57139 réponses à ce sujet

[GBGriffin]

DashingSplash wrote...

It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.

Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.

I'm actually not angry. I'm waiting for him to acknowledge his mistake, and finding joy that he isn't

Modifié par GBGriffin, 07 avril 2012 - 05:22 .

[balance5050]

balance5050 wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...


we all know your a critic and that there is nothing we can say to convince you. The real mistery is why you keep even get on this thread. just leave us alone

There is nothing you can say because I actually used to believe in the same evidence you did, then I changed my opinion given evidence to the contrary, and I am nowe posting for the sake of discussion.

This is a discussion board, correct? Not a pro-IT only board?

What was the evidence to the contrary?

[DashingSplash]

GBGriffin wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...

It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.

Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.

I'm actually not angry. I'm waiting for him to acknowledge his mistake, and finding joy that he isn't

Mistake? As far as I can see he has his theories as much as you have your own. 
Just because you think yours are more valid does not make any other theory wrong, it is a matter of your own belief.

Please, try to talk to each other and I'm sure you two will go along just fine.

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


We're talking about theories regarding the ending.. ya'know.. like Indoctrination.. or face value or reaper consensus.

How is a rushed ending not relevant to a discussion about the ending? And why have you still not acknowledged your mistake? Because you think it doesn't matter?

It doesn't matter to you because you made a mistake and want to move past it. It matters to me because it confirms whether my theory is valid or not.

Holy ****. Selective replying yet again.

The theory I asked you to state is based on the assumption that the last 15 minutes of the game was cut and replaced.

I've acknowledged my mistake many times bud Idn what you've been reading.

You however have not acknowledged why you seem to selectively reply to posts that only fit your argument.. hmmm...

Anyways. You merely prove the point that that interpretation was intended by the devs..just to the fact that you can come up with multiple theories to explain the ending.

[Red Starblazer]

Skillz1986 wrote...

I imagine salarian kids would also be a pain.

"hay son,need help with your homework? I've got some spare time if need be"

"don't need help, homework already finished. writing paper on own studies, your help appreciated but irrelevant"

"i'll just..fix the garage door instead, yeah."

Bahahaha! XD

[AnsinJung]

This is old, but I just read this version of IT, which is largely the same: 

uninhibitedandunrepentant.tumblr.com/post/19344938387/mind-holy-****

**Btw, I don't know how to rename links, but tried the first option for "target" or w/e.**

The parts that were new to me were based on the Saren/TIM themes of synthesis and control (that I'd heard), and that Shepard may have served a unique purpose for "destroy" in much the same way, reaching all the way back to TIM's decision not to control chip Shepard.  I hadn't considered that Shepard's entire "unite the galaxy" mission may have also been a part of indoc/the Reapers' plan.

I also hadn't heard that the music changes depending on which path you begin walking.  In addition to shooting the star child, Ima have to investigate this for myself.

I'm standing by IT simply because it's really good even compared to a "normal" ending, not because I believe it 100%.  And not a single thing Bioware has said since has strongly dismissed it.  Even if they hinted that it's not true, that would be an intentional deception to avoid spoiling it.  That doesn't take away the possibility that it's all crap, but I'm not Ashley's "realist."

Modifié par AnsinJung, 07 avril 2012 - 05:27 .

[UrgedDuke]

GBGriffin wrote...

DashingSplash wrote...

It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.

Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.

I'm actually not angry. I'm waiting for him to acknowledge his mistake, and finding joy that he isn't

I sense you arrogant tone... your being a d**k

[UrgentArchengel]

DashingSplash wrote...

It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.

Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.

This, pull the sticks out of your a**es and chill.  Everyone has got an opinion, you don't like it, too bad.

[GBGriffin]

balance5050 wrote...

What was the evidence to the contrary?

Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design,  and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".

But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.

By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw

[Legion109]

Red Starblazer wrote...

Skillz1986 wrote...

I imagine salarian kids would also be a pain.

"hay son,need help with your homework? I've got some spare time if need be"

"don't need help, homework already finished. writing paper on own studies, your help appreciated but irrelevant"

"i'll just..fix the garage door instead, yeah."

