57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

Legion109 wrote...

@Arian Dynas - nice but I would seriously prefer Shepard ending the reapers even if it results in his/her death. If Bioware manages to accomplish something similar to your idea but with the Reapers dieing then I might continue to buy their products. To me it would just be better if the next Mass Effect didn't focus on the Reapers they are Shepards story.

Also am I the only one that would like a scene for control if your EMS was high that shows Reapers turning against each other attacking, with small flashes showing Shepards body slowly burning or cuts spreading across Shep as he/she uses her incredible will to force the reapers to destroy themselves, the final scene of this showing another Nazara class reaper turning against Harbringer and you hear Harbringers metallic scream of rage as it fires upon that reaper at the same time that it is hit by that reaper's attack. Pan to Shepard falling over his life fading but he has a brief vision through Harbringers eyes as several Ships of the unified fleet pull in barraging Harbringer before he can recover from the other reapers attack, then Shepards eyes close and his/her last breath is heard as the screen goes black.

Not perfect but would have been cool.

IDT says no control, thats what I constrained myself to, Bioware says that Mass Effect is not just Shep's story, and that there will be more. Hence why I had the Reapers flee, and in the end, it just made more sense tactically.

Though, It did occur to me that I could add another ending, in Synthesis, is you just barely had enough EMS to scrape by to qualify for Synthesis, then Garrus just shoots you in the head, no heroic sacrifice, a reward for a higher EMS, y'know?

[Lone_Wolf0]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Did Bioware say anything interesting at PAX?

If you're into multiplayer, yes. Other than that, there was a very vague and cryptic non-answer to a question about the indoctrination theory.
Also, other plot related answers and a bit of discussion about the ending DLC.

Hm.. no I don't care about MP.. what exactly was that vague answer?
Anything really new about the DLC except that it will expand the ending?

The answer to the IT question was 
"The indoctrination theory illustrates again how, um, committed the fanbase is..." don't want to comment either way. Don't want to be prescriprive -- fans interpret their own way, plus DLC coming. "We want the content to speak for itself, and we'll let it do so"
Really, you can read it either way, depending on what your viewpoint is leaning towards. 
http://www.g4tv.com/...ware-stays-mum/ 
And here's a live blog from when they were running the panel. 
http://kotaku.com/58...ss-effect-panel 

[Earthborn_Shepard]

So no real news at all.. great.

[Lone_Wolf0]

Ilzairspar wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Did Bioware say anything interesting at PAX?

If you're into multiplayer, yes. Other than that, there was a very vague and cryptic non-answer to a question about the indoctrination theory.
Also, other plot related answers and a bit of discussion about the ending DLC.

You also forgot the biggest quote of the panel.  When asked why the things they are going to put in the DLC were not put in the game orignally.

"We didn't know there was a huge demand for it"   

My rage still overwhelms me on this.

I've been angry at this whole thing for so long I'm just starting to find how they didn't expect all this to be rather funny. And still anger/depression-inducing...

[Skillz1986]

Nah, basically the same old bickering, speculating and trolling abou yesterday's um "announcements". (see what i did there)? -.-

[Skillz1986]

" I've been angry at this whole thing for so long I'm just starting to find how they didn't expect all this to be rather funny. And still anger/depression-inducing..."

I was not angered by ot at all, since all they have stated was "we really expected it to be clear enough...but a lot of fans did not see the obvious, hence the clarification dlc"

[Lone_Wolf0]

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble. He seems to know what he's doing by his twitter posts, and I'd wager he's smart enough to piece together something that at the very least won't send us ballistic. I guess we'll see later how well placed my trust is...
As for Shepard's indoctrination, I've always thought of the theory as claiming that it is the process of indoctrination we're seeing, rather than the result having already been achieved from the start of the game. Hence why the VIs wouldn't detect it.
EDIT: The final part of the game would just be the attempt of Harbinger to bring the process to its completion.

Modifié par Lone_Wolf0, 07 avril 2012 - 08:30 .

[Legion109]

Skillz1986 wrote...

Nah, basically the same old bickering, speculating and trolling abou yesterday's um "announcements". (see what i did there)? -.-

<_< Not sure if saw what you did there, or if I got lemon juice in my eyes 

[Skillz1986]

The "um"...gotta love the "um"

[Fhaarkas]

Legion109 wrote...

@Arian Dynas - Matrix 1 rocked the two garbage films that followed ruined it for me

Funny. I always thought the 3rd one's the coolest.

[Arian Dynas]

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble.

Ah, so you're making a gamble?

Yes yes, hittings now.

