57139 réponses à ce sujet

[LumbercracK]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Oh with line 1. of my previous post, I know this to be true, becuase yesterday I played the run to the beam scene and made my shep run to a large amount of trees to the far right of the section and that was some way off from the point where harbs beam hits you, and I waited there for 20 secs and then harb just turns to you and shoots you. Then suddenly you wake up right next to the conduit.

So what does this mean, did harb have some husk drag my unconsious shep all the way over to there. I would to think what else they could have done to him while he was out cold.

Anti IDT argument: It's because the devs didn't want you to have to walk another hundred yards to reach the conduit?

My argument: if that is the case.. why the **** wouldn't they just have harbinger shoot you with the beam right before reaching it? We know he could easily have done that as well.

Answer. The scene was all made and placed allong with your char. once your hit(no matter where your hit) you revert to a scene where you are auto placed in the center of a wreckage funnel. In the worse endings you have your squadmates right in front of you dead(so you see them without looking back). 
They just botched it is all that happened. Noone told the guy setting the scene how far back you'd be shot.

[Auralius Carolus]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Ok I am going to make a list of the things that make no f**king sense in the citadel return segment of the game unless it is a *cough* dream *cough*.

1. When harby hits you with his beam, you are still alittle far out from the conduit, but when you wake up you are within spitting distance of it.
2. your gun now has snakes bandana (infinite ammo) and can kill anything in one shot.
3. All the bodie piles around the beam (though low quality graphics) are all of ash and kaidan in outfits from ME1)
4. once aboard the citadel, the first room has hints of collector base and dead reaper (piles of bodies and cabling)
5. Anderson appears to have beamed up there too, but is in a different part of the citadel despite there being only one way to the control panel.
6. Anderson says he came up after you but still manages to beat you to the control panel without you seeing him.
7. The bridge has parts that look almost exactly the same as parts of the shadow brokers ship.
8. path leading to the room is very similar to the section of the citadel you visit in ME1.
9. Once up next to the control panel, look out to the wards and you can see the traffic still moving around like the people living aboard the citadel are still going about their daily lives without a clue to what is really happening.
10. The IM is now horribly transformed face and now looks very similar to how Saren looked.
11. Also the IM has the same ability as Anderson, to be able to appear out of f**king nowhere.

I coul go on, but then I will be saying pretty much what the IT has already said about it.

And why the heck did the Reapers attack Cerberus, if they had TIM in their pocket?

[Apollo-XL5]

I still think the whole thing is a dream, becuase it just makes NO SENSE. And the devs saying some films they like are Shutter Island etc. Thats got to be a subtle hint right there, I mean why say it otherwise.

[n00bsauce2010]

LumbercracK wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Oh with line 1. of my previous post, I know this to be true, becuase yesterday I played the run to the beam scene and made my shep run to a large amount of trees to the far right of the section and that was some way off from the point where harbs beam hits you, and I waited there for 20 secs and then harb just turns to you and shoots you. Then suddenly you wake up right next to the conduit.

So what does this mean, did harb have some husk drag my unconsious shep all the way over to there. I would to think what else they could have done to him while he was out cold.

Anti IDT argument: It's because the devs didn't want you to have to walk another hundred yards to reach the conduit?

My argument: if that is the case.. why the **** wouldn't they just have harbinger shoot you with the beam right before reaching it? We know he could easily have done that as well.

Answer. The scene was all made and placed allong with your char. once your hit(no matter where your hit) you revert to a scene where you are auto placed in the center of a wreckage funnel. In the worse endings you have your squadmates right in front of you dead(so you see them without looking back). 
They just botched it is all that happened. Noone told the guy setting the scene how far back you'd be shot.

You're always hit at the exact moment you cross a certain point. It is the exact same distance from the conduit for everyone. So it will only differ by a few dozen yards for each person. Not enough to explain why we are teleported up in front of the conduit after being hit.

[CruddierCashew]

LumbercracK wrote...

First off realise i wrote this in response to a previous statement therefore you cannot chastize me for not reading a response you posted while i was typing.
I have read IT articles and watched viedos and i still refute it. You have yet to explain why Star child even needs to tell me i CAN destroy. So what if its my dream of an inner conflict. Why does the person attempting to corrupt my mind explain to me how i can fight him off?


I think the reason is during indoctrination the reapers want you to choose to think like they do, to choose to agree with them. They aren't forcing you, though they are making suggestions. If you choose to destroy, it is your minds way of saying screw you. If you choose the other options, you followed the same path as TIM.

