57139 réponses à ce sujet

[captainbob8383]

GBGriffin wrote...

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.

See my post above, and if you've already read it, well read it again because you obviously didnt understand what I tried to say.
The point was to appease people, he wasnt going to say "yeah everybody is dead and the ending is indeed crappy, but please wait 3-4 months, It will be better then!"

[Rifneno]

Dwailing wrote...

Yeah, I did read that. I'll admit, in some ways I would have liked to have another ME2 squadmate, but I didn't regret having James, even if it meant I didn't get one of the old team.

Ditto. James was a good addition to the team. I hate to say it but EDI really felt, I don't know, forced I guess. It just seemed weird having her go from being the Normandy's AI to having a physical body to take on missions. I think she's a great character, one of my favorites for sure, but it just seemed out of place to have her in the squad.
I've never been secretive about my distaste for Javik. Though admittedly I've never seen his memory shard scene. I told him to keep painful memories locked up because... well, personal experience. But I doubt it would change my perspective on him. He's just a self-righteous dick. And while adding a Prothean squad mate did seem out of the blue (I managed to avoid spoilers leading up to release so I only found out about him a few days beforehand), it all made reasonable sense. The fact he actually has dialogue for Shepard about the artifact on Eletania seems to indicate they've planned him since ME1.

But it would've been great to have more of the ME2 squad. They were by far my favorite set.

GBGriffin wrote...

-snip-

Woah. Clearly I misjudged you, so I must apologize for the tone I took with you earlier.

I assumed that idea about Destroy, I'll admit, is dated, and you've addressed that. It was the "hot" interpretation around the time I tried discussing it, though, and I've still seen it pop up that "Destroy" is the only "correct" choice...which, again, I don't agree with, even though I will personally always pick Destroy. To me, it showed that there are multiple variations of the theory, so if BioWare were to support it...exactly what version would they support? To me, that was a crucial issue that needed clarifying.

I'm sure everyone thinks their interpretation is the one that BW will go with. We just don't know.

After all, if the ending takes place in Sheps' head...then it wouldn't even be an issue at the moment because Shep would wake up and the relays would still be there since he destroyed them in his mind, not in reality since the real fight, the war for Earth, hasn't been finished.

Because people are supposed to be able to take the endings at face value if they so choose. If they don't clarify some of the horrifying implications of thousands of supernovas across the Milky Way from the relays exploding (and most homeworlds have a relay in their system) and the collapse of a lot of advanced technology... well, it's not much of a victory over the Reapers.

Voodzik wrote...

Now, I wasn't a huge fan of the other major male human protagonists; Kaiden and Jacob. I felt they were bland an boring. Not BAD, just not up to par with the other characters.

People rag on Jacob for being boring so much, I can't believe Kaiden doesn't get as much heat. He deserves quite a bit more IMO. Kaiden is boring as unbuttered toast. I get sleepy just thinking about listening to his monotone chats about biotic camp and the douchebag turian. This is why most RPG characters have so many issues you feel like their therapist (or in some cases their parole officer). Because... *yawn* they're boring as hell when they're well adjusted.

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Always thought it was strange how EMS affects your dialogue with the Catalyst. Because why would the godchild care how many ships you have, or how strong you are war-wise? Since there's no option to just shoot the reapers dead anyway.

According to Gibbed's dialogue text dump, starbrat's attitude is dependant on plot flag #20971. What 20971 is, I have no idea.

GBGriffin wrote...

Yeah. I bought it at launch, but once I stopped playing and the dlc started coming out, I didn't feel like starting it up again and then buying the dlc.

The PC ultimate edition, which I'm told includes all the dlc, is fairly cheap on Amazon. I'll probably pick it up soon.

It's a good game, but it has more bugs than a $50/month apartment.

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Funny I did much the same thing. Final Fantasy IX was my favorite RPG of all time for a long time and what I measured the first Bioware game I bought against (still consider FFIX to be the greatest of the series)

IX was good, the minigames were even semi-tolerable (which is noteworthy because Square does minigames about as well as the batarian hegemony does civil liberties). I think XII was my favorite though. Most hated it for its MMO-type setup but I loved it. Only wish they expanded more on the background lore with the gods and scions.

VI was great until the World of Ruin. They just dropped the storyline after that. "Go do random stuff then kill the Joker Kefka." And it was WAY too easy to get some of the top gear. Some old guy just hands you the Ragnarok. He just hands you the goddamn Ragnarok?! What?!

I'd continue, but damn I want to get back to the game now.

[GBGriffin]

Also @mcwhitey

Do you believe this truth dlc, which is suspect because it appears to have been added to the MP announcement after the fact, is coming after the extended cut. That would contradict the FAQ, wouldn't it? It would also imply that, again, this is all in Shep's head when Weekes is suggesting it takes place in reality, correct?

