448 réponses à ce sujet

[balance5050]

But... the Geth would have lost if it weren't for the Reapers, Legion explains that they did it out of desperation.

[Wabajakka]

True, but even some IDT non-believers may take this into consideration. A great combo of taking the ending at face-value with some points of IDT (remember NO hallucination)

Much more possible for the Extended Cut DLC rather than the actual IDT despite its similarity to IDT.

Modifié par Orange Tee, 13 avril 2012 - 08:21 .

[Erield]

III Achilles II wrote...

Erield wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...


That's the most absurd answer I've heard. Catalyst added it to try and "get caught" or something silly. And we I.T. theorist are grasping at straws? 

Fact:  A race added the Catalyst as Citadel to the Crucible plans

Supposition:  Star Child says that Shepard is the first Organic to make it to him. 
If you assume that Star Child is correct, or honestly lying (assume that Star Child believes that everything he says is true), then this becomes fact as well.

The odds of successfully creating designs and then building a Ferrari when you have no idea what/how the engine will be, and then magically finding it in space, is so small that...****.  A brick  is more likely to be a sentient species, and see it as our overlords in real-world Earth than that.

This heavily implies that Star Child is, at the least, indirectly responsible for the inclusion of the Catalyst in the plans of the Crucible.  When I specifically state that the motivation for that is guesswork, you latch on to that one bit to mock.  I even said it was stupid.  It's also at least as plausible as IT.  Why?

The theory that Star Child is behind everything takes the ME universe as presented at face value.  No great leaps of logic, no great assumptions, no ignoring large parts of the game claiming that they were all happening "in your mind."  Hell, it even stays true to the whole Catalyst and Crucible meanings. 
It is as thematically consistent, if not moreso, than IT.  Give me good arguments how it's not...I dare you 

1. The fact that the star child takes form ONLY AS A CHILD FROM WITHIN SHEPARD's MIND. 
2. Shepard and Female Shepard's voices are heard as STARCHILD.
3. Why does he make the comment you are the first race to reach him? IF another race ADDED HIM. 
4. It doesn't make sense why Starchild would add himself with plans to destroy the reapers when he is so strongly against stopping the cycle. 
5. We invented a lot of things over YEARS that were far beyond the time even a thousand years ago. The plans and crucible were built and re-built many, many cycles. 
6. How is indoctrination, a theme throughout all three games, illogical???? The plotholes exist to tell the gamers that the ending is off. Otherwise, how would we know Shepard was indoc.? 


I'm just saying. There are A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE STARCHILD and Shepard's reactions. 

/sigh.  Last post for the night, but here goes.

1.  The kid has been on Shep's mind as a sense of what he sacrificed to achieve the necessary goals.  Now that Shep's back on Earth, it seems plausible for super-old machine thing to read surface thoughts.  i guess.  Kinda like indoctrination, but in reverse.

2.  Irrelevant.  The only way you can tell that is by listening to only one side of your headphones at a time; the number of people that would do this is incredibly small.  Reading more into it proves my point that it takes less of a leap to believe that Star Kid arranged everything as a giant prank than that IT is true.  Bioware would want people to guess their super-awesome ending; if they made it too hard, then people would think it was just ****.  By your defense of Bioware, they're awesome (or something.  That's what IT says, right?  That Bioware are gods of writing and delivered the greatest twist ever?) and so at least a majority of people should "get" it.

3.  No other race added him; he  added him.  That's my entire point.

4.  He really doesn't seem strongly against stopping the Cycle.  Seriously.  It seems like he just doesn't give a **** anymore, if he ever did.

5.  Sure, plans were built and re-built many times; Catalyst remained the same.  I'm assuming.  And you're assuming that they didn't, 'cuz no one says **** about the Catalyst except that it's the Citadel--wait, no, it's the Star Kid!

6.  Indoctrination isn't illogical; assuming that Shepard is fighting against Indoctrination the entire time he's on the Citadel is illogical.  We can clearly see when it is happening, when TIM is using his Reaper-implant things to control Anderson and Shepard.  We hear the whispers; we see the "oily images."  We experience, in the game as it is, a clear, concise image of what it is to have Indoctrination used against us, but since it's from a human instead of a Reaper, Shepard can resist and succeed.  Assuming that any more than the conflict against TIM is a giant Indoc Hallucination is illogical, because there is substantial reason to support what we see being exactly what we see.  It takes effort to see it as a giant Indoc attempt by Bioware on the player.