Edit: fixed the quote

Modifié par CruddierCashew, 21 avril 2012 - 12:25 .

[spotlessvoid]

One of the common anti IT arguments is that EA would never allow Bioware to do this.
If EA was truly that hands on, to the point of forcing Bioware away from doing an indoctrination ending, then what is the likeliness off them approving the ending as it stands?

In actuality, this would be a huge positive marketing opportunity for EA.
As in, "Hey, maybe EA isn't really pure evil empire, after all, look at the risk they took allowing Bioware to do the IT ending."

Also, claiming EA didn't know what was happening contradicts the initial argument that they would never allow it.

If people think EA isn't aware of the perception that people have of them, and aren't at least somewhat concerned from a business standpoint, they clearly don't understand big business. The backlash against EA, if it ever came out they stopped Bioware from doing possibly one of the greatest twist endings ever, would be apoplectic.

[LumbercracK]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

I have a really hard time beleiving the EA would let them make a game with a false end. It's even harder to beleive When EA is getting hurt bad in stocks and has a golden POO award, that they would be fine with letting this rage go on. 

I can understand the idea that the trees from the dreams are their and that things are wierd in allot of ways. But i cannot imagine a creative director deciding to make a dream sequence look like one by making it glitchy and inconsistant. 

The other big question is if IT is true Then why do the relays get destroyed. Shep should know thats a terrible thing. Why arent the options presented with a better set of options if their not even real.

Essentially my argument is: If IT is true and this is all a dream to convince sheppard to become indoctrinated then why is the attempt to convince shep so weak? Why is shep not given better options? Why do they even explain the destroy option?

Saren was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Join us or Die.
TIM was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Control them or humanity will not succeed.
Why is shep's Join/control us or the geth die?

It is such a weak attempt to indoctrinate.

How exactly is it weak?

Shepard has been given the ultimatum many times and ignored it. Obviously with a strong-willed individual.. it doesn't work so easily.

Saren and TIM were indoctrinated with ultimatums easily because their willpower was utter sh*t.

To indoctrinate shepard, they have to trick him...and it has to be subtle. He cannot know that an indoctrination attempt is occuring or else he would easily reject it... just as he has before with Sovereign or Harbinger.

It doesn't really matter what the options are. There is one good and one bad.. and then the compromise made in order to trick Shepard even more. They are making shepard believe these options are viable.. and his mind is telling himself that he has made the right decision...no matter if it leads to him being indoctrinated.

Its weak because if they really want sheppard to take control they would do this.
Hi shep. You have two options. take control and tell us to go home, the relays will be destroyed. r jump into the beam. The relays will be destroyed and everyone will become half synthetic creating peace. Which will you do.
"What about that ramp there?"
"thats for maintainance."

You see what im getting at. They go out of their way to explain how to do exactly what they dont want you to do.
Why. 

Furthermore why is their this big show about indoctrinating shep while hes knocked out. All harbinger has to do is stay by the beacon or turn it off and they win. Their is no need to indoctrinate shep if you just make sure he cant reach the citadel.

[Apollo-XL5]

Oh about the wards on the citadel arms, before you open them, they are lit up, but once they are open, they are turned off, until the crucible energy lights them up again right when it releases its energy.

[SS2Dante]

spotlessvoid wrote...

One of the common anti IT arguments is that EA would never allow Bioware to do this.
If EA was truly that hands on, to the point of forcing Bioware away from doing an indoctrination ending, then what is the likeliness off them approving the ending as it stands?

In actuality, this would be a huge positive marketing opportunity for EA.
As in, "Hey, maybe EA isn't really pure evil empire, after all, look at the risk they took allowing Bioware to do the IT ending."

Also, claiming EA didn't know what was happening contradicts the initial argument that they would never allow it.

If people think EA isn't aware of the perception that people have of them, and aren't at least somewhat concerned from a business standpoint, they clearly don't understand big business. The backlash against EA, if it ever came out they stopped Bioware from doing possibly one of the greatest twist endings ever, would be apoplectic.

Not only that, but they lose no sales in the short run (anyone who liked ME1 and 2 would buy three, regardless of any problems with the ending that surface). In the long run, they see a chance for a marketing explosion just when the game starts to lose the spotlight. DLC out BAM ME3 in the headlines again. Scores improved, sales improved. 

