57139 réponses à ce sujet

[ME3endingsucks2]

paxxton and the other guy are obvouisly baffoons so let's just chalk it up to that and return to intelligent discussion.

[Chyliss]

Gerbil Fetus wrote...

Just played through the Geth Concensus mission again.

The Animation shep does as the screen white outs (when he enters a new command Node) is THE SAME as when Shepard gets "hit" by Habinger's Laser.

Shep's defs had his brain haxxord by Harby for an Indoctrination ploy.

You might want to read the thread I created, link in my sig.

[Denvian]

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

Modifié par Denvian, 26 mars 2012 - 04:10 .

[paxxton]

Denvian wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Gernbuster wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I've found a possible flaw in IT. There is a scene in the game that happens in slow-mo and is definately outside of a dream. When you encounter Eva on Mars and she injures one of your squadmates. Then she runs towards Shepard in slow-mo. So maybe the slow-mo gameplay before Shepard is beamed up to the Citadel means nothing. Let's hope not.

I really don't see a connection at all
That moment is just part of nearly every single game, where u are using guns. If i look through my sniper riffle its slow-mo, too XD
Adrenalin pumping situation, action, pistol, limited rounds. It ALWAYS leads to slow-mo. (Cod4)

You have to look on this effect in the context of Mass Effect 3, not all games you've ever played. If slow-mo in ME3 is so important for IT (including the dreams), why use it in other parts of the game?

I don't think it is important to the theory.  It is like when they point out that your gun has unlimited ammo... It really is not one of the biggest peices of evidence at all.  Really I have already written both off as ways of adding tension to the final moments of the game.  

There are so many bigger peices of evidence that I think the theory is hurt by defending them when, as you say, there really is nothing suggesting that IT is the only reason or only precedence for slow motion.  

Unlimited ammo actually supports the theory. Whereas liberal usage of slow-mo throughout the game contradicts it. But I agree that Anderson/Illusive Man as representations for Shepard's psyche is a more compelling evidence that the theory's true. And the starchild fits nicely into the IDT framework.

[ME3endingsucks2]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

Dear god, this again has been expained at naseum. What they mean by it's the real ending is they aren't going to REWRITE anything, because they know what they did is genius and that when they announce it people will see that. They haven't announced it yet to not spoit it for the probably million some people that haven't beaten it yet. Is that too hard for you to grasp?

[lomar1o]

OK GUYS)) I FOUND A GOOD CURE FROM BEING INDOCTRINATED!
Just order Vodka in Purgatory bar and drink it everytime before u go sleep so no nightmares and walking dead boys! get your nervous system some relax. That's all) vodka saves teh day!

[estebanus]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

By aptly analyzing their statements and realize that they neither prove nor disprove this theory!

[paxxton]

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

The husks and maruder shields also move in slow-mo in my game. Yes, you remain civil and don't call me dumb.

[Denvian]

paxxton wrote...

Denvian wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Gernbuster wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I've found a possible flaw in IT. There is a scene in the game that happens in slow-mo and is definately outside of a dream. When you encounter Eva on Mars and she injures one of your squadmates. Then she runs towards Shepard in slow-mo. So maybe the slow-mo gameplay before Shepard is beamed up to the Citadel means nothing. Let's hope not.

I really don't see a connection at all
That moment is just part of nearly every single game, where u are using guns. If i look through my sniper riffle its slow-mo, too XD
Adrenalin pumping situation, action, pistol, limited rounds. It ALWAYS leads to slow-mo. (Cod4)

You have to look on this effect in the context of Mass Effect 3, not all games you've ever played. If slow-mo in ME3 is so important for IT (including the dreams), why use it in other parts of the game?

I don't think it is important to the theory.  It is like when they point out that your gun has unlimited ammo... It really is not one of the biggest peices of evidence at all.  Really I have already written both off as ways of adding tension to the final moments of the game.  

There are so many bigger peices of evidence that I think the theory is hurt by defending them when, as you say, there really is nothing suggesting that IT is the only reason or only precedence for slow motion.  