[GBGriffin]

@ Rifneno

Weekes clarified the endings in one context, though: reality. Not Shep's subconscious. To truly keep it open for speculation on both sides, why only offer clarification in one context, nit both?

[Vox Doom]

Used to think IT was possible as the intended ending.

After this weekend I no longer think IT is the intended ending. 

The ending, simply, sucks, for the many, many already stated reasons.

I find it very unlikely that I'll ever buy a Bioware game full price again.  If they release something really good in the future, I'll just wait for it to either go on sale or buy it pre-owned.

Massive letdown Bioware, I thought your artistic vision was better than that.

[hwf]

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

Interview attributes "he seems to have gone to GREAT lengths to think ways around a lot of stuff the ending implied." to Weekes. That's key.
Anyone can do research into the Penny Arcade forum leak themselves and they should. I found enough evidence in the 70+ page thread to think that Bioware PR is talking out of their cloaca.

GBGriffin: 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? [...] I dont want the IT forced on me because some fans feel it's the only solution.

There is only one IT.
Sure everyone has their own revelation to add to it but again IT covers the entire game segment from Harbinger arriving to the point that credits roll.

The real joy of IT is that even you won't have it forced on you!

The clue is once you're done with the indoctrination sequence you still have the options you had during the end sequence of the game now...
- Shepard sacrifices oneself Jesus style in attempting to Control the Reapers.
- Shepard sacrifices oneself Satan style and gets incorporated into the Human Reaper because Saren was right afterall and Synthesis is the Endlösung to all suffering. The cycle will be completed with every organic in this cycle being harvested and ascended into a Reaper.
- Shepard annihilates the Reaper tech by triggering the Crucible as it was intended.

[KneeTheCap]

What if the indoctrination thingie would be true only in some of the endings?

I dunno, would that even make any sense?

[DirtyPhoenix]

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.

I see your point there buddy, but isn't it possible that he is merely explaining the possibilities? For example if you aask him how to kill Garrus(!) then he might give an answer, it doesn't necessarily mean Garrus dies.

As for me, IT or not, as long as the do a good job of explaining everything in the upcoming DLC, I'd be a happy man.

[GBGriffin]

@ hwf

The word dislikes isn't mentioned, and he criticized the interview for being negative. To me, that shows he wanted to keep the tone positive. Much like the IT, you are projecting meaning onto a paraphrased and abridged part of the interview which, by utself, doesn't mean much.

How would it not be forced, btw? I believe my shep isn't being indoctrinated, and IT dlc would tell me im experiencing it.

Also, the implementation you just described proves my point. You feel that the attempt would lead to a similar decision tree with the same choices, but others have suggested other alternatives such as huskification, boss fights, just cutscenes, and even game over screens.

Seriously, check other posts in this thread and others to see different, even better and more detailed, variations.

[GBGriffin]

@pirate

If he's explaining the possibilities, why is he not speaking using hypothetical terms (imo) and not mentioning explanations for multiple contexts, or at least one involving tge subconscious.

He talks about them like they actually happened, not that they might have or may eventually happen.

[hwf]

GBGriffin wrote... You feel that the attempt would lead to a similar decision tree with the same choices, but others have suggested other alternatives such as huskification, boss fights, just cutscenes, and even game over screens.
Seriously, check other posts in this thread and others to see different, even better and more detailed, variations.

Oh I have - and I mentioned in an earlier post that everyone pitches in their own ideas on how you could resolve things after the Indoctrination Theory has ran it's course.

But that's up to the Mass Effect team to resolve; we can only provide our opinions, hopes which they no doubt will mine from the BSN - including this long long thread.

[Sammuthegreat]

hwf wrote...*snip*

The clue is once you're done with the indoctrination sequence you still have the options you had during the end sequence of the game now...
- Shepard sacrifices oneself Jesus style in attempting to Control the Reapers.
- Shepard sacrifices oneself Satan style and gets incorporated into the Human Reaper because Saren was right afterall and Synthesis is the Endlösung to all suffering. The cycle will be completed with every organic in this cycle being harvested and ascended into a Reaper.
- Shepard annihilates the Reaper tech by triggering the Crucible as it was intended.

I've agreed with most of what you've wrote, but I definitely disagree with this. Half the problem with the ending is that it forces you into 3 choices, which don't feel like enough. The choice itself between R/G/B is one of the most disappointing things about the ending as it stands.

There are far more elegant ways to continue the story after the Indoctrination attempt - for example a general idea suggested by me a while back, or even better this excellent series of custcene screenplays written by Arian Dynas.