[n00bsauce2010]

LumbercracK wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

I have a really hard time beleiving the EA would let them make a game with a false end. It's even harder to beleive When EA is getting hurt bad in stocks and has a golden POO award, that they would be fine with letting this rage go on. 

I can understand the idea that the trees from the dreams are their and that things are wierd in allot of ways. But i cannot imagine a creative director deciding to make a dream sequence look like one by making it glitchy and inconsistant. 

The other big question is if IT is true Then why do the relays get destroyed. Shep should know thats a terrible thing. Why arent the options presented with a better set of options if their not even real.

Essentially my argument is: If IT is true and this is all a dream to convince sheppard to become indoctrinated then why is the attempt to convince shep so weak? Why is shep not given better options? Why do they even explain the destroy option?

Saren was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Join us or Die.
TIM was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Control them or humanity will not succeed.
Why is shep's Join/control us or the geth die?

It is such a weak attempt to indoctrinate.

How exactly is it weak?

Shepard has been given the ultimatum many times and ignored it. Obviously with a strong-willed individual.. it doesn't work so easily.

Saren and TIM were indoctrinated with ultimatums easily because their willpower was utter sh*t.

To indoctrinate shepard, they have to trick him...and it has to be subtle. He cannot know that an indoctrination attempt is occuring or else he would easily reject it... just as he has before with Sovereign or Harbinger.

It doesn't really matter what the options are. There is one good and one bad.. and then the compromise made in order to trick Shepard even more. They are making shepard believe these options are viable.. and his mind is telling himself that he has made the right decision...no matter if it leads to him being indoctrinated.

Its weak because if they really want sheppard to take control they would do this.
Hi shep. You have two options. take control and tell us to go home, the relays will be destroyed. r jump into the beam. The relays will be destroyed and everyone will become half synthetic creating peace. Which will you do.
"What about that ramp there?"
"thats for maintainance."

You see what im getting at. They go out of their way to explain how to do exactly what they dont want you to do.
Why. 

Furthermore why is their this big show about indoctrinating shep while hes knocked out. All harbinger has to do is stay by the beacon or turn it off and they win. Their is no need to indoctrinate shep if you just make sure he cant reach the citadel.

Shepard would call bull**** if he was locked out of logical options. IF they simply told him they could not be destroyed...he would question the validity of the childs statement. Therefore by giving him the choice and tricking him into thinking it is a poor option as opposed to the others, it is less likely shepard (you) will pick it. We have spent 2.95 games waiting to destroy these bastards.. and then at the end they tell us we can't destroy them? Sorry I'd call bull****.

[Apollo-XL5]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Oh with line 1. of my previous post, I know this to be true, becuase yesterday I played the run to the beam scene and made my shep run to a large amount of trees to the far right of the section and that was some way off from the point where harbs beam hits you, and I waited there for 20 secs and then harb just turns to you and shoots you. Then suddenly you wake up right next to the conduit.

So what does this mean, did harb have some husk drag my unconsious shep all the way over to there. I would to think what else they could have done to him while he was out cold.

Anti IDT argument: It's because the devs didn't want you to have to walk another hundred yards to reach the conduit?

My argument: if that is the case.. why the **** wouldn't they just have harbinger shoot you with the beam right before reaching it? We know he could easily have done that as well.

Answer. The scene was all made and placed allong with your char. once your hit(no matter where your hit) you revert to a scene where you are auto placed in the center of a wreckage funnel. In the worse endings you have your squadmates right in front of you dead(so you see them without looking back). 
They just botched it is all that happened. Noone told the guy setting the scene how far back you'd be shot.

You're always hit at the exact moment you cross a certain point. It is the exact same distance from the conduit for everyone. So it will only differ by a few dozen yards for each person. Not enough to explain why we are teleported up in front of the conduit after being hit.

I never crossed that point of no return, I ran enough of the way to be close, but never passed it, I then ran as far right as I could, toward all those bare trees and then just waited.  Harb then attacked me after a while.

[LumbercracK]

OK since their are so many against me
1 they gave saren an ultimatum they never tod him oh you can just not help us and we might not get their
2 so what if your hit at an exact line. Im just saying noone told the guy making the scene how far back the line was. He made it close. the line was far.
3 Do you honestly beleive ea would OK a 5 year 3 game project where the ending is fake and you dont admit it for 4 months letting your fanbase just rot in hatred of you.

