57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Big G13]

I've only read the last page so I'm jumping in in the middle here, but, I just read an artical in Forbes dated april 13th with the head line, "Bioware falsely advertised Mass Effect 3, says Better Business Bureau." Have y'all discused this? Does it even matter? Thoughts?

[Arian Dynas]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

Oh.  I forgot how happy their current responses are making everyone.

really? As far as I can tell theres a substantial amount of people happy with the extended cut dlc.

They're happy with the idea. How can you be happy with something you haven't seen?

[Golferguy758]

Well, we'll find out soonish on what the hell is going on at least.

[Dwailing]

Big G13 wrote...

I've only read the last page so I'm jumping in in the middle here, but, I just read an artical in Forbes dated april 13th with the head line, "Bioware falsely advertised Mass Effect 3, says Better Business Bureau." Have y'all discused this? Does it even matter? Thoughts?

WHOA.  The BBB is saying that ME3 was falsely advertised?  To quote Kasumi, "Wow, just, wow."

[n00bsauce2010]

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

Oh.  I forgot how happy their current responses are making everyone.

really? As far as I can tell theres a substantial amount of people happy with the extended cut dlc.

They're happy with the idea. How can you be happy with something you haven't seen?

The "idea" is what I mean. No one knows exactly whats in it. But sadly for everyone to go around saying IT was definitely planned is insane.. when we don't really know. I support the theory.. but i don't support the notion that it was planned from the start. I will gladly sit back and revel in Bioware's greatness when definitive evidence proves my wrong.

[OdanUrr]

Hawk227 wrote...

Indoctrination is transmitted through some frequency that gets into you brain. This is discussed in ME1 (virmire), ME2 (Arrival, and Chorban emails you about the Keepers having a weird frequency) and ME3 (Sanctuary). Plus a bunch of side missions throughout. Reaper tech gives off indoctrination frequencies. That's why its so dangerous. If they made a reaper pyramid I would expect it to indoctrinate you. Yes.

In ME1, it is Sovereign who indoctrinates. The weird frequency Chorban was talking about probably had to do with the deactivated Reaper signal that was meant to make the Keepers open the dark space relay.

In ME2's Arrival, Object Rho is not some broken piece of furniture, it was probably created so that it would allow some sort of long-range indoctrination, most likely a similar object to the one TIM found in Evolution. I suspect this object could also be designed to inject nanites into whomever touches the object, but this is pure speculation and not really supported by facts (otherwise, there would have been husks in Arrival and I don't remember any). Also, either I'm not familiar with the codex enough, or it has yet to be explained how the Reaper artifact came to be.

The Sanctuary Project in ME3 is... curious. If I remember it correctly, the Illusive Man is trying to figure out how the Reapers maintain control over their troops, the husks. Henry Lawson finds out that it's merely a signal and they succeed in subverting it, if only partially due to an issue of range. Perhaps it's me but I believe there's a difference, if only a slight one, between indoctrination and the control a Reaper has over a husk. Indoctrination does not require implants to work and yet the husks are created through nanite technology. One could argue that the nanites are there to transform the being into some sort of organic-synthetic hybrid and also to alter the brain's chemistry so that it will make the subject fully susceptible to the Reaper indoctrination signal. I can live with that.

Remember, this "indoctrination signal," which is probably some sort of electromagnetic signal that interacts with the brain's chemistry (thus making it more susceptible to Reaper manipulation), is not foolproof. Saren and TIM both fought it, even after they were implanted (though I have my own theory on how this could have happened). Hmm... sounds similar to what the Yuuzhan Vong used... ah, whatever.

In any case, my theory is that reverse-engineering of the Reaper control signal would not have allowed control over the Reapers themselves. No, only the Catalyst was able to control the Reapers at some point, so TIM would have been better off studying the Reapers themselves and not their thralls.

Bottomline is, no, not all Reaper tech indoctrinates. Just look at the mass relays. That would be the perfect way to indoctrinate people.

[Big G13]

Dwailing wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

I've only read the last page so I'm jumping in in the middle here, but, I just read an artical in Forbes dated april 13th with the head line, "Bioware falsely advertised Mass Effect 3, says Better Business Bureau." Have y'all discused this? Does it even matter? Thoughts?

WHOA.  The BBB is saying that ME3 was falsely advertised?  To quote Kasumi, "Wow, just, wow."

FINALLY, I was able to tell you something you didn't already know.

[n00bsauce2010]

Big G13 wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Big G13 wrote...

I've only read the last page so I'm jumping in in the middle here, but, I just read an artical in Forbes dated april 13th with the head line, "Bioware falsely advertised Mass Effect 3, says Better Business Bureau." Have y'all discused this? Does it even matter? Thoughts?

WHOA.  The BBB is saying that ME3 was falsely advertised?  To quote Kasumi, "Wow, just, wow."

FINALLY, I was able to tell you something you didn't already know.

If that is indeed true then I see a massive **** storm in the future of EA

[Gormane01]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

But the problem with that is seeing the statements the way you want to. You can either see it as them saying just leading fans on in order to let the hate/rage blow over or them saying "yes" to IT. The problem with the whole thing is that too many fans go upset over the ending much too fast. If it wasn't for the outrage then the answer would seem more definitive. They wouldn't have a reason to try and lead people on with doublespeak.