Sometimes a plot-hole is just a plot-hole, not an ingenious plan by a writer to hint that there's a hidden, secret explanation that completely contradicts everything that he actually said--and the only way you can figure it out is to reject everything you've seen, and to start over fresh with the rejection in mind.  

Taking everything on its face, as presented, the Star Child deliberately caused the alteration of the plans for the Crucible to include himeslf as the Catalyst.  There is even a logical reason for this; he tells you that the Crucible gives him more options than just a 50k Cycle of slaughter.  There are other stories within ME3 itself where the dots are not fully connected, but the evidence is presented to you in a fairly clear manner: ie, Joker's sister and the PTSD Asari.  The difference is that IT rejects seeing aspects of the game (specifically, the ending) as presented, and my interpretations do not. 

I accept the **** ending as ****, and make as much sense of it as I can.

[Cazychel]

This is not to defend IT. Only to comment on your argument.

A) It is confirmed and double checked, that ME3 results in 6 different ending sequences and the differences are minor. Not 16. But yes, small thing really.

It CAN be argued, whether it is the end or not, because in at least one (best destroy) and in up to five (all destroy, all control) endings, Shepard is not dead (in control = became an AI to control Reaper). Shepard not dead = no end of the Shepard arc.

C) You assume just as much as IT, because you extrapolate things that COULD have happened, but are just as unprovable.

D) There is no closure, when Shepard would be in London rubble, yes. But also not when he/she would be in Citadel rubble, aboard a wrecked or damaged space station that may or may not stay in orbit, or explode, or anything.

majinbuu1307 wrote...
The rest is off screen, we have no idea what happens[...]

That is the crucial problem and a totally unnecessary one. Why not show this? Why leaving us in the dark? This is the end of the arc, nothing needs to be shrouded anymore.

E) In two out of three possible endings (or three out of six) the Reapers are NOT destroyed or in any way restrained from starting the whole thing over again. So again, no end of the arc.

F) We have no reason at all, to trust the star child nor can we discern whether it lies or not.

G) We have no sign at all, that synthetics have any unanimous inclination of destroying their creators, let alone all organic life in the universe.

H) From the star childs point of view: Letting Shepard choose any of the options directly contradicts the star childs logic, as this would ultimately doom the universe - except when used to decieve Shepard.

I) Side Note: There is no end to the Harbingers arc. That story device is called "Chekovs Gun" and if unresolved reeks of bad wirting.

Cazy

[CulturalGeekGirl]

You miss one clear piece of SF-nal insanity that the Starchild experiences, one that is directly contradicted by the in-universe lore of Mass Effect.

For anything the Starchild says to make sense, it must be impossible for organic life to achieve anything similar to synthesis themselves. I'm talking about the version of the singularity where organic life voluntarily becomes part synthetic and the digitized consciousnesses of formerly organic creatures can move back and forth between synthetic, geth-satelite-like sim environments and organic forms. Digitized organic consciousnesses would naturally have sympathy and feel kinship for organics, but would not posess any of the inherent limitations that you imply make organic life eventually doomed to die out.

The thing is, in the Mass Effect Universe, this has already happened. There was a whole arc about it on Cerberus News network:

"The scientific community is abuzz today after the latest report from MIT exo-biologist Jordan Detweiler was filed last night from the Antilin System, where he's currently investigating a mysterious "ghost ship." Claiming a breakthrough, Detweiler writes, "What I've discovered is nothing short of astonishing: This so-called derelict ship isn't derelict at all. It appears that an alien race has downloaded its consciousness to a massive array of quantum computers onboard the vessel. It's my belief these aliens now reside entirely in a virtual world and have been there for at least 8,000 years." Detweiler estimates the population of the virtual world numbers close to one billion individuals. He explains: "The ship's AI is something of a caretaker to these people, or even a god depending on how you look at it. More importantly, the AI is now requesting our help. It says a power failure is imminent and threatens the entire virtual civilization.

Theoretically, a virtualized civilization of downloaded organic consciousnesses would be the first step in achieving a synthetic/organic agnostic society, one in which there was no clear barrier between organics and synthetics, but where society contained both.

Plus, these digitized organic coinsciousness are now capable of re-inhabiting the organic bodies of volunteers, while the volunteers' minds are digitized into the simulation.