[SS2Dante]

LumbercracK wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

I have a really hard time beleiving the EA would let them make a game with a false end. It's even harder to beleive When EA is getting hurt bad in stocks and has a golden POO award, that they would be fine with letting this rage go on. 

I can understand the idea that the trees from the dreams are their and that things are wierd in allot of ways. But i cannot imagine a creative director deciding to make a dream sequence look like one by making it glitchy and inconsistant. 

The other big question is if IT is true Then why do the relays get destroyed. Shep should know thats a terrible thing. Why arent the options presented with a better set of options if their not even real.

Essentially my argument is: If IT is true and this is all a dream to convince sheppard to become indoctrinated then why is the attempt to convince shep so weak? Why is shep not given better options? Why do they even explain the destroy option?

Saren was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Join us or Die.
TIM was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Control them or humanity will not succeed.
Why is shep's Join/control us or the geth die?

It is such a weak attempt to indoctrinate.

How exactly is it weak?

Shepard has been given the ultimatum many times and ignored it. Obviously with a strong-willed individual.. it doesn't work so easily.

Saren and TIM were indoctrinated with ultimatums easily because their willpower was utter sh*t.

To indoctrinate shepard, they have to trick him...and it has to be subtle. He cannot know that an indoctrination attempt is occuring or else he would easily reject it... just as he has before with Sovereign or Harbinger.

It doesn't really matter what the options are. There is one good and one bad.. and then the compromise made in order to trick Shepard even more. They are making shepard believe these options are viable.. and his mind is telling himself that he has made the right decision...no matter if it leads to him being indoctrinated.

Its weak because if they really want sheppard to take control they would do this.
Hi shep. You have two options. take control and tell us to go home, the relays will be destroyed. r jump into the beam. The relays will be destroyed and everyone will become half synthetic creating peace. Which will you do.
"What about that ramp there?"
"thats for maintainance."

You see what im getting at. They go out of their way to explain how to do exactly what they dont want you to do.
Why. 

Furthermore why is their this big show about indoctrinating shep while hes knocked out. All harbinger has to do is stay by the beacon or turn it off and they win. Their is no need to indoctrinate shep if you just make sure he cant reach the citadel.

LumbercrackK apparently doesn't understand the concept of "choice" and "free will". Or symbolism. Or the value of recruting humanities saviour to the Reapers side.

Good luck, noobsauce

[EpyonX3]

So three of the dream files are of the child saying what he said on earth stretched out a bit at first but sped up the end mixed with a tone.

The three say:

1) "You can't help me"
2) I believe he says "Help"
3) "Everyone's dieing"

Some of the weird backwards sounding gibberish is actually multiple files being triggered at once. Individually they don't sound as scary.

[Auralius Carolus]

LumbercracK wrote...

Its weak because if they really want sheppard to take control they would do this.
Hi shep. You have two options. take control and tell us to go home, the relays will be destroyed. r jump into the beam. The relays will be destroyed and everyone will become half synthetic creating peace. Which will you do.
"What about that ramp there?"
"thats for maintainance."

You see what im getting at. They go out of their way to explain how to do exactly what they dont want you to do.
Why. 

Furthermore why is their this big show about indoctrinating shep while hes knocked out. All harbinger has to do is stay by the beacon or turn it off and they win. Their is no need to indoctrinate shep if you just make sure he cant reach the citadel.

Some things cannot be explained any better through the IT than through face-value interpretation. Maybe Harbinger can't turn off the beam, maybe he's too proud to. We don't know. Why does the Catalyst openly show you how to end its work? We don't know!

Just like those people who take it at value, Indoc. Theorists have to stift through a WHOLE lot of crap. It's just that we come to the conclusion that it's not entirely crap.

[n00bsauce2010]

LumbercracK wrote...

OK since their are so many against me
1 they gave saren an ultimatum they never tod him oh you can just not help us and we might not get their
2 so what if your hit at an exact line. Im just saying noone told the guy making the scene how far back the line was. He made it close. the line was far.
3 Do you honestly beleive ea would OK a 5 year 3 game project where the ending is fake and you dont admit it for 4 months letting your fanbase just rot in hatred of you.

By your statements you seem to understand how the gaming business works. So therefore you should not be posting in this forum and instead be working for EA making big bucks with your insane amount of knowledge?

EA did not know the ending of the game when they signed the deal with Bioware. And I'd assume Bioware didn't know about it either.

[Apollo-XL5]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

LumbercracK wrote...

