57139 réponses à ce sujet

[n00bsauce2010]

+1 lol

[FreedMason]

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

Just a quick clarification, the Ambassador Udina was Indoctrinated, yes? If so, when did that take place? I am just trying to piece together all of the Indoctrinated characters.

[Cucobr]

last post of the page....argh!!!!!!!!

[nyrocron]

Cucobr wrote...

last post of the page....argh!!!!!!!!

Also I did already post that sentence on the last page, but yeah, nice execution 

[Dwailing]

FreedMason wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

Just a quick clarification, the Ambassador Udina was Indoctrinated, yes? If so, when did that take place? I am just trying to piece together all of the Indoctrinated characters.

Actually, it is never explicitly stated that Udina was indoctrinated.  It is possible, but in some ways it is more likely that he was just desparate.

[nyrocron]

FreedMason wrote...

Just a quick clarification, the Ambassador Udina was Indoctrinated, yes? If so, when did that take place? I am just trying to piece together all of the Indoctrinated characters.

I don't know. He could just have been convinced that he was helping the humans by helping Cerberus, maybe he also was indoctrinated, in my opinion it is hard to draw the line sometimes.
(Although some people seem to think that indoc is a binary thing, I don't think it is)

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 05:33 .

[waldstr18]

hopefully someone captures the moment when the devs tell you, they dont have an indoctrination fairy in their team, who puts all the little signs in the game you interpreted as proof.

[n00bsauce2010]

waldstr18 wrote...

hopefully someone captures the moment when the devs tell you, they dont have an indoctrination fairy in their team, who puts all the little signs in the game you interpreted as proof.

Well we know it's not going to happen. But thank god people like you are here.. that way we can tally all the pointless remarks and rub it in your face when they reveal it was their plan all along.

[ChuckieJ]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Quick question: why do you think it took a certainamount of galactic readiness to unlock the systhesis ending? Does it unlock even if you haven't played me1?

Iwould think It would be the destroy ending the gets unlocked....or is it something to throw us off?

I answered this 2-3 pages back. Destroy is always available because it is your original goal. With a stronger fleet the Reapers must work harder and give you more options to convince you.

[Mr Bassplayer]

Please, indoc theory, be true! Otherwise the ending is just a big mind****!

[IndustrializedTaco]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

We don't even know if sales of the game have been affected by this. The only people that are claiming that they are the ones that are outraged by it.. going in and trading in their games. There is no evidence to support it. We don't know if this publicity will increase/decrease sales. Also ME3 hasn't been price cut yet.. so if "sales dropped" as low as people seem to me claiming they will.. we'd have seen a price cut by now. Also we don't even know how big the group of people b*tching about the ending is. Yes there is a problem and people are upset. But how many out of the supposed 3.5 million people that bought the game are upset? I seriously doubt 90% of them are. That would mean over 3 million people are upset..? nope... wrong.

That didn't answer my question. I never said anything about this affecting the sales. I was curious as to why they would end the game on that.

[CannotCompute]

Mike Aus wrote...

- Anderson raises his hand in the same way Shepard raises his gun towards him. Because they're one and the same.

- When the Illusive man dies, Anderson collapses in exactly the same form.

- The fig leaves that cover the scene in 'the garden of eden' with the normandy, etc

Didn't notice these yet  nice find.

[Dwailing]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

hopefully someone captures the moment when the devs tell you, they dont have an indoctrination fairy in their team, who puts all the little signs in the game you interpreted as proof.

Well we know it's not going to happen. But thank god people like you are here.. that way we can tally all the pointless remarks and rub it in your face when they reveal it was their plan all along.

They'll have something to see by the time we're done.  I think that was Shepard's line to Jacob.

[nyrocron]

waldstr18 wrote...

hopefully someone captures the moment when the devs tell you, they dont have an indoctrination fairy in their team, who puts all the little signs in the game you interpreted as proof.

Actually most opponents of IT seem to believe that some things just got in there by accident. And I don't know of any other theory that explains everything besides the "BioWare created a game that is 98% perfect and ****ed up the ending"-theory. Guess which I think is more likely.

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[Cucobr]

FreedMason wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

Just a quick clarification, the Ambassador Udina was Indoctrinated, yes? If so, when did that take place? I am just trying to piece together all of the Indoctrinated characters.

Udina is only one power-hungry. The more power he has more power he wants.
So easily manipulated by the TIM.
He was not indoctrinated.

Modifié par Cucobr, 27 mars 2012 - 05:39 .

[N7xELITE]

[IndustrializedTaco]

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

You gotta remember you are ending a franchise on that. Yeah the ID theory makes sense only in the end of the game. I agree with that completly it also does explain the gaping plot holes. Why is that the END though? I mean that is what gets me. I mean the game ends right after the space magic jungle scene. Why not expand on that? Why not make it make more sense.

[Hacedor1566]

baruaru wrote...

Am i the only one who wants to know the creator of the Reapers? =p

Nope, I want to know it too... Who the hell created the reapers? Maybe they are just a test, ... Maybe they are the rebel synthetics. Maybe they are some kind of firewall, to make sure that any civilization arrives too far... I mean... The reapers are machines, war-machines. Someone must created them, and with a clear purpose... What happens if that creators want to see why is cycle has not completed if Shepard defeat the reapers? Maybe that happens in the rest of galaxies every 50k years, maybe there are several reapers fleets, not just one... Who the hell knows? 