“Deadlocked Council deliberations over the fate of Ambassador Sygan ended today with a surprising twist: the Council will grant asylum to the virtual alien emissary in the body of a volunteer, allowing famed MIT exobiologist Dr. Jordan Detweiler to return to his own body. Ambassador Sygan will transfer her consciousness into the volunteer's body, while the volunteer's consciousness is downloaded into a computer. Upon hearing this decision, some 400 individuals from various races have volunteered to "swap places" with aliens inside the virtual world who wish to re-join the physical universe. One asari volunteer regarded this as "an amazing opportunity to explore a new realm of existence," while a salarian volunteer said, "I'm doing it because I'm tired of our universe. It's a mess."

So, in the Mass Effect universe, we know that you can, in fact, digitize organic consciousness and allow it to live as a "synthetic," then return it to the body of a living organism. Organic life has already independently achieved something that is very close to natural, voluntary synthesis.

In a world where voluntary, reversible digitization of organic consciousness is possible, nothing the Starchild says can possibly make any sense. We have proof that the Mass Effect universe is such a universe. Operation: Overlord's ending and Legion's mission with the Reaper code reinforce this idea.

Modifié par CulturalGeekGirl, 13 avril 2012 - 09:12 .

[Irx]

majinbuu1307 wrote...



[*]If synthetics where to be allowed, their calculations(over probably a billion or so years of evidence) is that the synthetics always eventually rebel, time needed is irrelevant. Geth could still possibly rebel again for another reason in 500 years, 1000 years, 20,000 years. Key point -Possibility of synthetics wiping out ALL organic life, not just advanced, total extinction of organics instead of making way for new ones-

Key point is that there is a possibility that a race of flying pink elephants suddenly emerge and decides to destroy all life in thr universe and commit suicide afterwards.

Modifié par Irxy, 13 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[EpicTacoProject]

"It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C"
So forgive me if I don't believe everything Hudson says.

[III Achilles II]

1. Kind of like indoctrination, but reverse?- so it's completely plausible that the Starshild or Reaper Catalyst (?) can extract information, but it's implausible that the Reapers couldn't indoctrinate Shepard. 

2. Why is that Irrelevant? The DESIGNERS DID THIS FOR A REASON. That's why they were suprised that more people didn't get it. Why is that so hard to believe? They even said this in many of their statements. 

3. The game says that the other races spoke of the catalyst. My point is that you are making an assumption that is NO WHERE in the game. At least indoctrination is mentioned 1,000 times in the game. I get your point I'm telling you that in game lore would suggest that you are wrong. Otherwise you would just say the catalyst gave the first species the plans. 

4. That's news to me. He seems to try to persuade you that all you and all synthetics will die. It's really no different than the concept of the "devil" who tries to persuade but never forces the hand. 

5. Catalyst is the Citadel which is what everyone figured out. In reference to the point above, why would the Catalyst just put exactly what it was they were looking for. Not the Citadel.

6. Entire time? What do you think the Citadel was? A week long vacation? Haha. I'm curious how much Indoctrination time is too much before it's implausible? The fact that you can see, must mean that you in your life now exist in TWO worlds. If you dream, you see, but to you that means it is REAL. For me, this is not the case. I can see visual images that can also turn into visual memories from my sleep. These REAL world connections make your argument invalid. 

That's interesting. Concerning the Illusive Man. I guess you then assume that the Reaper impants that he put in at his lab are the ones we see in the final scene? You are right about a few things, but the fact that Shepard can resist and succeed is exactly what the ending was from the time you get up in the "dream state" with unlimited ammo until the very last scene where Shepard "wakes" up. The funny part is, how do you know it's not a Reaper controlling or attempting to Indoctrinate Shepard? The codex talks about a lot of things. The funny part is that the CODEX SPECIFICALLY says, "ghostly" figures. What is the catalyst? A. Ghostly. Figure. The truth is Indoc is EXTREMELY logical inside the ME Universe and from a business standpoint for Bioware. 

It's not a rejection...Why do people keep saying that? It did happen. It did take place. Are you telling me that your dreams are not real images or thoughts or feelings? You've never woke scared or upset? The truth is if they filled in the plot holes for the ending everyone would just go well that wasn't as good as I thought. Let me ask this, if they intended to do an Indoc ending then how would you do it without plotholes, while leaving it on a cliffhanger? 

I take everything at face value too. Everything in the ME Universe points to Indoctrination. The game makes this feasible WITHOUT a huge leap of faith. The arguement to say that that a Character shown to be "waking up" could have been sleeping, dead, dreaming, is not illogical. 

