524 réponses à ce sujet

[hex23]

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]The real endings do give a reason - the Relays, the Citadel and potentially lots of species are gone so that the Reaper threat is gone. The indoctrination theory provides no closure - if you get the ending where Shepard 'breaks free' of indoctrination, then you don't get to see whether he actually defeats the Reapers, or even how he goes about doing it. If this theory were true, the game ends before the Reapers are defeated, which is about as inconclusive as an end to the ME trilogy could be.

DLC can be for MP or mission pre-ending, like Overlord.

Except that no one would want to play DLC before the end of the game, due to how horrible the end is. The end, if we take it literally, basically ends the "Mass Effect" universe as we know it.

And the indoctrination theory isn't supposed to provide closure, any more than the end of "Half Life 2: Ep 2" provided closure. There is more content on the way...hell, the message you quoted tells you exactly that.

[Candidate 88766]

hex23 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]The real endings do give a reason - the Relays, the Citadel and potentially lots of species are gone so that the Reaper threat is gone. The indoctrination theory provides no closure - if you get the ending where Shepard 'breaks free' of indoctrination, then you don't get to see whether he actually defeats the Reapers, or even how he goes about doing it. If this theory were true, the game ends before the Reapers are defeated, which is about as inconclusive as an end to the ME trilogy could be.

DLC can be for MP or mission pre-ending, like Overlord.

Except that no one would want to play DLC before the end of the game, due to how horrible the end is. The end, if we take it literally, basically ends the "Mass Effect" universe as we know it.

And the indoctrination theory isn't supposed to provide closure, any more than the end of "Half Life 2: Ep 2" provided closure. There is more content on the way...hell, the message you quoted tells you exactly that.

ME3 is meant to provide closure to the ME3 trilogy. I don't understand why people want to believe that Bioware actively chose not to put the ending into the game, but to hold it back for DLC. 

The message I quoted also said that the Reapers were defeated, regardless of your ending choice.

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Lol, cmon man, you can't actually believe this.  The game  is about relationship building, LI's, and making choices.  the fact that they land your crew on an unknown planet, wondering wtf happened to you, and leaving you wondering wtf happened to them, is inconclusive. "Poorly explained, unsatisfying and out of place" = Inconclusive.  If you finish a story, and say...."wtf happened derp?" The story is inconclusive.  Indoctrination theory IN AND OF ITSELF does not provide closure.......it provides a ROAD MAP that you can FOLLOW to TAKE you to the conclusive ending that everyone is wondering about.  The entire point of this thread is going over your head....said the cat in the hat.

But saying that Shepard either got indoctrinated and failed or that the story cuts off before the actual ending is more inconclusive. There is no satisfaction at all - failure or a cliffhanger. Why would you want to believe that?

Do you not remember getting owned by Morinth after porking her and having to start over so you don't step on that land mine that you had no idea would explode?  This story is about CHOICES......if you make the WRONG choice, you get reminded of it...and hopefully you go back and try a different route.  If you have half a brain to follow the FACTUAL evidence littered throughout the last 10 minutes of the game, you'll realize that inbedded is the right and wrong choice...if you make the wrong choice you dont get teh cutscene where shep is still alive.....if you make the right choice you do======> inconclusive wtf derp story.........SURPRISE bioware mind ****ed us and gives us an epilogue that shows what really happens if you READ the triggers and MAKE the right choice.

You mean the factual evidence of the game directly stating that Shepard defeated the Reapers?

What is this 'factual' evidence you claim to have? There is stuff that kind of supports it, but its hardly overwhelming evidence.

I don't have to justify to you what I mean by this...considering other people have actively tried to explain to you that, If bioware planned on giving us a surprise epilogue...that they wouldnt TELL us about it at the end of the game....but they would give you the genuine feeling of victory....and count on our intelligence to conclude that there will be more since the ending was as fragmented as broken glass.

[balance5050]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

If you want to view that synthesis as something that can actually happen in the ME universe, or that the reapers are just going to go out into darkspace and die, then have fun in that fantasy the reapers set up for you. I will be waking up back on Earth to finish the fight  finally get that closure with the DLC.

