57139 réponses à ce sujet

[DirtyPhoenix]

I'd be fine if they let Shep be some kind of Saren-like villain if the player chooses the other two options, instead of a critical failure screen That'd be pretty cool, and I'd happily play through it again to see what becomes of my Shep if I choose to go down that path.

[hwf]

Sareth Cousland wrote...

GBGriffin wrote...
Honestly, if I was a "believer", I would try to reconcile the IT with Weekes's clarification of the events as though they happened in reality.

Absolutely. What he says effectively kills IT. The relays actually blew up, the story is screwed.

Well the Indoctrination Theory doesn't prevent relays from blowing up.
IT only covers  the events we see from Harbinger arriving on the scene up until the credits.

If you were to extend the endings we saw, anything could happen - even interactive gameplay.

Shepard could have chosen Synthesis and essentially be indoctrinated and thus be at the mercy of Harbinger/the Reapers.
Or have chosen Destroy and effectively fought off an indoctrination attempt.

What happens then is simply a extension/clarification of the endings we have now.
Anyway, it all depends on how depressed and/or skeptic you are at Bioware at this point.

[GBGriffin]

@pirate

If Weekes, a writer on the dev team who has acknowledged the unofficial interviewers , is to be believed over the fans, then the Citadel did blow up, but major plot characters survived, and the relays were destroyed in a different manner than Arrival.

How can both the IT and Weekes be correct if those events actually happened? I think the fact that he is clarifying them as though they happened suggests that they, well, actually happened.

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

How can the relays be destroyed if the action of shooting the red tube breaks the indoctrination attempt in Shep's mind? Doesn't shooting the red tube result in the actual destruction Weekes is clarifying?

[hwf]

GBGriffin wrote...
Doesn't shooting the red tube result in the actual destruction Weekes is clarifying?

I know you're a vocal opponent of IT :-)

Like I mention in my previous post the IT doesn't cover what really happened.
We the players haven't seen what really happens yet; only what was suggested to us would happen when we made a choice during the indoctrination attempt.

[Dwailing]

GBGriffin wrote...

@pirate

If Weekes, a writer on the dev team who has acknowledged the unofficial interviewers , is to be believed over the fans, then the Citadel did blow up, but major plot characters survived, and the relays were destroyed in a different manner than Arrival.

How can both the IT and Weekes be correct if those events actually happened? I think the fact that he is clarifying them as though they happened suggests that they, well, actually happened.

See, what I think Weekes is saying is simply that this is how it COULD happen, not how it necessarily DID happen.

[GBGriffin]

Im obviously a vocal opponent. Ill admit that. What does that have to do with reconciling Weekes's statement with the IT?

On that note, Weekes is suggesting the end wasn't a choice made during an indoctrination attempt; he's clarifying the consequences of a choice made in reality. If it was a choice made in Shep's mind, how would it have any of the consequences he mentioned?

[hwf]

GBGriffin wrote...
If it was a choice made in Shep's mind, how would it have any of the consequences he mentioned?

Like I said, the IT tells us that everything in the game from Harbinger to the credits is an indoctrination attempt.
One that each of us is still fighting against. In this thread even.

The IT tells us we haven't seen the game come to an end yet.
So obviously, if the IT is true, we'll be able to finish the fight with the Extended Cut and make the relays and Citadel blow up for realsies.

[GBGriffin]

@Dwailing

If what he is describing is simply what could happen, why is there no mention of Shep's subconscious? Why does his clarification only make sense if the events actually happened?

Again, he's a writer, who, unlike Merizan, would be involved in the creative process. If what he is mentioning is just conjecture ...why does it sound like it takes place in reality and not inside Shep's head?

[Eshaye]

pirate1802 wrote...

I'd be fine if they let Shep be some kind of Saren-like villain if the player chooses the other two options, instead of a critical failure screen That'd be pretty cool, and I'd happily play through it again to see what becomes of my Shep if I choose to go down that path.

SWTOR SPOILERS INCOMING READ REVAN THE NOVEL! 
ALSO NWN2 SPOILERS




I brought up what they did to  Revan before but no one caught on to that unless I missed it. For a long time we had no idea what had happened to him, KOTOR 2 comes out, hope flares and is extinguished. And years later... He comes back.
This is something they could do to Shepard. Except I don't want my Shep canonified... :S 

The other example I have is Neverwinter Nights 2 (yeah I know it's not by Bioware), it ends with everyone buried under rumble, your PC and their companions. But then Mask of the Betrayer expansion came out and you get to find your PC taken to another realm and also find out what happened to all your companions. 

That was cool. 

Modifié par Eshaye, 08 avril 2012 - 01:34 .

[Eshaye]

GBGriffin wrote...

Im obviously a vocal opponent. Ill admit that. What does that have to do with reconciling Weekes's statement with the IT?

On that note, Weekes is suggesting the end wasn't a choice made during an indoctrination attempt; he's clarifying the consequences of a choice made in reality. If it was a choice made in Shep's mind, how would it have any of the consequences he mentioned?

Because she's talking to the Reapers, there is no difference wether the conversation takes places face to face or mind to mind. There are still talking. It's possible that Shep's will impresses enough that the Reapers let her decide the next fate, or it's a trick. We'll have to see.

Modifié par Eshaye, 08 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

He is talking about the events in the past tense; they have already happened in the current ending. He is clarifying scenes that already exist in the game.

If everything from harby to the credits is an indoctrination attempt, why is he talking about those events as if they already happening? Are they prophetic and we'll sit through them again in reality after Shep wakes up?