HOWEVER, Star Child "Altering" the plans is backed by NOTHING in the game universe and directly CONTRADICTS the said explanation in game of ME3. "Catalyst is said to be the citadel, NOT STARCHILD." Your arguement that he somehow included himself would be as silly as if I said Harbinger was actually controlled by the illusive man all game during ME3. I would be making a huge stretch. The catalyst does not say "gives HIMSELF" more options. He says "I can't change it." And he mentions the crucible changed him. That means that he did not intend to bring the crucible to organic hands. 

Another major flaw is that the Citadel is part of the Starchild, but yet he couldn't have just opened the mass relay in ME1? He is the CITADEL, but he needs the KEEPERS? All of this is very confusing and it seems silly to think that the writers just "missed" all these major points. 

WOW. I just watched the Catalyst conversation and I COMPLETELY MISSED THIS LINE "There is only one way!" This to me makes it sound like only one solution is feasible, but you must still choose.

I accept the ending as is too, but I just believe Bioware has better writers. The fact is they intended for Indoctrination of Shepard to play a role in the end and it's subtle. That's why the writers wanted to change the ending to create speculation. What is there to speculate if the ending is meant to be taken AT FACE VALUE. 

No one ever answers this question. If they are terrible writers, then why did they just randomly include a scene where Shepard wakes up? If this is the true end of Shepard's story, then why not just have him die in ALL 3 ENDINGS. 

Food for thought. 

[DnVill]

Can you please explain why the catalyst didn't just open the relay in ME1 instead of Sovereign monitoring galactic progress (the catalyst can do this from the citadel).

Or why he didn't contact any reapers while the remnants of the Protheans were messing around with the Keepers on the Citadel.

For someone who controls the reapers he doesn't seem to be able to control anything.

[KevShep]

Iconoclaste wrote...

DevShep wrote......

Fact4) Shepard is dreaming in alot of the game. The last 10 minutes are out of place(like a dream)!

Not the best evidence at all. And I already answered this, maybe you were not paying attention?

The devs made a mistake with that "slo-mo" effect at the base of the "beam", but they decided to leave it as is because they liked the effect, nothing more. Once Shepard is on the Citadel, he's burned and injured, he's stumbling and bleeding. Since it's "just a dream", why doesn't he just run around instead? Or fly? Why not? Reapers want him to have a "realistic dream"? Then why did they show him anything relating to Anderson that might have kicked Shepard out of his dream? Anderson never pushed Shepard towards stopping the fight! Why would the Reapers do that, supposed they "control" the dream? If they do not control it, then go back to my previous sentences.

You have no proof of what the devs wanted so dont say that they did this or that and tell me that IAM wrong.

Second the reason Shepard cant "fly" or anything is because he is in a dream CONTROLED my the reapers. Like all Indoctrination the reapers have to get the subject to willingly agree to the reapers "suggestions". Maybe you missed that part about indoctrination in the Codex.

Modifié par KevShep, 13 avril 2012 - 02:44 .

[MassEffectReckoner]

that is true the codex does talk about that

[Dendio1]

people are so fixed on killing indoctrination theory. Well take this.

Speculations for everyone: bioware decided to neither confirm nor deny.

You can no longer prove it wrong or right. Enjoy limbo

Modifié par Dendio1, 13 avril 2012 - 06:12 .

[majinbuu1307]

spacebump

[majinbuu1307]

Cazychel wrote...

This is not to defend IT. Only to comment on your argument.

A) It is confirmed and double checked, that ME3 results in 6 different ending sequences and the differences are minor. Not 16. But yes, small thing really.

It CAN be argued, whether it is the end or not, because in at least one (best destroy) and in up to five (all destroy, all control) endings, Shepard is not dead (in control = became an AI to control Reaper). Shepard not dead = no end of the Shepard arc.

C) You assume just as much as IT, because you extrapolate things that COULD have happened, but are just as unprovable.

D) There is no closure, when Shepard would be in London rubble, yes. But also not when he/she would be in Citadel rubble, aboard a wrecked or damaged space station that may or may not stay in orbit, or explode, or anything.

majinbuu1307 wrote...
The rest is off screen, we have no idea what happens[...]

That is the crucial problem and a totally unnecessary one. Why not show this? Why leaving us in the dark? This is the end of the arc, nothing needs to be shrouded anymore.