Bahahaha! XD

 I know that was classic right

[CLB17]

GBGriffin wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...


You really think too highly of yourself. My argument really shouldn't matter. But your sh*tty theory is based off the assumption that we not include the last 15 minutes of the game. It's just as flawed as mine.

It shouldn't, but it does, because I am debating directly with you, and one argument confirms my theory, while the other says it is not valid. You goofed up by editing/"clarifying" it.

Also, my theory is that they just dropped the ball on the last 15 minutes and didn't take everything into consideration. Another theory is that they wrote it for the sake of "artistic integrity" and because they liked it...both of which are valid by your first argument, but invalid by your second.

I'd like to ask a question. what is your explanation for the (Red) renegade option being potrayed as what Captain Anderson would do who we all know is clearly a paragon and the (Blue) paragon option being potrayed by the Illusive man who we know is a pure Renegade. Why the sudden color switch?

[lex0r11]

DuskRose wrote...

Thanks, Lex0r, that gave me warm fuzzies

No need to thank me.

I am honour-bound (can't remember who actually bound me, lol) to lighten up this thread, so the periodic hate can't overshadow it.


I'll open a can of 'Aaaaaaaaaaaawwwwwwwww' now.

Modifié par lex0r11, 07 avril 2012 - 05:29 .

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What was the evidence to the contrary?

Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design,  and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".

But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.

By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw

Just admit you have a massive hardon for me.

Bolded statement above: you're making the assumption that all theorists are proclaiming it truth when many of us just see it as a better way of explaining the ending. You're also saying that everyone dismisses these claims in order to fit the theory.. which isn't exactly true. Most of that sh*t was doublespeak in order to hold on to fans of both sides of the equation. But by your argument.. it doesn't seem clear to me whether or not you understand a "theory"

[GBGriffin]

 

DashingSplash wrote...


Mistake? As far as I can see he has his theories as much as you have your own. 
Just because you think yours are more valid does not make any other theory wrong, it is a matter of your own belief.

Please, try to talk to each other and I'm sure you two will go along just fine.

That's not the mistake I'm drawing attention to. I'm drawing attention to the fact that my theory is valid initially, but he edited his stance to make it invalid after the fact. That is what I would like him to acknowledge

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Holy ****. Selective replying yet again.

The theory I asked you to state is based on the assumption that the last 15 minutes of the game was cut and replaced.

I've acknowledged my mistake many times bud Idn what you've been reading.

You however have not acknowledged why you seem to selectively reply to posts that only fit your argument.. hmmm...

Anyways. You merely prove the point that that interpretation was intended by the devs..just to the fact that you can come up with multiple theories to explain the ending.

You're nailing me on selective replying, which is intentional. 
I selectvely reply because you haven't directly answered my question, and I am aware that you are not a person worth debating. Once I get my answer, I'll leave you alone about it. Where have you acknwoledged why you switched your argument. Can you provide a quote? Or is it a case of you thinking you presented your case, but failed to do so.

Also, if interpretation is the intention, then how is my interpretation invalid if it meets their intent? Again, this is why changing yoru argument matters.

[UrgedDuke]

GBGriffin = Troll

[DashingSplash]

CLB17 wrote...

I'd like to ask a question. what is your explanation for the (Red) renegade option being potrayed as what Captain Anderson would do who we all know is clearly a paragon and the (Blue) paragon option being potrayed by the Illusive man who we know is a pure Renegade. Why the sudden color switch?

Most likely a design decision to make the player think.
I actually rushed through my first gameplay and this is what made me stop to think in the end before making my decision.

What's your take on the situation?

[GBGriffin]

CLB17 wrote...


I'd like to ask a question. what is your explanation for the (Red) renegade option being potrayed as what Captain Anderson would do who we all know is clearly a paragon and the (Blue) paragon option being potrayed by the Illusive man who we know is a pure Renegade. Why the sudden color switch?

It was a design choice. Red could be seen as more reckless, whereas Blue could be seen as more calculated.

It doesn't have to mean anything beyond that. It doesn't prove anything unless you make it prove something.

[lex0r11]

Come on people, at least he is being mostly civil about it.