EDIT: Forgot to mention also that if the post-Indoctrination section includes a RGB choice exactly like the one in the Indoc sequence, then that creates a new plot hole - how on earth did Shepard know what the Crucible would look like?

Plus it's one of the pieces of evidence integral to IT that the whole post-beam sequence is cobbled together using scenes from Shepard's memory. The setting for the Starchild scene looks remarkably similar to the bottom of the beam where Shepard got hit by Harby's beam - i.e. it's a memory of Shepard's, projected into the Indoc sequence. It wouldn't make any sense if the ACTUAL Catalyst involved the same 3 options.

Modifié par Sammuthegreat, 08 avril 2012 - 02:53 .

[GBGriffin]

Heh, I feel like this is just going to drag on, and I really do need some sleep, so I'd like to leave the thread for now with this:

You have an unofficial interview (as in, not promoted by BioWare) with paraphrased statements from a credible source, a writer directly involved with the game.

These statements clarify events that we've already experienced as though they happened in reality, with actual consequences for the galaxy and no mention of the effects on the mind of an indoctrinated Shepard.

Is it possible to make the IT work if Weekes's statements are true and the explosions of the Citadel and relays, among other things, actually happened in reality?

If so, how? If not, who is the better source for information: a fan made theory that hasn't been confirmed (or denied) or the paraphrased statements of an actual writer who acknowledges the interview took place?

I'm off to sleep, but, please, give this some thought

[hwf]

Actually, Sammuthegreat - your general idea and Arian Dynas' work are pretty much what I hinted at.
I like them. A lot.

Wink wink nudge nudge Bioware!

[Sammuthegreat]

GBGriffin wrote...

Heh, I feel like this is just going to drag on, and I really do need some sleep, so I'd like to leave the thread for now with this:

You have an unofficial interview (as in, not promoted by BioWare) with paraphrased statements from a credible source, a writer directly involved with the game.

These statements clarify events that we've already experienced as though they happened in reality, with actual consequences for the galaxy and no mention of the effects on the mind of an indoctrinated Shepard.

Is it possible to make the IT work if Weekes's statements are true and the explosions of the Citadel and relays, among other things, actually happened in reality?

If so, how? If not, who is the better source for information: a fan made theory that hasn't been confirmed (or denied) or the paraphrased statements of an actual writer who acknowledges the interview took place?

I'm off to sleep, but, please, give this some thought

I understand your point completely, and to be honest I think it's one of the best pieces of actual anti-IT evidence that there is (the majority is all conjecture or assumptions, in my opinion). It does seem to suggest that the relay explosions genuinely happened, or at the very least are going to happen in the clarified endings.

Either way though, it's incredibly clumsy that a writer should have to explain this in-game outside the game (EDIT: derp). When there's a precedent (Arrival DLC) that tells us the complete opposite will happen, the least BioWare could have done was actually include some sort of explanation in-game.

Modifié par Sammuthegreat, 08 avril 2012 - 03:23 .

[RealStyli]

Hi all, I'm back!

@GBGriffin

I think you're reading too much into what is written down in that interview. Afterall, the interviewer says at some points that they don't remember exactly what Weekes said - which indicates it was written from memory.

I agree that the bit about the Citadel seems bleak but he doesn't say that it definitely blows up, he merely gives a reason for people surviving based on the interviewers interpretation of the ending - which is that the Citadel does blow up. BW have already said they're not going to be prescriptive and that interview fits that. It doesn't imply anything but leaves a lot to be inferred.

[Sammuthegreat]

hwf wrote...

Actually, Sammuthegreat - your general idea and Arian Dynas' work are pretty much what I hinted at.
I like them. A lot.

Wink wink nudge nudge Bioware!

Ah right ok, apologies. I thought you were saying that the Extended Cut DLC would basically culminate in the RGB choice all over again, which for me would be a horrible move by BioWare.

Nudgey winky indeed...

[Chief Commander]

@GBGriffin
Well, while Shepard is fighting indoctrination in London the Reapers could turn to plan B and just destroy the Citadel and Crucible themselves. This would support the "Mission failed - The Crucible was destroyed" failure screen when you just stand there and wait. Because no matter how high your EMS is the Reapers eventually overcome your forces.

That would make the Citadel destroyed ending canon no matter what and because the Citadel is now gone, the Mass Relays blow up too. Remember, the Citadel is just a relay, that probably sends the "explosive signal" when it goes boom, because without the Citadel galactic civilization could not co exist and thus would not need the relays.

What would that leave us with?
-Citadel and Relays destroyed (apparently canon, judging by the comments from BW)
-Shepard breaks free of indoctrination (or succumbs to it)
-End battle with Harbinger?
-Shepard rallies the forces after he defeats Harbinger? (with help from the Normandy)

What is still unclear?
-The crash landing of the Normandy (again, could be just Shepard "seeing things")
-Stargazer

At least it´s a start.