E) In two out of three possible endings (or three out of six) the Reapers are NOT destroyed or in any way restrained from starting the whole thing over again. So again, no end of the arc.

F) We have no reason at all, to trust the star child nor can we discern whether it lies or not.

G) We have no sign at all, that synthetics have any unanimous inclination of destroying their creators, let alone all organic life in the universe.

H) From the star childs point of view: Letting Shepard choose any of the options directly contradicts the star childs logic, as this would ultimately doom the universe - except when used to decieve Shepard.

I) Side Note: There is no end to the Harbingers arc. That story device is called "Chekovs Gun" and if unresolved reeks of bad wirting.

Cazy

C. You are correct, but using Occams razor, seems a bit better to suggest what I'm suggesting rather than the alternatives.
E. You could argue that in destroy ending, remember time does not matter. In 1.2 billion years, another reaper like entity(s) could emerge, and start this whole thing again, The universe will always have its ups and downs, wars and peace, theres no way around it.
G. The reapers have been around for at least a billion years(check it) They have seen synthetics come about most likely in thousands and thousands of cycles. I'm sure that is enough data to see that every time, given enough time, they have rebeled, even if there is peace, what happens in 600 years the Geth decide to be hostile or the races deem the Geth a threat in 20,000 years for some reason? Moores law, should look at that, tech is and WILL become more advanced, we are heading that way in reality.

[majinbuu1307]

EpicTacoProject wrote...

"It's not even in any way like the traditional game endings, where you can say how many endings there are or whether you got ending A, B, or C"
So forgive me if I don't believe everything Hudson says.

He said that, but in his line of thinking, there was no A, B C, there was 3 main choices, and a bunch of different outcomes to those choices. They may have had little screen time or flashed by but those choices appeared on screen. Except the crew part, every ending same thing, that was dumb. Synthetic leaves, meh.

[majinbuu1307]

bump

[Raanz]

III Achilles II wrote...

Let's just break this down.

Game ending- a point in the story where the narrative concludes

ME3 was promised to be an extremely amazing ending. The fight up the citadel is extremely awesome and so is the "Goodbye" to the crew. It concluded at a CLIFFHANGER. It is still an ending and your understanding of what you thought the ending would be is what is upsetting you.

You are hung up on the fact that DLC or ME4 is not an option and that's where your logic seems to bind you in your little box.

Think outside the box.

1. You are right. Reapers are still alive.
2. That means Truth DLC or ME4 will come next. Finish fight against Reapers and Collector's.


Regarding the Bioware quotes:
1. People are twisting their words.
2. If you told your gf you never wanted to get married, would you then tell her you wanted to get married before getting engaged or would you SUPRISE her with an engagement. Regardless of what was said, they planned on suprising their fans.
3. We are talking about Bioware who killed off their main character in the beginning of ME2. They've done some pretty crazy crap.
4. Many in-game items point to Indoc.
5. Bioware has had many opp. to deny Indoc.
6. Jessica has seen new content and has created a Indoc playthrough.
7. IT'S A THEORY. It's a discussion of the game. Not grasping at straws. My proof is ME1 and ME2. The writers are not idiots and I give them more credit to create such an intricate ending.
8. If you know what the ending DLC is then please post it for everyone. Otherwise, NO ONE but BIOWARE knows what the ending DLC is. IF INDOC WAS INTENDED, then they will lay it all out for people who do not understand.
9. There could be more DLC on the way. MP DLC came out this past week and they only announced it 5 days before it came out.

Good post.  (My bolding)

[T-0pel]

all right, I read it all and here are my thoughts:

1) "Such as; If you don't have enough EMS, not enough good scientists working on the Crucible, most likely not fine tuned, and when it fires, it burns the earth to a crisp basically."

That would be great, too bad its not true. EMS does not equal crucible. Crucible status is only a part of EMS, it is really badly implemented if what you said is correct.

2) "Shepard is ACTUALLY on the Citadel, those events happened, and this is closure, however you may feel about the ending."

Why is wind blowing on the citadel?
EDIT: And in ME2 he barely survives re-entry because he has a full armor set with kinetic barrires that can withstand a lot of presure. It is definately possible for him to still be in one piece, although for intents and purposes, dead.

3) Technological singularity

The main problem for me. The whole point of TS is that we have no idea what will happen after that, we dont know how synthetic life will behave. Some say it will fight us some say it might not even give a damn about us. Nobody knows this.