Unlimited ammo actually supports the theory. Whereas liberal usage of slow-mo throughout the game contradicts it. But I agree that Anderson/Illusive Man as representations for Shepard's psyche is a more compelling evidence that the theory's true. And the starchild fits nicely into the IDT framework.

Sure it supports the theory but in such a minor way becuase there are so many other reasons why you would use it.  I simply think people come onto these forums, see us arguing about textures and slow motion and think that we are grasping at staws when really we have already discussed to death the bigger evidence and want to find more that supports IT.

Modifié par Denvian, 26 mars 2012 - 04:14 .

[Turbotanden]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

Because IDT does not make it not real. Harbinger really is trying to indoctrinate Shepard. That is what is happening and it is real. That does not mean it is over, it means we want the rest of the real ending. Bioware saying they are not changing the ending but adding to it fits perfectly with this idea.

[ME3endingsucks2]

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

Sorry I'm woo-sahing it up right now and I'm back to chill, but I am just at my witts end with these fuddy duddies who are to dense to see what is right in front of them and just rather **** about the people at bioware who are way smarter than they are and know what they are doing because um you know, it's what they are paid to do.

[ChuckieJ]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

They have not said exactly that. They have said they believe in the artistic integrity of the ending and that they will clarify and add closure. All of that fits with IT.

[greywardencommander]

paxxton wrote...

I've found a possible flaw in IT. There is a scene in the game that happens in slow-mo and is definately outside of a dream. When you encounter Eva on Mars and she injures one of your squadmates. Then she runs towards Shepard in slow-mo. So maybe the slow-mo gameplay before Shepard is beamed up to the Citadel means nothing. Let's hope not.

I've pointed out the slow motion stuff itself could easily be he's injured, dying whatever like anything when put in the context of 'it's the last of the dreams' because it has a strong resemblance to the dreams so fit into I.T not based on any one fact alone - the one direction walking towards the kid (which is essentially what happens in the end a straight line to the kid from a point where the dream starts, in this case where you just got hit) that's eeringly too like the dream imo thus the endings just 'can't be right' in more than anyway one way.

I.D.T. is just saying hey guys all this stuff is stacking up to suggest that the ending's are a bit off not because of bad writing but that it's all going to be a big plot twist with some big dlc or expansion or whatever (free or otherwise) and that extending it into real life is as breaking the fourth wall as you can get. I point out in my thread (signature) that simple psychology alone should be enough to in that last 10 mins regardless of any clues in the previous 2.95 games. I also point out the simple psychology of why they might have considered it a plot-twist worth taking in real world terms and that in one years time for the most part it would only be remembered for the twist other than a few who will always be 'but they screwed us with ending dlc (even if it was free). Human error seems to account for the endings being rubbish (bad writing for plot holes etc) I say human error just as easily accounts for the current predicament they EXPECTED us to be like wow what an amazing twist I wonder when the answer to did Shepard survive the attempt.

That just like being Revan in KOTOR but the game ending just before you find out and then continuing a few days later, the use of Varric as an unreliable narrator (like the stargazer with the current end) in the framed Narrative in DA2 where stuff didn't happen like that so he goes and changes it to make it more dramatic. Thus the stargazer itself might be the biggest clue that something's still to come.

People keep pointing it out about the wording of the dlc statement
"Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat.."

but I will say again it says 'Shepard has ended the Reaper threat' not 'Shepard has defeated the Reapers'.

In essence the use of the word threat is interesting, threat can mean anything out of context. That can mean 'Shepard ended the Reaper threat on Virmire, Shepard ended the Reaper Threat in ME1 (which he did but he said more was to come after Sovereign and wasn't believed) so that statement alone or how about this 'Shepard ending the Reaper threat on his mind?'

My point being that statement about DLC NEITHER PROVES NOR DISPROVES anything. That's the point just like their PR statements. Just like the 'a SEQUENCE involving indoctrination was dropped because of a GAMEPLAY mechanic' not the idea itself. Why drop it if having a Shepard indoctrinated was important to them clearly, maybe they didn't they just found the easiest way to not have to worry about controlling your ingame mechanic by having you waking up in the DLC knowing you're indoctrinated or not and that not impacting your movement.