Modifié par Chief Commander, 08 avril 2012 - 03:08 .

[Elendstourist]

So the extended Cut will not change the ending itself, just explain it a little more?

Goodbye BioWare.

[GBGriffin]

@RealStyli

Weekes acknowledged the interview took place and criticized the negativity, not the content. He didn't say it was fabricated, exaggerated, or misinformation.

As for reading into it, I'd say I'm taking it at face value: clarification of choices that had consequences on the galaxy in reality. He is making yes and no statements, not maybe this or that, and talking about the effects of the ending on characters and the galaxy. None of that is exaggerated imo.

[GBGriffin]

@ Chief Commander

How is Shep fighting indoctrination? Isn't the idea that picking Destroy and shooting the tube breaks the indoctrination? Shooting the tube also brings about the rest of the ending...its's cause and effect. Making that choice leads to the actions which lead to Weekes's clarification of what happened in reality. Remember, they arent changing the ending, so how can you make sense if it as it is now, in its entirety, using both IT and the fact that there will be actual consequences outside of Shep's mind.

Also, what about Control and Synthesis? Do we toss those away as junk endings? Traps?

[Vahilor]

The thongs that make me really suspicious are the Comments "We are proud of the stuff our writers did" and the "Arstistic integregy" stuff that is allways mentioned in BW-Comments related to the endings...

I don't know.. so BW will keep the current endings and only end som stuff so they don't p.... off their writers... somhow sounds a lot like that for me..

[Kyzee]

GBGriffin wrote...

Heh, I feel like this is just going to drag on, and I really do need some sleep, so I'd like to leave the thread for now with this:

You have an unofficial interview (as in, not promoted by BioWare) with paraphrased statements from a credible source, a writer directly involved with the game.

These statements clarify events that we've already experienced as though they happened in reality, with actual consequences for the galaxy and no mention of the effects on the mind of an indoctrinated Shepard.

Is it possible to make the IT work if Weekes's statements are true and the explosions of the Citadel and relays, among other things, actually happened in reality?

If so, how? If not, who is the better source for information: a fan made theory that hasn't been confirmed (or denied) or the paraphrased statements of an actual writer who acknowledges the interview took place?

I'm off to sleep, but, please, give this some thought

Hello, all! Everything nice and peaceful, I hope.

So this Weekes interview . . . interesting. In re: to IT, he could just be speaking hypothetically here, just as we do about the possible ways ME3 could continue after choosing Control, Synthesis, or Destroy. The devs would have to be able to answer questions like these, after all--(1) they're to be expected, and (2) if they don't answer basic things like "How does interstellar travel work w/out the Mass Relays," well then they'd be giving away the fact that IT is what they intended (NOT a declaritive statement there, just so you know--again, hypotheticals here).

I find it hard to believe, given the interviews at PAX and other BioWare employees' tweet (thinking of the Mike Gamble tweet I shared last night especially here), that anyone on the team would give a definitive answer as to what the end of ME3 is. Talk about going "off message."

Hope that you actually get to read this when you come back from sleeping. Night, GB! 

[GBGriffin]

@Kyzee

He's making direct statements, not posing hypotheses using "maybe" this or that. Again, it's unofficial, so it's him speaking casually, but he's offering explanations and clarification, even using direct yes and no phrasing. That doesn't sound like he's theorizing.

[Chief Commander]

@GBGriffin
Yes shooting the tubes is the generel idea of resisting indoctrination. When Harbinger realizes that Shepard is resisting his attempt of indoctrination he tries to manipulate him in a last ditch attempt.

That´s why he is showing the consequences of his actions. The relays blowing up, the citadel blowing up, killing Billions and billions of people (remember Shepard killed 300.000 Batarians in Arrival and is well aware of the consequences of a relay blowing up), but we know that the solar systems don´t blow up, so the implication would be implanted by Harbinger as a lie. Also the not so pleasant thought of Joker and his squadmates AND most importantly his love interest (which is ALWAYS shown in the end) being stranded in a distant place with no chance of being found without the relays.

Control and Synthesis? Yes those would be junk endings. Remember: Synthesis is the idea of Saren. What he pursued in ME1. Shepard didn´t thought it was the right way. Control is the idea of TIM, which is what Shepard is fighting against in the game. Destroy is Shepards idea. The only way to end the cycle is to put an end to the Reapers once and for all.

In his mind the Reapers try to switch the choices. Destroy being red and the drastic choice and control is blue, which is the "good" none violent choice, which also would not kill the geth and EDI.