Cerberus all other systems become unavailable, and you can only go to Earth. Restoring to before the attack on Cerberus lets you finish sidequests and such

To the extent that I thought about it at all, that is pretty much what I assumed as well.

[ynh]

kilgorek wrote...

ynh wrote...

kilgorek wrote...

ynh wrote...

byne wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

byne wrote...


What exactly is the real world support for rushed product?

Didnt they delay the game at least once? Seems like they'd have had plenty of time

To me, and just off the top of my head,  the reactions of the dev team and Dr. Muzyka by defending the product and acting shocked the fans didn't like it, the silence rather than reassuring fans that the theory has merit, even the rejection of the cupcakes. Why reject cupcakes if they're porud of their work and have something planned? Why stomach the bad publicity, the price drops, the Amazon fiasco....all for the sake of some troll ending they'll sell us later?

Again, you can argue those however you like...I just feel those aren't exactly support for the "they had something planned all along" argument.

How does that support your rushed product theory over, say, the bad writing theory, though?

Something to keep in mind here:
Mass Effect 1 was released in 2007 (development starting in 2005).
Mass Effect 2 was released in 2010.
Mass Effect 3 was released in 2012.

They managed to shave a whole year off of their development cycle. It took them three years to make ME1, three years to make ME2, but two years to make ME3.

There probably was some pressure to release early 2012.

No. ME 1 was released in late November of 2007. Mass Effect 2 was released in February of 2010. That's barely over two years. They've spent about two years a piece to make each game.

Dev for ME1 was already in progress as of Oct 4, 2005 (when it was announced). In fact, judging by this article, they were well into it. I'll give you the point about ME2 though. My mistake on that.

But the first game in a trilogy is always going to take the longest amount of time if they are all using the same engine. First they have to go through the creation of the IP and figuring out what they want to do and what works, plus they have to create the engine that the games will use or tweak it if they are already using an established one like the Unreal engine. In the sequels they can reuse assets.

You are right, I should've considered that (it's too early in the morning here). 

[byne]

balance5050 wrote...

Plus she just uses that Kelncory planet as a basis. The whole planet is centered around an eccentric Volus who has *visions* of being"s" (plural) of light. It never said he found any such temples containing such a thing. If anything the "beings of light" would be referring to Prothean VI's. But it was all based on *visions* so it actually is pointing even more to the I.T. 

Plus, Klencory's description says the beings of light were there to protect organics from synthetic machine devils.

That seems to run counter to godchild controlling the synthetic machine devils to exterminate all advanced organics

[Big Bad]

byne wrote...

Big Bad wrote...


- When the ****storm over the ending first hit, some of the devs posted cryptic but excited tweets about what they had planned in response to all the outrage (I believe we were told to keep our saves at one point as well, but I never personally saw that one).

They actually told us to keep our saves before the game even came out, which kind of implies they saw this reaction coming.

Interesante!

[ynh]

Big Bad wrote...

byne wrote...

ynh wrote...


One thing that is not speculation is, why the hell is our last save so far back? That's very strange isn't it? You get restored right back to before you attack Cerberus. You have to replay that whole chunk of the game unless you quicksave. The counter to that is it's because it's the start of the 'suicide mission', but my question is, why can't I 'actually' save (non-quick save) all the way up until I hit the citadel? It feels a bit strange to me at least.

I always figured its just because once you attack Cerberus all other systems become unavailable, and you can only go to Earth. Restoring to before the attack on Cerberus lets you finish sidequests and such

To the extent that I thought about it at all, that is pretty much what I assumed as well.

One way to look at it is that it does conveniently leave room for BioWare to safely change that last chunk of the story for everyone without having to account for people who would've 'lived' through the endings. This is in contrast to ME2 where you could save after the mission (granted, ME3 is the end).

It's day-dreaming at best, but I did find it a little frustrating

[Big Bad]

DuskRose wrote...

I've got one more question before I head to bed: did anyone else feel like the story was cut shortish? I have, like an internal 'clock' almost that picks on cues for pacing. By the time I hit London it felt like the ending had come up rather abruptly.

I personally did not feel like anything was rushed, at least not prior to when Shepard is hit by the beam and all the weirdness starts.  Then again, maybe I was just too busy getting my ass handed to me to notice!

[clennon8]

Yeah, it seems much more likely to me that the "beings of light" is referring to Prothean VIs, who were trying to warn/protect against the Reapers.

I mean, if Indoc Theory is considered an ass-pull, what does that make BoLT?

[kilgorek]

I can't believe people are picking up that Klencory theory and running with it. But, somehow, the IT is "grasping at straws."

[UKillMeLongTime]

clennon8 wrote...

UKillMeLongTime wrote...

Here is gamermd's view on the ending
She knows the series as well as anyone

Mass Effect Talks: Explaining the ME3 Ending (Beings of Light )

I watched that earlier today.  Parts of BoLT are intriguing, but there are some problems with her presentation of it.  She actually spends a lot of time talking about Indoc Theory and why it's wrong, but when she goes through the various elements, such as the duct scene and the dreams with the kid, she just flat out ignores the things that Indoc Theorists consider most important. Such as the Reaper growls, and the oily shadows and the whispers.  She spends a couple minutes talking about the dreams, but doesn't say anything at all about how the oily shadows and whispers perfectly match known descriptions of indoctrination.  Not even to say "Oh, that's just a coincidence" or whatever.  So... FAIL.  BIG FAIL.

Also, I watched part of one of her videos on Indoc Theory, where she was trying to disprove it.  I happened to jump in right at the part where she was talking about the stomach wound that mysteriously appears on Shepard's stomach after Anderson dies.  She said it's false evidence, because the wound was on Anderson's right side, but Shepard's wound is on his left side.  Which is just flat out wrong.  Anderson was shot on the left side.  Again... FAIL.  I stopped watching right then and there.

I agree with you. Shes pretty set against IT and I am for it
I dont think the kid was ever real 

The black mist/swirls in the final part was stuff the rachi mentioned

She does add more to think about but to me its IT or they just screwed the ending lol

I don't think she explained the 1m1 on the citadel and its reaper so wtf is that doing there. ZLooked to me like things created from sheps mind or what he/she is familiar with like TIMs room