Again, he is clarifying scenes we've already witnessed as though they have consequences in reality, not just in Shep's head.

[Eshaye]

Wow I just wasted precious pixels replying didn't I ? Nevermind.

[schneeland]

Well, to some extent, I think, GBGriffin has a fair point: we should think through what it could mean if the events after the beam hits are not purely virtual. I haven't made up my mind about this, yet, but maybe it's interesting to consider things happening in the real world and in a hallucinatory world at the same time.

I don't know whether anyone remembers the film "Labyrinth of the Monsters" - if yes, I'm talking about something akin to the last minutes of the film (yes, I know that this film has probably done more damage to pen and paper roleplaying than any other - but I think, we should spare this discussion for other threads)

[GBGriffin]

@Eshaye

My impression of Weekes's statement is that he is clarifying scenes that have already happened, not nearly identical scenes in reality that have yet to happen. The interviewer is asking Weekes about the current ending, not dlc, and Weekes is clarifying what's already there.

[hwf]

GBGriffin wrote...

Again, he is clarifying scenes we've already witnessed as though they have consequences in reality, not just in Shep's head.

Weekes also clarified that he and the entire Mass Effect team hated, despised the ending as it is now.
Aside from two people who we shall not name that is.

So what I'm doing here is not really argueing with you about IT, but rather using you to urge Bioware to adopt the IT and remove the vile bile that is the current ending.

[GBGriffin]

Also @Eshaye

Wasted pixels? I wasn't ignoring you ; Im on my phone and can't keep up and respond as well as I can on my desktop.

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

Unless im missing it, that doesn't appear in the PAX unofficial interview. Wasn't that part of the supposed leak Priestly said was false?

Weekes didn't tweet about that, as far as I know. He did, hiwever,however acknowledge the PAX interview.

As for them supporting the IT, how would you suggest they implement it? Chances are that your suggestion won't line up with others, which leads to the ques: which IT should they support and implement?

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

Again, sorry for the new post and lack of an edit, but haven't they made it clear they're going to expand on and clarify the ending, not cut content, which, imo, would change the ending (which they do not want to do)? Im interpreting the blog FAQ on this, btw.

[captainbob8383]

GBGriffin wrote...

@Eshaye

My impression of Weekes's statement is that he is clarifying scenes that have already happened, not nearly identical scenes in reality that have yet to happen. The interviewer is asking Weekes about the current ending, not dlc, and Weekes is clarifying what's already there.

In my view he tried to give the current ending meaning no matter how, the point was to appease people and make them wait for the DLC. If you look closely he only answered questions that could be somewhat explicable, but he carefully avoided the real ones. Best example: why did Joker run away?  
You can’t explain it with funky physic properties or space magic like he did with the other questions.

He didn’t answer and even imply that Joker had good reasons that we don’t know yet. Which actually is a good hint to the fact that they purposely made this ending cryptic, and from the start planned to explain it later with a DLC.

Modifié par captainbob8383, 08 avril 2012 - 02:04 .

[hwf]

GBGriffin: Unless im missing it, that doesn't appear in the PAX unofficial interview. Wasn't that part of the supposed leak Priestly said was false?

From the unofficial interview with Patrick Weekes thread:
It's under the question "How did you feel about the ending?".

GBGriffin: Which IT should they support and implement?

There is only one IT. It is basically "the cake is a lie".

Really the Indoctrination Theory keeps their "artistic integrity" fully intact because every single pixel they implemented will stay in place.
The Extended Cut just has to append to it and boom presto your game which is reviled by your core fanbase and has negative word of mouth that rivals DA2 is suddenly instantly turned into an even more brilliant piece of art that can rub shoulders with a literary giant like Planescape: Torment.

They'd be clinically insane not to use IT.
But I guess if they'd just want to slap a nicer coat of paint on the game with a few cutscenes and epilogues and call it done... well...

[McWhitey3]

@GBGriffin

I respect your opinion and you bring up great points. My thing is this
If IT is true and Bioware is holding out for some DLC and has ben quiet about it cor this long, you think a writer is going to say so in an unofficial interview? No. It's telling that he also says he didn't like the ending. After reading his interview, and the MP DLC announcement I think IT or something like it is true and they were going to release "the truth" DLC. It is all coming together I feel. The ending leaks screwed this up and they couldn't delay the game so this was the creative strategy. Let's hope anyway

[GBGriffin]

Well, that's my point. He's giving the current ending meaning and actual consequences in reality, not Shep's head. If this was all in Shep's head, why explain the events he did in terms of reality as though they actually happened?

As for the Joker question, maybe he wasn't directly involved in developing it originally or expanding on it, both of which would explain why he wouldn't know. He's part of a team, so maybe that wasn't his part to develop or clarify?

Even if he dodged it, the rest of the answers are grounded in reality with consequences for the galaxy...which wouldn't matter if this was solely an internal struggle.

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

I read that. There's nothing about him or the team disliking the endings, or mentioning Casey or Mac.

As for only one IT, why do so many individual posters make individual posts with their opinion on implementation that are similar, but not necessarily unified or identical?

Again, I dislike the ending and the IT. If they just clarify what they had in mind (and if it's like what weekes described, I'll be somewhat okay with it), i can live with it and move on. I dont want the IT forced on me because some fans feel it's the only solution.

[GBGriffin]

@mcwhitey

Again, people believe Weekes because he still gas credibility, and im inclined to agree. If yiu think he's lying or deceiving people on purpose because the IT must be true...I don't know how to convince you otherwise.

Also, there's no direct mention or paraphrase of disliking the ending in the PAX interview. If there is, can you please quote it?