They said probably not any post-end dlc? Why because the endings aren't the endings and post GAME dlc isn't the same as post-end if they pick up where he got hit and the last 10 minutes didn't happen anywhere but his mind.

You telling me that (morally questionnable as it maybe if human error can account for the 'script leak' and bad writing human error can miscalculate the backlash) releasing endings after the fact based on your final decision affecting the rest of the game isn't the biggest plot-twist you can think of? Breaking the fourth wall with framed narrative would be a huge achievement. Stargazer who is the narrator, is unreliable (just like Varric), he doesn't know about the clues of indoctrination (just like Shepard and the player didn't until that last moment when your eyes are opened to the fact) and that's why you interpet it differently at the time

How does he know what happened on the citadel is based on an actual event, how do you know that what he said in the end isfabrication (see Varric in DA2) on the fact that Shepard BEAT indoctrination maybe that he succumbed at one point but sacrificed himself to save the galaxy in a glorious suicide or resisted did the right thing then killed himself

What if the 'best ending' just like in ME2 where you had a 'best ending' is based on beating Indoctrination because then in the DLC you can have the best chance of recovering from the attempt (destroy) and get the best ending possible based BUT they account for anyone who chose synthesis (indoctrinated like Saren is) and control (indoctrinated like TIM is) by allowing that to affect the end result in the end? By making it that way they don't need gameplay mechanics, the player knows they're either indoctrinated or not but like Saren and TIM they have some element of free will so all dialogue and cutscenes etc can incorporate an indoctrinated Shepard.

Wouldn't that give you so many possibilities using those three choices along PLUS anything you decided along the series be EXACTLY what we wanted all along anyone who doesn't like the ending purely based on this SHOULD support IDT for this reason alone, the variation is as much as you could imagine.

You can call me someone who analyses too much, it's kind of what I do so whatever, but I'm pointing out that I.T. or not people can read anything in a single sentence based on wording and come to 20 different interpretations thus until confirmed noone is right or wrong people can believe what they want. I will believe in IDT and 'clarification DLC that was always intended' because it was supposed to be story wise (not in terms of the morally questionnable endings to come) the biggest plot-twist in entertainment history, why because it breaks the fourth wall and makes you every bit as inodoctrinated as Shepard. How? Those who select Control and synthesis justify their choice by believing what happened happened and they made the right choice. Those who selected destroy get rewarded with 'the truth' it was an attempt to control you thus they believe that Destroy ended the threat on your mind and believe in IDT and the rest of the fight is only just beginning.

Modifié par greywardencommander, 26 mars 2012 - 04:28 .

[Avissel]

Turbotanden wrote...

Because IDT does not make it not real. Harbinger really is trying to indoctrinate Shepard. That is what is happening and it is real. That does not mean it is over, it means we want the rest of the real ending. Bioware saying they are not changing the ending but adding to it fits perfectly with this idea.

Hmm, I suppose that does atleast make sense then. I was just curious was the I.T.s crowd take on it was.

[Denvian]

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

Sorry I'm woo-sahing it up right now and I'm back to chill, but I am just at my witts end with these fuddy duddies who are to dense to see what is right in front of them and just rather **** about the people at bioware who are way smarter than they are and know what they are doing because um you know, it's what they are paid to do.

 I understand... Nay Sayer are quite inflamatory and they try to ****** us off on purpose.  Personally I find the emotional investment in this game quite facinating regardless of what side you are on. But for some reason people want to be pissed.
 

Modifié par Denvian, 26 mars 2012 - 04:28 .

[earth_angel]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

did they say that we saw the enfings? Or that the starchild thing is the ending?

If it is, then my guess is that the ending is about Shepard beating the reapers at mind games. We see the end of Shepard's fight against endoctrination. If Shepard is dreaming then the real fight against reapers is going on somewhere else.

[llbountyhunter]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

 

I haven't seen any say that its the real or final ending- only that they stand by and support it, which in my eyes helps the IT because when they release the real ending the headlines would read "Bioware creates spectator ending that fools players" instead of "bioware caves to payer demands"

[IronSabbath88]

Oh, look, while I was out for the night more trolls came along. Lovely.

