216 réponses à ce sujet

[Funkdrspot]

Surgate wrote...

rachellouise wrote...

'it was all a dream' is far from the best ending, and one generally avoided. I hope they clear some things up..but I would prefer something else to that

This. The "it was all a dream/illusion/in their head" is cliche, lazy, and a massive cop out. There are far better ways to end a story.

For it to be the cliche'd "dream/illusion" ending, it would have to be void of consequence.

Which is exactly the opposite of what the IT is. It may be an illusion but it has massive impact on the game, well at least it hopefully does.

[ZajoE38]

Joykilledme wrote...

ZajoE38 wrote...

First time I believed in IDT, or I wanted to. But after my 2nd playthrough I paid attention to every sentence in dialogues. And..finally I rejected the IDT because the real ending makes more sense. The ending is as it is. The game is complete and there is logics. Tough two things are not clear to me. Where and why was Joker helming Normandy in FTL after the Crucible fired, he was supposed to be with Sword. And second -- how did Kaidan get on to the Normandy? He was with me at the beam. Everything else makes sense, there is logic I just didn't see it the first time. But the Normandy scene.. I'm not sure what to think of it. When Shepard got hit by Harby, he could be lying on the ground for some time when he wakes up. That time the Kaidan could have retreated back to FOB and evacuation started because no one knew that he's gonna make it. Some fleets (maybe with Normandy) retired because we didn't see any alliance ships near the Citadel. Ok, I got Shep sacrificed, controlling the Reapers, mass relays down, citadel intact, all worlds and planets survived and their population can rebuild cities. Non-human armies, especially dextro-amino will starve, but they are replaceable. Technology is preserved, they can still use omni-tools and biotics. However they can't communicate via comm buoys. There is hope that quantum entanglement communicators still works because it don't use mass relays comm buoys. Normandy probably has it so she can communicate. However galaxy needs to make new mass relays (protheans did it and in my ending the Reapers could come handy) and that will take millennium. By the time being, the shipwrecked crew died and made a children a generations of them. We can see their offspring during the bonus ending on the Planet they shipwrecked. Ok that's it. Our crew (or part of it) died along with Shep and galaxy can go on. Our heroes are not important. Important is the bigger picture that the cycle is gone and life survived. And will rebuild. On the top of that I don't thing that is the Shepard who woke up under the rubble in red ending. Many soldiers are N7, Shepard always wear BLACK armor and if Bioware wanted us to point that that is Shepard they would do that and show the survivor's face. Sad ending? The beautiful I say. I don't need to see Shep with crew in Purgatory celebrating. My favorite movie is Gladiator, and Maximus died, damn the best emotional epic movie ever. Shepard living would be cliche like hell.

=/ 

I think playing it a second time put you in some sort of weird shell shock... or it melted a very important part of your brain. Or!... not sure is serious!<_<

Nah, mate.. im totaly sane don't worry Having different opinion doesn't mean I weird, but rather I had guts to come out of IDT comfort and head in to the mess. I stood by the IDT, because I was comfortable that I have answer for the ending that otherwise didn't make sense. But now it does. It is not claims made from deduction (IDT), but facts that are in dialogues (induction). I just wanted to pretend that IDT never came up and started to pay attention to events. And they just started to made sense -suddenly. I know I had the same opinion on non-IDT players as you. I'm not trying turn you, I just want to show that maybe Bioware was all right all the time we spitted on them. Let the BW be the judge BTW I am fine with both theories. ME3 is a masterpiece on way or another. Just the "Real theory" make more sense to me right now and gives me more closure. Just still want's to know what happened in a meantime when shepard was lying. I mean in real theory, because I know that in IDT he was hallucinating

Modifié par ZajoE38, 02 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[Trikormadenadon]

Ratham wrote...

What if they roll with the Indoc Theory but didn't originally plan it? Then the fans gave them a get out of jail free card. Of course even if this is true they'll still say it was planned all along.

I see nothing wrong with this as long as I get the closure and prper endings we all deserve.

[Rohirrim]

No doubt! The potential for goosbump resolution and epic ending is immense!

[Mobius-Silent]

No, if Bioware run with IT all they are doing is scrubbing the current ending so they get a redo. There is no way to claim the ending is great because with IT there is no ending yet, hence it's an unknown quantity. All we can say for sure is that anyone who picked Control or Synthesis and was happy with the outcome will most likely be very upset at the change.

Hence I'm pretty certain IT is just wishful thinking/not intended/not going to happen.

[paxxton]

Yup, IT is really interesting. We still have a few days till April 6th though. Hope Bioware clarifies this one on Saturday.

[Ieldra]

I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.

[paxxton]

Ieldra2 wrote...

I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.

It's plainly untrue. You can choose any of the endings and live by the consequences if Bioware's ME team wishes to implement it that way in the future games or DLC.