I have a really hard time beleiving the EA would let them make a game with a false end. It's even harder to beleive When EA is getting hurt bad in stocks and has a golden POO award, that they would be fine with letting this rage go on. 

I can understand the idea that the trees from the dreams are their and that things are wierd in allot of ways. But i cannot imagine a creative director deciding to make a dream sequence look like one by making it glitchy and inconsistant. 

The other big question is if IT is true Then why do the relays get destroyed. Shep should know thats a terrible thing. Why arent the options presented with a better set of options if their not even real.

Essentially my argument is: If IT is true and this is all a dream to convince sheppard to become indoctrinated then why is the attempt to convince shep so weak? Why is shep not given better options? Why do they even explain the destroy option?

Saren was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Join us or Die.
TIM was indoctrinated with the ultimatum, Control them or humanity will not succeed.
Why is shep's Join/control us or the geth die?

It is such a weak attempt to indoctrinate.

How exactly is it weak?

Shepard has been given the ultimatum many times and ignored it. Obviously with a strong-willed individual.. it doesn't work so easily.

Saren and TIM were indoctrinated with ultimatums easily because their willpower was utter sh*t.

To indoctrinate shepard, they have to trick him...and it has to be subtle. He cannot know that an indoctrination attempt is occuring or else he would easily reject it... just as he has before with Sovereign or Harbinger.

It doesn't really matter what the options are. There is one good and one bad.. and then the compromise made in order to trick Shepard even more. They are making shepard believe these options are viable.. and his mind is telling himself that he has made the right decision...no matter if it leads to him being indoctrinated.

Its weak because if they really want sheppard to take control they would do this.
Hi shep. You have two options. take control and tell us to go home, the relays will be destroyed. r jump into the beam. The relays will be destroyed and everyone will become half synthetic creating peace. Which will you do.
"What about that ramp there?"
"thats for maintainance."

You see what im getting at. They go out of their way to explain how to do exactly what they dont want you to do.
Why. 

Furthermore why is their this big show about indoctrinating shep while hes knocked out. All harbinger has to do is stay by the beacon or turn it off and they win. Their is no need to indoctrinate shep if you just make sure he cant reach the citadel.

Shepard would call bull**** if he was locked out of logical options. IF they simply told him they could not be destroyed...he would question the validity of the childs statement. Therefore by giving him the choice and tricking him into thinking it is a poor option as opposed to the others, it is less likely shepard (you) will pick it. We have spent 2.95 games waiting to destroy these bastards.. and then at the end they tell us we can't destroy them? Sorry I'd call bull****.

Yes thats right, its called reverse psychology.
You present the choice that the person was going to originally make, but you make it sound like the worset thing in the world to do, but then you also give two choices that sound much better than the original choice and the person is more inclined to go for one of them instead,

[Big Bad]

One potential argument in favor of IT that I don't think is brought up enough is the fact that the ending, if taken at face value, goes out of its way to contradict many of the series' major themes up to this point. I am sure are more thematic contradictions, but these are two that stick out to me:

1)Non-determinism - If what the star child says is true, then Shepard lives in what is an essentially deterministic universe. No matter what Shepard - or anybody else does - his actions will not and can not have any real impact on the trajectory of history. The starchild says that synthetics are not only likely to wipe out organic life, but they are destined to do it!

If that is true, then what the hell was the point of Legion's character and of the peacemaking between Quarians and Geth? Was it just to get a few more war assets? I call bull**** on that. Is Legion's willingness to join forces with organics to defeat the Reapers just an aberration that has no importance in the long run? For chrissakes, he sacrifices himself for the sake of peace - and then we're just supposed to turn around and accept the notion that his death was ultimately just a big ****ing joke? And why has the ME series gone out of its way to demonstrate that there is no reason why synthetics and organics have to be in conflict, only to get to the end and say, "Haha, we were just kidding about that stuff. Your two civilizations are predestined to remain in mortal conflict until all biological life is dead!" I mean, really? The starchild presents absolutely no evidence to backup this extraordinary claim, and we're just supposed to take his word for it? Hell no.

2) The futility of attempting to control the Reapers - one of the major themes of ME3 is that if a person sets out to control the Reapers, what he ultimately ends up doing is serving their purposes. Hell, TIM learns that lesson in a pretty harsh way just moments before Shepard meets the starchild, but then Shepard is supposed to ignore that lesson completely and decide, against all available evidence, that control is not only a viable option, but it is the "paragon" option? To quote the esteemable Chewbacca Defense, "THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!"