[n00bsauce2010]

beetlebailey123 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

We don't even know if sales of the game have been affected by this. The only people that are claiming that they are the ones that are outraged by it.. going in and trading in their games. There is no evidence to support it. We don't know if this publicity will increase/decrease sales. Also ME3 hasn't been price cut yet.. so if "sales dropped" as low as people seem to me claiming they will.. we'd have seen a price cut by now. Also we don't even know how big the group of people b*tching about the ending is. Yes there is a problem and people are upset. But how many out of the supposed 3.5 million people that bought the game are upset? I seriously doubt 90% of them are. That would mean over 3 million people are upset..? nope... wrong.

That didn't answer my question. I never said anything about this affecting the sales. I was curious as to why they would end the game on that.

Sorry. That wasn't mean to be an insult but just a way of laying out my thoughts on the issue. Anyways.. to end the game like this is just a way to make it memorable.

Modifié par n00bsauce2010, 27 mars 2012 - 05:43 .

[KellanC]

K2daE wrote...

IronSabbath88 wrote...

K2daE wrote...

waldstr18 wrote...

what is the highes ems one can get? i have 7111, and im about to go to earth now.

i have googled around but everyone says something different, so i thought again, i come to my indoctrination friends.

I think it is 7150. But Im not positive. Also It can only hit that level with MP which makes that sticky on the general board wrong.

I'm almost positive I had over 7200.

You are probably right. I have a feeling I saw 7150 somewhere, but it could well of been my EMS!

I had over 9,000 EMS at 100% before playing the last few hours of the game.  I know I also made choices that lowered my WA, like authorizing the Asari to get her gun.

[N7xELITE]

For funny video

For the news. ( This is all to do with mass effect 3 and the new endings)

Modifié par N7xELITE, 27 mars 2012 - 05:44 .

[IndustrializedTaco]

Hacedor1566 wrote...

baruaru wrote...

Am i the only one who wants to know the creator of the Reapers? =p

Nope, I want to know it too... Who the hell created the reapers? Maybe they are just a test, ... Maybe they are the rebel synthetics. Maybe they are some kind of firewall, to make sure that any civilization arrives too far... I mean... The reapers are machines, war-machines. Someone must created them, and with a clear purpose... What happens if that creators want to see why is cycle has not completed if Shepard defeat the reapers? Maybe that happens in the rest of galaxies every 50k years, maybe there are several reapers fleets, not just one... Who the hell knows? 

Yeah I was wondering that as well. I wish they would of put that one in there. I think the reapers attack ever 50k years so that, that specfic cycle doesn't get powerful enough to overtake the reapers. The reapers complete cycles out of fear for their own lives.

[nyrocron]

beetlebailey123 wrote...

nyrocron wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

Actually I can't think of an other way to deal with indoctrination.
If it would be done in one of the earlier games and we could be sure that the story of Shepard continues there would be speculation but way less than there is now. If it would be done mid-game, players would have to be told explicitly what is happening and would just reload if they did something wrong.

In my opinion IF they want Shepard to deal with indoctrination, the way they did is the best - if not only - way to do it in an appropriate way.

You gotta remember you are ending a franchise on that. Yeah the ID theory makes sense only in the end of the game. I agree with that completly it also does explain the gaping plot holes. Why is that the END though? I mean that is what gets me. I mean the game ends right after the space magic jungle scene. Why not expand on that? Why not make it make more sense.

They are not ending the franchise, they explicitly said that there will be more MassEffect games.

And DLC was also planned, it could very well be ending-DLC.

Modifié par nyrocron, 27 mars 2012 - 05:45 .

[Dendio1]

CannotCompute wrote...

Mike Aus wrote...

- Anderson raises his hand in the same way Shepard raises his gun towards him. Because they're one and the same.

- When the Illusive man dies, Anderson collapses in exactly the same form.

- The fig leaves that cover the scene in 'the garden of eden' with the normandy, etc

Didn't notice these yet  nice find.

Nice, thx for quoting I would have missed this.

More evidence supporting anderson and shepard are the same, when shep fires the gun you hear both of them grunt at the same time

Modifié par Dendio1, 27 mars 2012 - 05:47 .

[IndustrializedTaco]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

beetlebailey123 wrote...

I think the ID theory makes sense in fact it's in my banner . The thing that gets me is why end a trilogy on that? I mean lots of speculation can be a good thing, but not in the ending of a major trilogy. That is the question that plagues me unfortunately.

We don't even know if sales of the game have been affected by this. The only people that are claiming that they are the ones that are outraged by it.. going in and trading in their games. There is no evidence to support it. We don't know if this publicity will increase/decrease sales. Also ME3 hasn't been price cut yet.. so if "sales dropped" as low as people seem to me claiming they will.. we'd have seen a price cut by now. Also we don't even know how big the group of people b*tching about the ending is. Yes there is a problem and people are upset. But how many out of the supposed 3.5 million people that bought the game are upset? I seriously doubt 90% of them are. That would mean over 3 million people are upset..? nope... wrong.

That didn't answer my question. I never said anything about this affecting the sales. I was curious as to why they would end the game on that.

Sorry. That wasn't mean to be an insult but just a way of laying out my thoughts on the issue. Anyways.. to end the game like this is just a way to make it memorable.

Maybe that's the case.