Modifié par paxxton, 02 avril 2012 - 11:22 .

[Breakdown Boy]

This would really be cool, but I would not benefit from this as I can't download the From the ashes DLC because EA's servers are uselss in my region. I have wasted so much bandwidth trying to download this DLC, if this DLC comes out then it will be over a gb in size, I won't be able to do it?

I would require bioware to provide a batch/ exe file that could manually be installed.

[Melra]

IT is rubbish imo. Believe it, if you will but don't force it down my throat. I hate the idea. I am content with my current ending.

[Ieldra]

paxxton wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.

It's plainly untrue. You can choose any of the endings and live by the consequences if Bioware's ME team wishes to implement it that way in the future games or DLC.

It's plainly true. The IT is - among other things I don't necessarily disagree with - an attempt by some people to enshrine Destroy as the "correct" choice, stating that if you choose otherwise you "succumb" to indoctrination. Actually, it's even worse than prescribing a "correct" choice. It prescribes a "correct" way to think - it is akin to telling me that if I am honestly convinced that choosing Destroy is not the best option, then I am thinking wrong. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where dissidents were put into asylums. What makes is worse is that the assumption we can recognize that correct choice as such is based on false reasoning.

[Melra]

Well in normal person's perspective, destroying artificial life in effort to save the real thing is the only right way to go about it. The other is just pure silliness and changes people in a bad way. The control is bit crazy anyway.

[Skeejee]

The problem really is that Bioware have pinned themselves into a lose-lose situation.

1) Ending is exactly right and what was meant to happen - blargh, awful ending. Bioware lose because the ending genuinely sucked.

2) Indoc theory is right and they've been fooling us all the long. Bioware lose anyway even if the DLC is free, because there will be a second (lesser?) outrage from fans who don't support Indoc theory; and there will be those who scream that they're pandering to their fans and got the idea off their fans...even if this was Bioware's intention all the long and the ending had been planned months in advance.

This makes me sad This is why we cannot have nice things, indeed.

[Ieldra]

Melrache wrote...
Well in normal person's perspective, destroying artificial life in effort to save the real thing is the only right way to go about it. The other is just pure silliness and changes people in a bad way. The control is bit crazy anyway.

After the game makes every effort to show us that synthetics are real life, too, you would still say that? And while Synthesis is admittedly something of wild card, Control appears to me like a very viable option.

The point is that which ending we choose is, like many other important choices we make in the games, influenced more by of our personal philosophies than any objective reason why one is better than the other. Is sabotaging the genophage cure wrong? Even if you use only moral reasoning, not taking the necessities of the war into account, the answer isn't clear cut. So it is with the final choice as well. And I do not think a game should tell players that the philosophy they base their decisions on is wrong. 

Also note that some I-theorists try to explain away the negative consequences of Destroy as "it's just shown to you to make you choose another option" and the positive consequences of Control (re:relays) as "It's just shown to you to make this option appear more attractive". "Destroy is the correct option" is a premise of the main variant of IT, not something that follows from it. And everything they invent to make it appear so is either false reasoning or the classic type of asspull you always see in conspiracy theories.

[Silpheed58]

Fulgrim88 wrote...

It's also the biggest ripoff of all time.

Day one dlc AND an incomplete ending? Certainly genius. But only from a sales perspective.
Might end up hurting them more than it gained though

Wrong, go see Capcom for that..

[Melra]

Game can say whatever it likes, but everything about those things is artificial, they're second rate "citizens"

[luzburg]

i agree. and continuing to a more varible ending by dlc (witch im happy to pay for)
Then bioware can actualy say they wrote the game with the fans (those hwo came up with indoc theroy)

[phyreblade74]

Ieldra2 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.

It's plainly untrue. You can choose any of the endings and live by the consequences if Bioware's ME team wishes to implement it that way in the future games or DLC.

It's plainly true. The IT is - among other things I don't necessarily disagree with - an attempt by some people to enshrine Destroy as the "correct" choice, stating that if you choose otherwise you "succumb" to indoctrination. Actually, it's even worse than prescribing a "correct" choice. It prescribes a "correct" way to think - it is akin to telling me that if I am honestly convinced that choosing Destroy is not the best option, then I am thinking wrong. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where dissidents were put into asylums. What makes is worse is that the assumption we can recognize that correct choice as such is based on false reasoning.

Sort of like those people who chose certain companions and/or Shepard to die during the Suicide Mission, you mean?  Because I could never wrap my head around that sort of chance, as in, why would anyone do that?  To ME, it wasn't "correct".  But to someone else, someone who wanted to interject some sort of tragic element into their story, perhaps, it made sense that someone or even everyone died during that mission.  That's one of the things I thought was so important about ME, that you could make the story uniquely your own, shrug.