Oh.  I forgot how happy their current responses are making everyone.

really? As far as I can tell theres a substantial amount of people happy with the extended cut dlc.

They're happy with the idea. How can you be happy with something you haven't seen?

The "idea" is what I mean. No one knows exactly whats in it. But sadly for everyone to go around saying IT was definitely planned is insane.. when we don't really know. I support the theory.. but i don't support the notion that it was planned from the start. I will gladly sit back and revel in Bioware's greatness when definitive evidence proves my wrong.

'Happy' isn't the word you want, hopeful is better. I think most people don't want to be angry/upset with Bioware, we are their fans, we feel like their mates, last thing I wanna do is be upset with my mates so this DLC gives me the option to be 'happy' with them again.

Regarding the IT, it's compelling it's awesome, but I am kinda with you I find it hard to believe they planned it (not impossible, just hard) but the choice as I see it is;
 

• you either have to believe they did an awful job with their story telling and the garbage the current ending is was intentional,
• or IT was planned and they did an awful job with estimating the fan reaction and handling PR

I don't know which they did (or which is a better/worse option), I just want them to fix it...

[EpyonX3]

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

I agree. People are overthinking this and are comingup with evidence that isn't there. The whole Anderson thing bugs me the most. There is nothing in that scene to indicate that it's all going on in his head and what the characters represent in his mind.

[n00bsauce2010]

Gormane01 wrote...


'Happy' isn't the word you want, hopeful is better. I think most people don't want to be angry/upset with Bioware, we are their fans, we feel like their mates, last thing I wanna do is be upset with my mates so this DLC gives me the option to be 'happy' with them again.

Regarding the IT, it's compelling it's awesome, but I am kinda with you I find it hard to believe they planned it (not impossible, just hard) but the choice as I see it is;
 

• you either have to believe they did an awful job with their story telling and the garbage the current ending is was intentional,
• or IT was planned and they did an awful job with estimating the fan reaction and handling PR

I don't know which they did (or which is a better/worse option), I just want them to fix it...

[*]My exact thoughts ^

[Big G13]

http://www.forbes.co...usiness-bureau/
I have never tryed to add a link before, so, if this doesn't work I appologize in advance.

[n00bsauce2010]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

I agree. People are overthinking this and are comingup with evidence that isn't there. The whole Anderson thing bugs me the most. There is nothing in that scene to indicate that it's all going on in his head and what the characters represent in his mind.

sadly you're mistaken. the bullet one seems most definitive to suggest it is in shepards mind.

[EpyonX3]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

I agree. People are overthinking this and are comingup with evidence that isn't there. The whole Anderson thing bugs me the most. There is nothing in that scene to indicate that it's all going on in his head and what the characters represent in his mind.

sadly you're mistaken. the bullet one seems most definitive to suggest it is in shepards mind.

Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

[OdanUrr]

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I really like the part where he asks how come Shepard's own head isn't blown off (or something similar) when TIM shoots Anderson.

[paxxton]

Domanese wrote...

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?" 

Like those supermarket-security-like soldiers watching Shepard on the Normandy.  Just kidding.

[n00bsauce2010]

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I've seen this video and it's rather poorly explained.

Shepard gets the bullet wound because he is the one inflicting the damage on himself. If TIM isn't real.. then he wouldn't be able to do harm to shepard.. hence.. shooting anderson in the back doesn't have the same effect.
TIM is also "false" therefore he doens't represent sheps true intentions. It makes it more likely that it would happen with anderson since he represents what we've been fighting for since me1.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

I agree. People are overthinking this and are comingup with evidence that isn't there. The whole Anderson thing bugs me the most. There is nothing in that scene to indicate that it's all going on in his head and what the characters represent in his mind.

sadly you're mistaken. the bullet one seems most definitive to suggest it is in shepards mind.

Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

Shepard started bleeding PROFUSELY from the same point he shot Anderson, he may touch his belly for a single short moment, but he pays more attention to his shoulder than his belly. Right when Anderson dies he starts GUSHING.

[slyko227]

byne wrote...

Werent people saying before PAX that Bioware was just going to have plants in the audience to ask only questions they wanted to be asked?

And wasnt the IT question the only ending question asked?

Not that I actually think Bioware had plants or anything, I'm just saying

honestly you never really know, one of my friends went to this panel, and their last question was way out there, with all the people upset about the ending, there was only the one about I.T., it is kind of hard to understand why some of the questions asked where asked

[Arian Dynas]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Domanese wrote...

Speculation for all!

But seriously Im going to quote a movie quote here that might be relevant for this thread.

"It's a huge mistake to theorize before one has data. Inevitably one begins to twist facts to suit theories instead of theories to suit facts."

There is a question I honestly had to ask myself once I heard said. The question being,

"Are we twisting the facts in game to suit the theory or is it the other way around?"