How is believing that the endings the game gives are genuine, when the game explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled, more of a fantasy than believing that Bioware withheld the true endings so that they could make a DLC for it?

Its going to be like the VS DLC for ME2 that people were adamant was coming.

You could die at the end of ME2 but it still gives you the credits.  Where does it  "explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled"? it says expand the legend through DLC, obviously the story isn't done man.

Ofcourse you beat the reapers, but not with space magic and not because some kid "let" you.

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]The real endings do give a reason - the Relays, the Citadel and potentially lots of species are gone so that the Reaper threat is gone. The indoctrination theory provides no closure - if you get the ending where Shepard 'breaks free' of indoctrination, then you don't get to see whether he actually defeats the Reapers, or even how he goes about doing it. If this theory were true, the game ends before the Reapers are defeated, which is about as inconclusive as an end to the ME trilogy could be.

DLC can be for MP or mission pre-ending, like Overlord.

Except that no one would want to play DLC before the end of the game, due to how horrible the end is. The end, if we take it literally, basically ends the "Mass Effect" universe as we know it.

And the indoctrination theory isn't supposed to provide closure, any more than the end of "Half Life 2: Ep 2" provided closure. There is more content on the way...hell, the message you quoted tells you exactly that.

ME3 is meant to provide closure to the ME3 trilogy. I don't understand why people want to believe that Bioware actively chose not to put the ending into the game, but to hold it back for DLC. 

The message I quoted also said that the Reapers were defeated, regardless of your ending choice.

How about you continue being simple minded.....and believing your achievement list....and the rest of us will continue discussing this issue until we get the DLC code sent to us.

[Candidate 88766]

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Lol, cmon man, you can't actually believe this.  The game  is about relationship building, LI's, and making choices.  the fact that they land your crew on an unknown planet, wondering wtf happened to you, and leaving you wondering wtf happened to them, is inconclusive. "Poorly explained, unsatisfying and out of place" = Inconclusive.  If you finish a story, and say...."wtf happened derp?" The story is inconclusive.  Indoctrination theory IN AND OF ITSELF does not provide closure.......it provides a ROAD MAP that you can FOLLOW to TAKE you to the conclusive ending that everyone is wondering about.  The entire point of this thread is going over your head....said the cat in the hat.

But saying that Shepard either got indoctrinated and failed or that the story cuts off before the actual ending is more inconclusive. There is no satisfaction at all - failure or a cliffhanger. Why would you want to believe that?

Do you not remember getting owned by Morinth after porking her and having to start over so you don't step on that land mine that you had no idea would explode?  This story is about CHOICES......if you make the WRONG choice, you get reminded of it...and hopefully you go back and try a different route.  If you have half a brain to follow the FACTUAL evidence littered throughout the last 10 minutes of the game, you'll realize that inbedded is the right and wrong choice...if you make the wrong choice you dont get teh cutscene where shep is still alive.....if you make the right choice you do======> inconclusive wtf derp story.........SURPRISE bioware mind ****ed us and gives us an epilogue that shows what really happens if you READ the triggers and MAKE the right choice.

You mean the factual evidence of the game directly stating that Shepard defeated the Reapers?

What is this 'factual' evidence you claim to have? There is stuff that kind of supports it, but its hardly overwhelming evidence.

I don't have to justify to you what I mean by this...considering other people have actively tried to explain to you that, If bioware planned on giving us a surprise epilogue...that they wouldnt TELL us about it at the end of the game....but they would give you the genuine feeling of victory....and count on our intelligence to conclude that there will be more since the ending was as fragmented as broken glass.

How does this give you a 'genuine feeling of victory'? The theory means the story ends before that victory happens.

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Lol, cmon man, you can't actually believe this.  The game  is about relationship building, LI's, and making choices.  the fact that they land your crew on an unknown planet, wondering wtf happened to you, and leaving you wondering wtf happened to them, is inconclusive. "Poorly explained, unsatisfying and out of place" = Inconclusive.  If you finish a story, and say...."wtf happened derp?" The story is inconclusive.  Indoctrination theory IN AND OF ITSELF does not provide closure.......it provides a ROAD MAP that you can FOLLOW to TAKE you to the conclusive ending that everyone is wondering about.  The entire point of this thread is going over your head....said the cat in the hat.