Bottom line, if I think Indoctrination and the subsequent destroy option in the only "correct" option, doesn't mean you have to, right?  So what dang difference does it make, to you, that someone feel the way I do?  It's mind-boggling, to me, why people feel it important to castigate the story some feel is proper and true, for them.  If you want your Shepard to die in a blaze of glory, nobly giving himself over to whatever red/green option is available, great!  I don't and, newsflash, that's great, too.

[Ieldra]

Melrache wrote...
Game can say whatever it likes, but everything about those things is artificial, they're second rate "citizens"

Why is the fact something is created instead of grown from a DNA sequence enough to rate it second-rate?

[redBadger14]

But if you choose Control, you are basically enslaving the Reapers, just as the Quarians tried to enslave the Geth, how Project Overlord tried to enslave David, etc. That makes Shepard just as bad, thus Control no matter how you look at it is not the viable option. Unless you like to enslave things of course.

[Merwanor]

I can never really believe the indoc theory until Bioware actually comfirms it, though I do hope it is real, if so Bioware has done an amazing twist for a game, and really have gotten me emotional involved, though they would also be guilty of making me really depressed after playing their game. It is a big risk, but if it is true, then they will be remembered for this.

Even if the IT is not real and they stick to the horrid ending they somehow manage to create, I would rather choose the ending the community has made up than the nonsensical bs they currently has.

Edit: If I am not completly incorrect, the red ending in the Indoctrination theory just breaks the Indoctrination. You don't really destroy anything as it is just images in your mind, and the fact that the starchild says it will kill Shepard and all the geth etc, it is just lying. If it was supposed to kill Shepard and all AI, then why is Shepard seen drawing a breath at the ending.

Modifié par Merwanor, 02 avril 2012 - 02:01 .

[Melra]

Ieldra2 wrote...

Melrache wrote...
Game can say whatever it likes, but everything about those things is artificial, they're second rate "citizens"

Why is the fact something is created instead of grown from a DNA sequence enough to rate it second-rate?

They are artificial, they don't really feel, they just try to understand what it means to feel. They ain't living and breathing things. They were created to serve, sure they can live as long as they don't get in the way, but if one has to choose between artificial and real thing and he/she chooses the artificial over the real, then one's crazy.

[Ieldra]

phyreblade74 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

I disagree. IT prescribes a "correct" choice based on false reasoning and forces everyone who doesn't agree with the ITists to make an out-of character-decision. IT is one of the few things that would make the endings worse than they already are.

It's plainly untrue. You can choose any of the endings and live by the consequences if Bioware's ME team wishes to implement it that way in the future games or DLC.

It's plainly true. The IT is - among other things I don't necessarily disagree with - an attempt by some people to enshrine Destroy as the "correct" choice, stating that if you choose otherwise you "succumb" to indoctrination. Actually, it's even worse than prescribing a "correct" choice. It prescribes a "correct" way to think - it is akin to telling me that if I am honestly convinced that choosing Destroy is not the best option, then I am thinking wrong. It reminds me of the Soviet Union, where dissidents were put into asylums. What makes is worse is that the assumption we can recognize that correct choice as such is based on false reasoning.

Sort of like those people who chose certain companions and/or Shepard to die during the Suicide Mission, you mean?  Because I could never wrap my head around that sort of chance, as in, why would anyone do that?  To ME, it wasn't "correct".  But to someone else, someone who wanted to interject some sort of tragic element into their story, perhaps, it made sense that someone or even everyone died during that mission.  That's one of the things I thought was so important about ME, that you could make the story uniquely your own, shrug.

Bottom line, if I think Indoctrination and the subsequent destroy option in the only "correct" option, doesn't mean you have to, right?  So what dang difference does it make, to you, that someone feel the way I do?  It's mind-boggling, to me, why people feel it important to castigate the story some feel is proper and true, for them.  If you want your Shepard to die in a blaze of glory, nobly giving himself over to whatever red/green option is available, great!  I don't and, newsflash, that's great, too.

The parallel is flawed:

If you make Shepard die at the end of ME2, that's a very obvious "bad" option. You know what you're getting into. The same as trying to have sex with Morinth. In spite of what the IT promoters say, this is not at all obvious with Control and Synthesis. You can, with perfectly good reasoning, come to the conclusion either one is a perfectly viable solution to the problem. That the IT promoters don't agree is beside the point, because it is your personal philosophy and the character of your individual Shepard applied to the situation that makes you come to the conclusion, not any undeniable fact.

A better parallel would be Keeping the Collector Base in ME2. I bet it's mostly the same people who said "keeping the base is OBVIOUSLY evil" that now promote Destroy as the only option. The fact is, it was a viable choice, as it should have been. Those who kept the base in ME2 were in the minority, but that doesn't mean that choice should result in "you lose".