Sorry, that turned out to be more of a rant than I intended. I guess I just needed to get that off my chest.

[EpyonX3]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Ok I am going to make a list of the things that make no f**king sense in the citadel return segment of the game unless it is a *cough* dream *cough*.

1. When harby hits you with his beam, you are still alittle far out from the conduit, but when you wake up you are within spitting distance of it.
2. your gun now has snakes bandana (infinite ammo) and can kill anything in one shot.
3. All the bodie piles around the beam (though low quality graphics) are all of ash and kaidan in outfits from ME1)
4. once aboard the citadel, the first room has hints of collector base and dead reaper (piles of bodies and cabling)
5. Anderson appears to have beamed up there too, but is in a different part of the citadel despite there being only one way to the control panel.
6. Anderson says he came up after you but still manages to beat you to the control panel without you seeing him.
7. The bridge has parts that look almost exactly the same as parts of the shadow brokers ship.
8. path leading to the room is very similar to the section of the citadel you visit in ME1.
9. Once up next to the control panel, look out to the wards and you can see the traffic still moving around like the people living aboard the citadel are still going about their daily lives without a clue to what is really happening.
10. The IM is now horribly transformed face and now looks very similar to how Saren looked.
11. Also the IM has the same ability as Anderson, to be able to appear out of f**king nowhere.

I coul go on, but then I will be saying pretty much what the IT has already said about it.

And why the heck did the Reapers attack Cerberus, if they had TIM in their pocket?

TIM was indoctrinated, but he wasn't exactly in their pocket.

He still had some control over his mind.

[Big Bad]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Hey y'all - I've got a request. Yesterday it was mentioned in the thread that at one point, one of the devs posted a tweet about how they all liked the movies "Shutter Island" and "Sixth Sense." Now obviously, these are two movies that both have twist endings, so I think this could be an important statement, if true.

Does anybody have a link to that tweet? Or can you at least confirm that you saw it?

Thanks!

Look, if it'll help ya out, I'll see if I can find it.

Don't feel obligated to, but that would be cool.

I hope you don't think that I think you're lying or something, because I don't.  I'm just one of those "trust but verify" people.

Oh I know, and beleive you me, it's proving elusive. Or Illusive if you prefer.

I know I saw the thing, screen capture, might even have been in this very thread, but it was probably sometime around 700 pages. Goddamn, I've been here that long? Yeesh.

****. I found it, it was a fan, one Dan Bradshaw tweeting to Bioware, 

Bradshaw: You know what movies I like? the 6th Sense and Shutter Island *wink* *wink*

Mass Effect: I think we see what you are saying.

Bradshaw: Good. because you know what I don't like? LOST!

Thanks!!  I guess I really don't know what to make of that, since the ME guy didn't really take the bait.

[SS2Dante]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Ok I am going to make a list of the things that make no f**king sense in the citadel return segment of the game unless it is a *cough* dream *cough*.

1. When harby hits you with his beam, you are still alittle far out from the conduit, but when you wake up you are within spitting distance of it.
2. your gun now has snakes bandana (infinite ammo) and can kill anything in one shot.
3. All the bodie piles around the beam (though low quality graphics) are all of ash and kaidan in outfits from ME1)
4. once aboard the citadel, the first room has hints of collector base and dead reaper (piles of bodies and cabling)
5. Anderson appears to have beamed up there too, but is in a different part of the citadel despite there being only one way to the control panel.
6. Anderson says he came up after you but still manages to beat you to the control panel without you seeing him.
7. The bridge has parts that look almost exactly the same as parts of the shadow brokers ship.
8. path leading to the room is very similar to the section of the citadel you visit in ME1.
9. Once up next to the control panel, look out to the wards and you can see the traffic still moving around like the people living aboard the citadel are still going about their daily lives without a clue to what is really happening.
10. The IM is now horribly transformed face and now looks very similar to how Saren looked.
11. Also the IM has the same ability as Anderson, to be able to appear out of f**king nowhere.

I coul go on, but then I will be saying pretty much what the IT has already said about it.

And why the heck did the Reapers attack Cerberus, if they had TIM in their pocket?

TIM was indoctrinated, but he wasn't exactly in their pocket.

He still had some control over his mind.

True. Saren was pretty far gone but they still had to give him implants to keep him under control.

[SS2Dante]

Big Bad wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Big Bad wrote...