The catalyst just casually mentions this as the main theme of the game, which for me up until that point was stopping the Reapers. And he presents zero evidence, we just have to trust him. Now of course you say "but he is bilions of years old, he knows everything otherwise he would not have started the cycle". First of all he does not state anything that is all just your theory. For all we know he might have created Harbinger and then shut himself down only to be awaken by the Crucible. He might not know much he might be a malfunctioned AI.

I just dont believe in absolutes. Even AIs can be different. Even if, and that is a BIG if, he witnessed countless Galaxies wiped out of organic life it does not mean this will always happen. Just as you say that Geth could possibly still rebel I say that there is the same possibility of them coexisting with organics.

Modifié par T-0pel, 13 avril 2012 - 07:42 .

[jumpingkaede]

 If it hasn't been said already, but the first, among other inaccuracies:

majinbuu1307 wrote...

This means the game is unfinished, what happens after Shep wakes up? Does he try to go to the Citadel for real this time? Seems a bit redundant. Why show what happens after he breaks control?(the Crucible firing, relays disabled, etc etc) Seems weird for him to dream that too, if he already broke control eh? Re-read this part, more than once, and the previous paragraph, again and again, before you think of a counter argument. 

If the whole thing was IT or a hallucination, and the continuation is the Destroy Ending, we don't know what awaits Shepard in the Citadel.  

But it's probably not going to be meeting TIM "for real" and facing the Catalyst with Control/Synthesis/Destroy "for real".  All of those things were part of the indoctrination or his hallucination.

So your entire sequence where Shepard just "replays the Citadel sequence" never happens.  For all we know Shepard goes into the Citadel and presses a magic Reaper off button.

[M.Erik.Sal]

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread, because it's not worth my time.

I'm just going to say this.

I have never had a problem understanding the ending of the game as is, it's pretty straightforward. It just doesn't fit with the rest of the story.

When I first heard the Indoctrination Theory, I liked it, and I continue to like it to a certain extent; but as I think more and more on what I disliked not just about the ENDING of ME3 but the entire game as it fits into the series as a whole I like it less. ME3 largely sours the series for me, because by giving the Reapers such an incongruous motivation the first two games make less and less sense.

I enjoyed ME3, and will probably continue to enjoy it for the gameplay, but I don't think I can take it seriously as an installment of the series. I'll take from it what I like (mostly Tuchanka, Rannoch, and individual character moments), and throw away the rest as I construct my own personal canon.

Sorry, this turned into something different than I intended.

I and many people have no trouble understanding the ending, we just don't like it because it doesn't inhabit the same intellectual space that the rest of the series did.

[majinbuu1307]

bump

[T-0pel]

lol why do you bump instead of responding?

[kal_reegar]

synthetic will always rebel against the creator and try to destroy ALL organic life. Ok.

1. how can the star brat be so sure? The "singularity point", the point of no return has never been reached, of course. So he's just making non falsifiable theories. Speculation. From my point of view, he speaks of nonsense.

2. some organics (maybe the starbrat himself, or the creator of the starbrat), long time ago, were able to create the reapers to save themselves from the evil synthetics. So, what's the problem? Synthetics will always rebel against organics? Good, and organics will always create reapers.
No need to genocide everybody.

3. The reapers try to kill Shepard all the time. Five minutes before the ending, they try. Harbringer, Marauders, Bashees, Brutes, IM... and the star brat controls the reapers. So, HE was trying to kill Shepard.
Now suddenly he want to help Shepard? Choose destroy and doom organic life, if you want. WTF? The crucible has changed me. WTF? Choose space magic and do something with dna. WTF?

How can you believe everything he says? He's your sworn enemy and he's speaking of nonsesne.
Many people trust him just because he's a cute little boy, imho.
If the Collector's boss or the ghost of Udina had told us the exactly same things, nobody would have believed him.


indoc theory, save us all.

[Mizar_Panzar]

My biggest problem with the ending is that, BW tried to pull of a major plot twist right at the end. That should not happen. They should just keep it simple (stupid) and fire the crucible without the stupid last few things, and things will work out 95% better.

You are tryiing to make sense if it by explaining, and just like politics, the moment you start explaining, you already lost.

Modifié par Mizar_Panzar, 13 avril 2012 - 08:10 .

[T-0pel]

2 majinbuu1307: Can you please at least answer my 1st question? Thx

EDIT: lol I meant the 2nd question, that one about wind :-P

Modifié par T-0pel, 13 avril 2012 - 08:38 .