[UrgentArchengel]

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble. He seems to know what he's doing by his twitter posts, and I'd wager he's smart enough to piece together something that at the very least won't send us ballistic. I guess we'll see later how well placed my trust is...
As for Shepard's indoctrination, I've always thought of the theory as claiming that it is the process of indoctrination we're seeing, rather than the result having already been achieved from the start of the game. Hence why the VIs wouldn't detect it.
EDIT: The final part of the game would just be the attempt of Harbinger to bring the process to its completion.

Exactly, on all points. 

[Ilzairspar]

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Ilzairspar wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Did Bioware say anything interesting at PAX?

If you're into multiplayer, yes. Other than that, there was a very vague and cryptic non-answer to a question about the indoctrination theory.
Also, other plot related answers and a bit of discussion about the ending DLC.

You also forgot the biggest quote of the panel.  When asked why the things they are going to put in the DLC were not put in the game orignally.

"We didn't know there was a huge demand for it"   

My rage still overwhelms me on this.

I've been angry at this whole thing for so long I'm just starting to find how they didn't expect all this to be rather funny. And still anger/depression-inducing...

My mind is starting to have 
  this song going through it.  And that is not good for me buying things from Bioware in the future.

[Arian Dynas]

Fhaarkas wrote...

Legion109 wrote...

@Arian Dynas - Matrix 1 rocked the two garbage films that followed ruined it for me

Funny. I always thought the 3rd one's the coolest.

Well the directors wanted to make 3 films. A sequel, and a prequel, thing is, the studio didn't much care for the prequel idea, but still wanted them to make a sequel, so in the end they had to end up trying to make 2 movies when they olny had enough plot for one.

[killnoob]

Arian Dynas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...



Ok then chuckles, please do, point these out to me. As I said, leaving the Crucible ambigious is intentional on that count, so if you don't care for abiguity, then don't watch The Matrix sequels.

then you have failed as bioware has.

Crucible is an important plot device. We spent the entire game trying to build it and you think it's okay to leave it to the audience's interpretation?

*coughs and points at a long list*

Inception
Castaway
The Matrix
Planscape Torment
The Sopranos...

Take your pick. I've got more.

That's not what you did in your script though.

What you did is more like giving the nameless one option to kill himself with the immortality blade, without actually telling the audience that the immortality blade actually kills immortals.

It's like showing that little spinning top at the end of inceptioin without telling the audience that thing is a token.

It just doesn't work.

Also, can we stay on topic and not talk about how crap matrix is as a trilogy?

Modifié par killnoob, 07 avril 2012 - 08:35 .

[Lone_Wolf0]

Ilzairspar wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Ilzairspar wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Did Bioware say anything interesting at PAX?

If you're into multiplayer, yes. Other than that, there was a very vague and cryptic non-answer to a question about the indoctrination theory.
Also, other plot related answers and a bit of discussion about the ending DLC.

You also forgot the biggest quote of the panel.  When asked why the things they are going to put in the DLC were not put in the game orignally.

"We didn't know there was a huge demand for it"   

My rage still overwhelms me on this.

I've been angry at this whole thing for so long I'm just starting to find how they didn't expect all this to be rather funny. And still anger/depression-inducing...

My mind is starting to have 
  this song going through it.  And that is not good for me buying things from Bioware in the future.

This song is so accurate in describing this mess, at least from my point of view, that it's almost creepy... 
To survive this further lack of clarification I'm having to move into I don't give a damn mode, at least until the DLC is out...

[Legion109]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble.

Ah, so you're making a gamble?

Yes yes, hittings now.

:O:O Nice

[crimsontotem]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble. He seems to know what he's doing by his twitter posts, and I'd wager he's smart enough to piece together something that at the very least won't send us ballistic. I guess we'll see later how well placed my trust is...
As for Shepard's indoctrination, I've always thought of the theory as claiming that it is the process of indoctrination we're seeing, rather than the result having already been achieved from the start of the game. Hence why the VIs wouldn't detect it.
EDIT: The final part of the game would just be the attempt of Harbinger to bring the process to its completion.

Exactly, on all points. 

and Shep breating scene at the end if you chose to destroy reapers disregarding other two options...

and Dev did not deny or calrity on the IT which is sot of 'silent' treatment. 

i am just giong to take wait and see approach on this matter. 

[Lone_Wolf0]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Fhaarkas wrote...

Legion109 wrote...

@Arian Dynas - Matrix 1 rocked the two garbage films that followed ruined it for me

Funny. I always thought the 3rd one's the coolest.

Well the directors wanted to make 3 films. A sequel, and a prequel, thing is, the studio didn't much care for the prequel idea, but still wanted them to make a sequel, so in the end they had to end up trying to make 2 movies when they olny had enough plot for one.

And here I always felt that it was revolutions that was the travesty of the series xD

[captainbob8383]

Ilzairspar wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Did Bioware say anything interesting at PAX?