Glad nobody fed them. We're almost out.

[Erethrian]

Gerbil Fetus wrote...

"....People who are denying this theory have about the mental acuity of a gerbil."

*looks at own BSN username*

Hehehehahahahaha!

Hahaha!... Oh wait...

[Phyzzix]

Depends how you look at it. I don't see the Prothean VI as a big deal because while I believe Shepard was definitely fighting indoctrination and the Reapers have somewhat of a foothold in him since the beginning of ME3, but I don't think he's actually indoctrinated until the end.

[greywardencommander]

earth_angel wrote...

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

did they say that we saw the enfings? Or that the starchild thing is the ending?

If it is, then my guess is that the ending is about Shepard beating the reapers at mind games. We see the end of Shepard's fight against endoctrination. If Shepard is dreaming then the real fight against reapers is going on somewhere else.

constant use of 'current endings' is interesting in itself

[Gernbuster]

Avissel wrote...

So I'm curious, and nobody ever answers this question.

Since most of the I.T. people seem to feel that it is a true real thing and not a theory.

How exactly do you guys make it mesh with all the statements from Bioware that state the ending is the real ending? Like do you think they are just keeping it super double dog secret until the assumed DLC is ready?

It is the real ending of the ME3 game, post-ending dlcs do not count.
And yes i am sure that whatever they gonna show us on the PAX, there will be something which plays after ME3.
They said they give us clarity and explanations, even if it would be just a script, it would extend the current ending, just in another media.
People wothout internet connection wouldn't be able to get the ending if it would be a DLC, I guess it is some sort of illegal to sell a product which is just half finished. If u claim it is finished and everything else new incoming is just post-ending it would be possible. Alright, in that case the minority of non internet gamer would be extremly pissed, but 1. they are really just a small group and second they can't do anything then except what is going on.
My mate got this problem and while I am in the BSN, he resignated and is not thinking about ME anymore.

[paxxton]

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

Sorry I'm woo-sahing it up right now and I'm back to chill, but I am just at my witts end with these fuddy duddies who are to dense to see what is right in front of them and just rather **** about the people at bioware who are way smarter than they are and know what they are doing because um you know, it's what they are paid to do.

 I understand... Nay Sayer are quite inflamatory and they try to ****** us off on purpose.  Personally I find the emotional investment in this game quite facinating.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on what I've found. I support the IDT. That said, I hope Bioware releases the continuation after the current ME3 "ending".

Modifié par paxxton, 26 mars 2012 - 04:31 .

[lomar1o]

By biotic god............... "people without internet connection" gdamn go buy a cheap wi fi router plug it in and be happy..

[Denvian]

paxxton wrote...

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Denvian wrote...

ME3endingsucks2 wrote...

Good point! So the scene at the beam resembles the one with Eva on Mars rather than a dream. That further takes from the IDT's validity.

are you really that dumb? The scene with EVA EVERYTHING IS IN SLOW MOTION YOU ****!!!!! As opposed to the scene with the beam, where it is only you in slow motion just like it is in the dreams. The kid isn't running in slow mo in the dreams is he? Would you think before you start typing please?

Even though we agree please remain civil if you please.  

Sorry I'm woo-sahing it up right now and I'm back to chill, but I am just at my witts end with these fuddy duddies who are to dense to see what is right in front of them and just rather **** about the people at bioware who are way smarter than they are and know what they are doing because um you know, it's what they are paid to do.

 I understand... Nay Sayer are quite inflamatory and they try to ****** us off on purpose.  Personally I find the emotional investment in this game quite facinating.

I just wanted to share my thoughts on what I've found. I support the IDT - that doesn't mean I have to die for it.

I didn't think you were a "Nay Sayer" or someone trying to troll.  Really I don't think his reaction was really to your point, as it was valid, but at everyone else who pops onto this forum and says, "You guys are stupid idiots because..."" I think you just got caught in the cross fire.

Modifié par Denvian, 26 mars 2012 - 04:35 .