But saying that Shepard either got indoctrinated and failed or that the story cuts off before the actual ending is more inconclusive. There is no satisfaction at all - failure or a cliffhanger. Why would you want to believe that?

Do you not remember getting owned by Morinth after porking her and having to start over so you don't step on that land mine that you had no idea would explode?  This story is about CHOICES......if you make the WRONG choice, you get reminded of it...and hopefully you go back and try a different route.  If you have half a brain to follow the FACTUAL evidence littered throughout the last 10 minutes of the game, you'll realize that inbedded is the right and wrong choice...if you make the wrong choice you dont get teh cutscene where shep is still alive.....if you make the right choice you do======> inconclusive wtf derp story.........SURPRISE bioware mind ****ed us and gives us an epilogue that shows what really happens if you READ the triggers and MAKE the right choice.

You mean the factual evidence of the game directly stating that Shepard defeated the Reapers?

What is this 'factual' evidence you claim to have? There is stuff that kind of supports it, but its hardly overwhelming evidence.

I don't have to justify to you what I mean by this...considering other people have actively tried to explain to you that, If bioware planned on giving us a surprise epilogue...that they wouldnt TELL us about it at the end of the game....but they would give you the genuine feeling of victory....and count on our intelligence to conclude that there will be more since the ending was as fragmented as broken glass.

How does this give you a 'genuine feeling of victory'? The theory means the story ends before that victory happens.

You'd be more credible if you actually read the thread before replying to people's post.....You've stated yourself that "general feeling of victory" about 5 times by linking the achievement.  Everyone sees you using the end credits message as your only evidence dude.

[Sc2mashimaro]

I think the whole "indoctrination" theory is completely wrong, but I secretly hope you are right and will cry tears of joy if you are.

The one thing you have going for you, I think, is that Bioware has been experimenting with integrating the real world with the game world in Mass Effect 3 (think "infiltrator" and other "galaxy at war" systems). If you are right, you are essentially suggesting that Bioware is running an ARG leading up to the release of the actual finale of the game, because they have said nothing to suggest this is not the true end of the game. I view the whole idea as plausible, but very unlikely. Just like unicorns are plausible and very unlikely. I sincerely hope you are right, but until you have more concrete evidence of an ARG to keep us in the dark about the real ending, I'm going to have to say I think you are very much wrong.

(And I still hope you are right. And that I meet a unicorn one day.)

[Candidate 88766]

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]The real endings do give a reason - the Relays, the Citadel and potentially lots of species are gone so that the Reaper threat is gone. The indoctrination theory provides no closure - if you get the ending where Shepard 'breaks free' of indoctrination, then you don't get to see whether he actually defeats the Reapers, or even how he goes about doing it. If this theory were true, the game ends before the Reapers are defeated, which is about as inconclusive as an end to the ME trilogy could be.

DLC can be for MP or mission pre-ending, like Overlord.

Except that no one would want to play DLC before the end of the game, due to how horrible the end is. The end, if we take it literally, basically ends the "Mass Effect" universe as we know it.

And the indoctrination theory isn't supposed to provide closure, any more than the end of "Half Life 2: Ep 2" provided closure. There is more content on the way...hell, the message you quoted tells you exactly that.

ME3 is meant to provide closure to the ME3 trilogy. I don't understand why people want to believe that Bioware actively chose not to put the ending into the game, but to hold it back for DLC. 

The message I quoted also said that the Reapers were defeated, regardless of your ending choice.

How about you continue being simple minded.....and believing your achievement list....and the rest of us will continue discussing this issue until we get the DLC code sent to us.

Believing what the game directly tells me is simple-minded, but believing that a company built around story-based games would end one of its defining series on a disguised cliffhanger so that they could later release a 'real' ending as DLC isn't?

[Aigik]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

Proof that the endings were not hallucinations and that Shepard does indeed defeat the Reapers.



The game explicitly and directly tells the player - outside of the constraints of the story - that regardless of which ending you choose Shepard defeats the Reapers.

This means absolutely nothing lol......books are always completed before Epilogues are shown.  Its just as stupidd to tell someone "hey, you are gonna have a surprise birthday, at teh same instant that you try to trick them into thinking everyone forgot."