(didn't read everything)

[GBGriffin]

UrgedDuke wrote...

GBGriffin = Troll

And yet, look who is posting the one line reply with no explanation

I'm disagreeing; you're simply calling me a troll.

[MintyCool]

Please let me know if this is accurate: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/11124862

If I'm missing somthing about Indoc leme know and I'll fix it.

Thanks.

<3

[Hacedor1566]

DashingSplash wrote...

It does really seem that you guys are rather stubborn and wont listen.

Do you find pleasure in constantly arguing? In the end, you are both as right as it stands now.
Discussion can be held in a more civil way, no need to fuel each other anger, which you seem to have a store of.

They won't listen to anyone except themselves. They adore the sound of their own voices... 

[killnoob]

lex0r11 wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Fhaarkas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

that means they're gonna give us cinematic so long that it explains the REAL purpose of crucible, HOW shepard got to it, and HOW It turns out.

They're not. That's the whole point of this 'clarification' DLC, so that it can make sense to everyone, including the ones asking these questions that you laid out.

Clarification DLC = cinematics.

I really dont think you can explain the real purpose of crucible using cinematics.
Nor do I think you can explain how Shepard gets to the citedal, how he uses it, and what happens afterward.

It's good that you have a straight answer though. Appreciate it.

I don't know wich twitter of them it was, but gameplay ist not ruled out. I'll try to find it again.

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/news/2012/04/free-extended-cut-dlc-to-expand-clarify-mass-effect-3-ending-this-summer.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss

Clarification DLC features extended cutscene and cinematics.

No gameplay is offered. If there is they would tell you already, wouldn't they?

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 05:31 .

[balance5050]

GBGriffin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

What was the evidence to the contrary?

Just off the top of my head: Final Hours, developer reactions, as well as the lack thereof, Dr. Ray's blog defending the endings as is, the rejection of the cupcakes, the artistic integrity line, the fact that the same evidence can be explained as some combination of poor writing and design,  and the fact that they haven't backed the theory, remarking only that the fans are "committed".

But again, the beauty of IT is that you can dismiss all of that because it doesn't fit the theory, and if you believe the theory is the only truth, then all of that must be false.

By n00bsauce2010's initial argument, I am correct in making these asusmptions. In his second argument, I am not. That is why I would like him to acknowledge that he switched his stance to prove me wrong when I pointed out his flaw

Those are all not based on ingame content and Geoff Keighly's AMA says that they were planning the ground work for this ending for a long time. The infamous paper that said "Shepard dies----->Speculation" was given to him early in development.

We are trying to stick to in game interpretation, not what we think happened in the development cycle 

[n00bsauce2010]

GBGriffin wrote...

 

DashingSplash wrote...


Mistake? As far as I can see he has his theories as much as you have your own. 
Just because you think yours are more valid does not make any other theory wrong, it is a matter of your own belief.

Please, try to talk to each other and I'm sure you two will go along just fine.

That's not the mistake I'm drawing attention to. I'm drawing attention to the fact that my theory is valid initially, but he edited his stance to make it invalid after the fact. That is what I would like him to acknowledge

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Holy ****. Selective replying yet again.

The theory I asked you to state is based on the assumption that the last 15 minutes of the game was cut and replaced.

I've acknowledged my mistake many times bud Idn what you've been reading.

You however have not acknowledged why you seem to selectively reply to posts that only fit your argument.. hmmm...

Anyways. You merely prove the point that that interpretation was intended by the devs..just to the fact that you can come up with multiple theories to explain the ending.

You're nailing me on selective replying, which is intentional. 
I selectvely reply because you haven't directly answered my question, and I am aware that you are not a person worth debating. Once I get my answer, I'll leave you alone about it. Where have you acknwoledged why you switched your argument. Can you provide a quote? Or is it a case of you thinking you presented your case, but failed to do so.

Also, if interpretation is the intention, then how is my interpretation invalid if it meets their intent? Again, this is why changing yoru argument matters.

If you're agreeing that interpretation was their intent and any is valid (hence my original argument), why do you think indoc isn't a valid interpretation?