I also think the people that are against IT should also ask that as well. Might get around to reevaluate what we know in game. Personally I just look at in game facts rather then everything else. I ignore the twitters, the comments and such, because they are double talking and avoiding the questions they are unwilling to answer. (Probably because we are so rabid.)

Food for thought.

I agree. People are overthinking this and are comingup with evidence that isn't there. The whole Anderson thing bugs me the most. There is nothing in that scene to indicate that it's all going on in his head and what the characters represent in his mind.

Oh REALLY?<_<

So... the trees and bushes that suddenly grew within the 5 minutes after Harbinger left aren't a sign? The blurred horizon, usually indicative of dreams and seen nowhere else in the game EXCEPT DREAM SEQUENCES, is not a sign? Then I suppose neither is Anderson somehow learning to teleport, Hackett learning you arent dead within 5 minutes and speaking to you telepathically, TIM's brand spanking new manipulative powers, or why your gun suddely became the same Carnifex Mordin gave you, or why it is that it never requires reloading, unlike the beginning of the game where even though you had unlimited ammo for certain segments, you still had to reload, doesn't happen to be a sign either.

Perhaps seeing piles of dramitically, shifted, and perhaps mutated would be a better word, piles of bodies, all of the same two people, wearing *Gasp* Kaiden and Ashley's armor, all with JENKINS' FACE, doll-like forms and bearing a resemblance to the piles of bodies in the Collector ship isn't either. Nor is the Illusive' man's complte lack of interest in the console, or his complete 180 flip on his motivations, going from "I don't need you to agree with me" to "I must make you understand and side with me" isn't either. How about that platform that SUDDENLY APPEARS AFTER THE WHOLE SCENE? THAT A MISTAKE TOO?

How about that wound that Shepard inflicts on Anderson, instead having it appear on his own body instead of the admiral's, must just be a graphical glitch, huh? NOT AT ALL A SIGN OF SOMETHING, IS IT? MUST BE UNIMPORTANT.

[balance5050]

EpyonX3 wrote...




Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

The whole Anderson thing is more subliminal anyway, not nearly I.T.'s strongest evidence.

[OdanUrr]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I've seen this video and it's rather poorly explained.

Shepard gets the bullet wound because he is the one inflicting the damage on himself. If TIM isn't real.. then he wouldn't be able to do harm to shepard.. hence.. shooting anderson in the back doesn't have the same effect.
TIM is also "false" therefore he doens't represent sheps true intentions. It makes it more likely that it would happen with anderson since he represents what we've been fighting for since me1.

Why not? Doesn't Shepard have some kind of Renegade interrupt to prevent TIM from shooting Anderson?

[EpyonX3]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I've seen this video and it's rather poorly explained.

Shepard gets the bullet wound because he is the one inflicting the damage on himself. If TIM isn't real.. then he wouldn't be able to do harm to shepard.. hence.. shooting anderson in the back doesn't have the same effect.
TIM is also "false" therefore he doens't represent sheps true intentions. It makes it more likely that it would happen with anderson since he represents what we've been fighting for since me1.

Again, where in the scene does are these rules explained?

Also, he's holding the same spot before he shoots anderson and his arms are already covered in blood. Recently people have been pointing out that Shepard began bleeding out much faster after Anderson dies, but ho does he manage to get all of that blood on both of his hans AND arms?

This can be explained easily by Bioware increasing the level of detail for that particular cinematic section.

[Arian Dynas]

EpyonX3 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I've seen this video and it's rather poorly explained.

Shepard gets the bullet wound because he is the one inflicting the damage on himself. If TIM isn't real.. then he wouldn't be able to do harm to shepard.. hence.. shooting anderson in the back doesn't have the same effect.
TIM is also "false" therefore he doens't represent sheps true intentions. It makes it more likely that it would happen with anderson since he represents what we've been fighting for since me1.

Again, where in the scene does are these rules explained?

Also, he's holding the same spot before he shoots anderson and his arms are already covered in blood. Recently people have been pointing out that Shepard began bleeding out much faster after Anderson dies, but ho does he manage to get all of that blood on both of his hans AND arms?

This can be explained easily by Bioware increasing the level of detail for that particular cinematic section.

...

Pardon me, I'll be right back, I have to sign you up for a logic course.

[n00bsauce2010]

EpyonX3 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...



Start at 0:57 so you understand why I believe that it's not.

I've seen this video and it's rather poorly explained.

Shepard gets the bullet wound because he is the one inflicting the damage on himself. If TIM isn't real.. then he wouldn't be able to do harm to shepard.. hence.. shooting anderson in the back doesn't have the same effect.
TIM is also "false" therefore he doens't represent sheps true intentions. It makes it more likely that it would happen with anderson since he represents what we've been fighting for since me1.

Again, where in the scene does are these rules explained?

Also, he's holding the same spot before he shoots anderson and his arms are already covered in blood. Recently people have been pointing out that Shepard began bleeding out much faster after Anderson dies, but ho does he manage to get all of that blood on both of his hans AND arms?

This can be explained easily by Bioware increasing the level of detail for that particular cinematic section.

Arms covered in blood.. not hands. IF you were just shot in the abdomen I'm pretty sure you'd easily get blood on your arms and hands.