How can you possibly dismiss this?

Read it again:

"Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat."

It is Bioware telling you, the player, that Shepard has defeated the Reapers. 

They could not possibly be any more blatant about telling the player this.

I doubt that message was written by the writers, but was probably thrown in by a programmer who's responsibility was to make the game continue for future DLC.  Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is a mess.  If the ending is truly "as is", then it was completely riddled with plot holes.  Massive, gaping holes.

[Dark Wyn]

Remember though, we're not theorizing this just to have this be how we justify the ending.
Based on all the points people have been pointing out, the Indoctrination theory makes sense of alot of the questions from the moment of Harbinger's blast til' Shepard wakes up in the "perfect" ending scene.
It would really seem that they're leading into something MORE that they'll unveil to us soon. ((hopefully that is))

[Candidate 88766]

XIXmaximus wrote...
Everyone sees you using the end credits message as your only evidence dude.

Because its irrefutable. 

The people who wrote the story are telling the player in the most direct, blatant and unsubtle manner that the Reapers have been defeated. They literally put writing on your screen that tells you that Shepard beat the Reapers. 

You might as well argue that the title screen saying 'Mass Effect 3' is a lie.

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

hex23 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...
]The real endings do give a reason - the Relays, the Citadel and potentially lots of species are gone so that the Reaper threat is gone. The indoctrination theory provides no closure - if you get the ending where Shepard 'breaks free' of indoctrination, then you don't get to see whether he actually defeats the Reapers, or even how he goes about doing it. If this theory were true, the game ends before the Reapers are defeated, which is about as inconclusive as an end to the ME trilogy could be.

DLC can be for MP or mission pre-ending, like Overlord.

Except that no one would want to play DLC before the end of the game, due to how horrible the end is. The end, if we take it literally, basically ends the "Mass Effect" universe as we know it.

And the indoctrination theory isn't supposed to provide closure, any more than the end of "Half Life 2: Ep 2" provided closure. There is more content on the way...hell, the message you quoted tells you exactly that.

ME3 is meant to provide closure to the ME3 trilogy. I don't understand why people want to believe that Bioware actively chose not to put the ending into the game, but to hold it back for DLC. 

The message I quoted also said that the Reapers were defeated, regardless of your ending choice.

How about you continue being simple minded.....and believing your achievement list....and the rest of us will continue discussing this issue until we get the DLC code sent to us.

Believing what the game directly tells me is simple-minded, but believing that a company built around story-based games would end one of its defining series on a disguised cliffhanger so that they could later release a 'real' ending as DLC isn't?

@balanced5050 alerady gave you a perfect example of how the Direct "game message" doesn't mean anything in terms of the actual story.

[slinky317]

 A little more to the "indoctrination" theory, even though I don't personally believe it.

In ME1, one of the characters explains how indoctrination starts.  She says it's a subtle whisper you can't ignore.

Now, what does Shepard constantly hear throughout the various dream sequences?

[Candidate 88766]

Aigik wrote...

I doubt that message was written by the writers, but was probably thrown in by a programmer who's responsibility was to make the game continue for future DLC.  Regardless, it doesn't change the fact that this whole thing is a mess.  If the ending is truly "as is", then it was completely riddled with plot holes.  Massive, gaping holes.

Oh god, there are lots of plotholes in the current endings. I agree there. 

[Aigik]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...
Everyone sees you using the end credits message as your only evidence dude.

Because its irrefutable. 

The people who wrote the story are telling the player in the most direct, blatant and unsubtle manner that the Reapers have been defeated. They literally put writing on your screen that tells you that Shepard beat the Reapers. 

You might as well argue that the title screen saying 'Mass Effect 3' is a lie.

Please, explain the final scene of Shepard waking up in concrete rubble on Earth to me, because I don't get it.

[JasonTan87]

JasonTan87 wrote...