Hey y'all - I've got a request. Yesterday it was mentioned in the thread that at one point, one of the devs posted a tweet about how they all liked the movies "Shutter Island" and "Sixth Sense." Now obviously, these are two movies that both have twist endings, so I think this could be an important statement, if true.

Does anybody have a link to that tweet? Or can you at least confirm that you saw it?

Thanks!

Look, if it'll help ya out, I'll see if I can find it.

Don't feel obligated to, but that would be cool.

I hope you don't think that I think you're lying or something, because I don't.  I'm just one of those "trust but verify" people.

Oh I know, and beleive you me, it's proving elusive. Or Illusive if you prefer.

I know I saw the thing, screen capture, might even have been in this very thread, but it was probably sometime around 700 pages. Goddamn, I've been here that long? Yeesh.

****. I found it, it was a fan, one Dan Bradshaw tweeting to Bioware, 

Bradshaw: You know what movies I like? the 6th Sense and Shutter Island *wink* *wink*

Mass Effect: I think we see what you are saying.

Bradshaw: Good. because you know what I don't like? LOST!

Thanks!!  I guess I really don't know what to make of that, since the ME guy didn't really take the bait.

IT or not, they've got their employees on an amazingly tight leesh. Impressive for such a large company.

[SS2Dante]

Big Bad wrote...

One potential argument in favor of IT that I don't think is brought up enough is the fact that the ending, if taken at face value, goes out of its way to contradict many of the series' major themes up to this point. I am sure are more thematic contradictions, but these are two that stick out to me:

1)Non-determinism - If what the star child says is true, then Shepard lives in what is an essentially deterministic universe. No matter what Shepard - or anybody else does - his actions will not and can not have any real impact on the trajectory of history. The starchild says that synthetics are not only likely to wipe out organic life, but they are destined to do it!

If that is true, then what the hell was the point of Legion's character and of the peacemaking between Quarians and Geth? Was it just to get a few more war assets? I call bull**** on that. Is Legion's willingness to join forces with organics to defeat the Reapers just an aberration that has no importance in the long run? For chrissakes, he sacrifices himself for the sake of peace - and then we're just supposed to turn around and accept the notion that his death was ultimately just a big ****ing joke? And why has the ME series gone out of its way to demonstrate that there is no reason why synthetics and organics have to be in conflict, only to get to the end and say, "Haha, we were just kidding about that stuff. Your two civilizations are predestined to remain in mortal conflict until all biological life is dead!" I mean, really? The starchild presents absolutely no evidence to backup this extraordinary claim, and we're just supposed to take his word for it? Hell no.

2) The futility of attempting to control the Reapers - one of the major themes of ME3 is that if a person sets out to control the Reapers, what he ultimately ends up doing is serving their purposes. Hell, TIM learns that lesson in a pretty harsh way just moments before Shepard meets the starchild, but then Shepard is supposed to ignore that lesson completely and decide, against all available evidence, that control is not only a viable option, but it is the "paragon" option? To quote the esteemable Chewbacca Defense, "THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!"

Sorry, that turned out to be more of a rant than I intended. I guess I just needed to get that off my chest.

...you have no idea how much I want their to be a Mass Effect 3 defense. Just get the South Park people to remake the same scene. But with this.

...the scene would probably go on for a while...

[Apollo-XL5]

Bioware are just holding all their cards close to their chests and not revealing anything while we continue to speculate (which BW did say they wanted to see us do). Its the same with WBs keeping all the info on Dark knight rises under lock and key, which is why right now all we really know is that bane and catwoman are in it, so are the league of shadows and thats about it.

[spotlessvoid]

LumbercracK wrote...

OK since their are so many against me
1 they gave saren an ultimatum they never tod him oh you can just not help us and we might not get their
2 so what if your hit at an exact line. Im just saying noone told the guy making the scene how far back the line was. He made it close. the line was far.
3 Do you honestly beleive ea would OK a 5 year 3 game project where the ending is fake and you dont admit it for 4 months letting your fanbase just rot in hatred of you.

1. Saren is motivated exclusively by individual self preservation While Shepard is mostly altruistic and willing to sacrifice his life for the greater good of the galaxy.
2. Meh, who knows. Really not of any significant importance.
3. So EA would stop Bioware from doing a twist ending requiring further DLC to expand, but allow an ending that is immediately obvious as being totally crap while simultaneously burning their IP to the ground?