If you're into multiplayer, yes. Other than that, there was a very vague and cryptic non-answer to a question about the indoctrination theory.
Also, other plot related answers and a bit of discussion about the ending DLC.

You also forgot the biggest quote of the panel.  When asked why the things they are going to put in the DLC were not put in the game orignally.

"We didn't know there was a huge demand for it"   
My rage still overwhelms me on this.

This quote actually comforts myself in the idea that all was planned from the beginning.
I mean, this quote is just unreal, they cant create an ending obviously full of holes, without any closure about the fate of the galaxy and say "We didn't know there was a huge demand for it"    .
They already stated by the past that they wanted "lots of speculations" from us, which imply they know this ending is cryptic, I really think they are just trolling us.

Modifié par captainbob8383, 07 avril 2012 - 08:38 .

[Skillz1986]

And as for trolls, i've got an idea.
Don't feed them, give them alternatives.

Example:

"hey ramdom troll, what's your take on the inception ending"

"uh, i suppose it was still a dream"

"well here's a link to a discussion about the ending (insert link). If you hurry, you might still convince someone.

Now move, MOVE!

[Lone_Wolf0]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble.

Ah, so you're making a gamble?

Yes yes, hittings now.

Oh god this made me lol... 
Why yes, dear sir, I'm making this a Gamble, and I'm placing all my chips on it!

[Arian Dynas]

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...



Ok then chuckles, please do, point these out to me. As I said, leaving the Crucible ambigious is intentional on that count, so if you don't care for abiguity, then don't watch The Matrix sequels.

then you have failed as bioware has.

Crucible is an important plot device. We spent the entire game trying to build it and you think it's okay to leave it to the audience's interpretation?

*coughs and points at a long list*

Inception
Castaway
The Matrix
Planscape Torment
The Sopranos...

Take your pick. I've got more.

That's not what you did in your script though.

What you did is more like giving the nameless one option to kill himself with the immortality blade, without actually telling the audience that the immortality blade actually kills immortals.

It's like showing that little spinning top at the end of inceptioin without telling the audience that thing is a token.

It just doesn't work.

Actually, it's not telling you the nameless one's name, and instead leaving it up to the player, or leaving the veiwer always wondering "What was in that package" in Cast Away (which DID drive the plot, much like the Crucible btw)

and part of why I left it open to interpretation? SEQUELS! They build up the Crucible as being huge and important, yet somehow, incredibly simple and capable of expanding technology more than ever before, that is easily a sequel or at least a novel's worth of ideas they could devote to it. And besides, to be entirely honest, I haven't decided what it does either. It's like Tali's face, no matter how much effort is put into it, it simply can't live up to the hype for every person, so every person gets to decide on their own to make them happy.

[Fhaarkas]

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

killnoob wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...



Ok then chuckles, please do, point these out to me. As I said, leaving the Crucible ambigious is intentional on that count, so if you don't care for abiguity, then don't watch The Matrix sequels.

then you have failed as bioware has.

Crucible is an important plot device. We spent the entire game trying to build it and you think it's okay to leave it to the audience's interpretation?

*coughs and points at a long list*

Inception
Castaway
The Matrix
Planscape Torment
The Sopranos...

Take your pick. I've got more.

That's not what you did in your script though.

What you did is more like giving the nameless one option to kill himself with the immortality blade, without actually telling the audience that the immortality blade actually kills immortals.

It's like showing that little spinning top at the end of inceptioin without telling the audience that thing is a token.

It just doesn't work.

Also, can we stay on topic and not talk about how crap matrix is as a trilogy?

Matrix is not crap!

On-topic - I always thought that the breath scene is the spinning totem for ME3.

[Lone_Wolf0]

crimsontotem wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Lone_Wolf0 wrote...

Honestly, I'm putting my faith in Mike Gamble. He seems to know what he's doing by his twitter posts, and I'd wager he's smart enough to piece together something that at the very least won't send us ballistic. I guess we'll see later how well placed my trust is...
As for Shepard's indoctrination, I've always thought of the theory as claiming that it is the process of indoctrination we're seeing, rather than the result having already been achieved from the start of the game. Hence why the VIs wouldn't detect it.
EDIT: The final part of the game would just be the attempt of Harbinger to bring the process to its completion.

Exactly, on all points. 

and Shep breating scene at the end if you chose to destroy reapers disregarding other two options...

and Dev did not deny or calrity on the IT which is sot of 'silent' treatment. 

i am just giong to take wait and see approach on this matter. 

Which is what I'm also going to do, mostly due to lack of choice xP
But yeah, the lack of clarity gives me hope, as it's my way of interpreting it as well.
They might just pull a rabbit out of that hat yet, rather than another elephant...