Keep in mind; with such an ending without a closure, it is very easy to see what we each want to see. It's very easy to read into the narrative and find things that are not there. Hope, combined with emotional desperation, makes a most persuasive force. (This reminds me of TIM's own failing)

I myself am wary of giving the writers too much credit; especially in instances where there is the possibility of me deluding myself into making a masterpiece out of someone's sloppy work. Traditionally, Mass Effect followed fairly conventional soap-opera conventions. Unlike the Matrix, which sought to question reality from the onset, we do not have this meta-narrative coming from the last two games. Making the last 20 minutes of Mass Effect 3 into a post-modern meta narrative that is an 'indoctrination' of the player; while entirely plausable, is unlikely.

The thing is, we can't tell if this is deliberate just yet. I'm most willing to buy into this theory, but I can't help but ask myself:

If this was really true, why hold the 'real ending' back? Why not just release it with the rest of the game, and be credited for the stroke of genious? Why risk the fan backlash? Why look sloppy when you can look good right off?

Why troll us, their fans?

You know, they could have just told us in a press release, with a sly smile, that it's not over yet. Then they wouldn't have any of this PR firestorm on their hands.

Even if it was true, the current state that ME3 was released in (supposedly a complete game out of the box) is also paramount to bad writing. The narrative, as it is now, it violates the reader-writer contract by not offering the real ending to provide closure to the story. Even if there was an overarching meta-narrative embedded within, the writing must be consistant and clear enough for us to reach that conclusion without having a 'panel' to 'interpret' the ending for us. Mass Effect 3 has neither.

The very fact that the 'panel' has to 'interpret' their vision to us shows how the narrative has failed to communicate the different levels of the narrative.

In addition; the whole crucible thing itself could have been handled more adequately. Hallucination is not an excuse for sloppy writing. The writing for the crucible onwards; while brillant if this theory holds true; still feels sloppy and rushed. Imagine how much more convincing if they had a fluent narrative without the gigantic plot holes, and the Normandy had a proper reason for running away with your crew all on it. It also end with Normandy getting knocked out of FTL, but not show the crew coming out of the Normandy on some random planet.

The fact that the ending feels rushed worries me; because such meta-narrative twists require a high level of finesse to pull off.

What worries me the most is that people are losing their objectivity, calling what what may very well be a rushed conclusion 'a stroke of genius'. We must never forget that Bioware is telling us a story, and the very fact that we are unable to see the structure of the meta-narrative clearly (if it even exists) shows an inability to communicate their artistic vision properly through the medium.

[ApplesauceBandit]

I'm fully on board with this theory now, I know that Joker, Garrus and especially my LI Liara wouldn't leave Shepard behind (Normandy Fleeing/Crash scene)
Thank you for this video, I will now play through the game. Still "endings" where disappointing but now that i know its a dream i'm not quite so upset.

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...
Everyone sees you using the end credits message as your only evidence dude.

Because its irrefutable. 

The people who wrote the story are telling the player in the most direct, blatant and unsubtle manner that the Reapers have been defeated. They literally put writing on your screen that tells you that Shepard beat the Reapers. 

You might as well argue that the title screen saying 'Mass Effect 3' is a lie.

You are conveniently leaving out the last part of the "irrefutable message" that you are hiding behind......"now you can continue to build your legend through further gameplay and DLC"......you say your message is irrefutable.....so refute that last part that you leave out.

[balance5050]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...

Lol, cmon man, you can't actually believe this.  The game  is about relationship building, LI's, and making choices.  the fact that they land your crew on an unknown planet, wondering wtf happened to you, and leaving you wondering wtf happened to them, is inconclusive. "Poorly explained, unsatisfying and out of place" = Inconclusive.  If you finish a story, and say...."wtf happened derp?" The story is inconclusive.  Indoctrination theory IN AND OF ITSELF does not provide closure.......it provides a ROAD MAP that you can FOLLOW to TAKE you to the conclusive ending that everyone is wondering about.  The entire point of this thread is going over your head....said the cat in the hat.

But saying that Shepard either got indoctrinated and failed or that the story cuts off before the actual ending is more inconclusive. There is no satisfaction at all - failure or a cliffhanger. Why would you want to believe that?

Do you not remember getting owned by Morinth after porking her and having to start over so you don't step on that land mine that you had no idea would explode?  This story is about CHOICES......if you make the WRONG choice, you get reminded of it...and hopefully you go back and try a different route.  If you have half a brain to follow the FACTUAL evidence littered throughout the last 10 minutes of the game, you'll realize that inbedded is the right and wrong choice...if you make the wrong choice you dont get teh cutscene where shep is still alive.....if you make the right choice you do======> inconclusive wtf derp story.........SURPRISE bioware mind ****ed us and gives us an epilogue that shows what really happens if you READ the triggers and MAKE the right choice.

You mean the factual evidence of the game directly stating that Shepard defeated the Reapers?

What is this 'factual' evidence you claim to have? There is stuff that kind of supports it, but its hardly overwhelming evidence.

I don't have to justify to you what I mean by this...considering other people have actively tried to explain to you that, If bioware planned on giving us a surprise epilogue...that they wouldnt TELL us about it at the end of the game....but they would give you the genuine feeling of victory....and count on our intelligence to conclude that there will be more since the ending was as fragmented as broken glass.

How does this give you a 'genuine feeling of victory'? The theory means the story ends before that victory happens.

The story only ends if you let yourself become indoctrinated. I think the DLC will have multiple, well rounded endings, a suitable boss fight, and hopefully explain that it was indoctrination, so you naysayers will have something to think about... for once.

[Candidate 88766]

balance5050 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

If you want to view that synthesis as something that can actually happen in the ME universe, or that the reapers are just going to go out into darkspace and die, then have fun in that fantasy the reapers set up for you. I will be waking up back on Earth to finish the fight  finally get that closure with the DLC.

How is believing that the endings the game gives are genuine, when the game explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled, more of a fantasy than believing that Bioware withheld the true endings so that they could make a DLC for it?

Its going to be like the VS DLC for ME2 that people were adamant was coming.

You could die at the end of ME2 but it still gives you the credits.  Where does it  "explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled"? it says expand the legend through DLC, obviously the story isn't done man.

Ofcourse you beat the reapers, but not with space magic and not because some kid "let" you.

The same thing that says 'expand on the legend' also says that Shepard beat the Reapers. It comes up regardless of which ending you chose - if the indoctrination was true, and Shepard fell to the Reapers, why would this box come up? Why would Bioware contradict itself?

[CollegeLad]

https://twitter.com/...051973658685440

In which Evil Chris may have inadvertently shown that the squadmates with you (who supposedly end up on that planet) may not actually be the true result.

[Candidate 88766]

XIXmaximus wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

XIXmaximus wrote...
Everyone sees you using the end credits message as your only evidence dude.

Because its irrefutable. 

The people who wrote the story are telling the player in the most direct, blatant and unsubtle manner that the Reapers have been defeated. They literally put writing on your screen that tells you that Shepard beat the Reapers. 

You might as well argue that the title screen saying 'Mass Effect 3' is a lie.

You are conveniently leaving out the last part of the "irrefutable message" that you are hiding behind......"now you can continue to build your legend through further gameplay and DLC"......you say your message is irrefutable.....so refute that last part that you leave out.

Bioware has said that there will be DLC that occurs during the course of the story. The 'legend' of Shepard is the story in its entirety, and so DLC that takes place before the end still expands on his legend. 

[XIXmaximus]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

If you want to view that synthesis as something that can actually happen in the ME universe, or that the reapers are just going to go out into darkspace and die, then have fun in that fantasy the reapers set up for you. I will be waking up back on Earth to finish the fight  finally get that closure with the DLC.

How is believing that the endings the game gives are genuine, when the game explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled, more of a fantasy than believing that Bioware withheld the true endings so that they could make a DLC for it?

Its going to be like the VS DLC for ME2 that people were adamant was coming.

You could die at the end of ME2 but it still gives you the credits.  Where does it  "explicitly states that you've defated the reapers once the credits have rolled"? it says expand the legend through DLC, obviously the story isn't done man.

Ofcourse you beat the reapers, but not with space magic and not because some kid "let" you.

The same thing that says 'expand on the legend' also says that Shepard beat the Reapers. It comes up regardless of which ending you chose - if the indoctrination was true, and Shepard fell to the Reapers, why would this box come up? Why would Bioware contradict itself?

Found a troll.....Assume complete ignore.