448 réponses à ce sujet

[KingZayd]

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

[viperabyss]

You want to understand the ending? Simple. Accept the starchild's logic, and the entire thing would make sense to you.

I think this is the biggest difference between those who likes the ending, and those who dislikes it.

[majinbuu1307]

Ytook wrote...

I support the indoc theory because it works, not just because it makes the ending work on some level, it also has points that make it work throughout the game, not just in the ending. I'm not right or wrong, by the nature of it we'l only know when the extended ending is available.

Quite true, they could very well admit that IT is correct, they made the game they can say whatever they want to.

[Apollo-XL5]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

[majinbuu1307]

viperabyss wrote...

You want to understand the ending? Simple. Accept the starchild's logic, and the entire thing would make sense to you.

I think this is the biggest difference between those who likes the ending, and those who dislikes it.

^This

[balance5050]

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

Oh there is plenty of logs to burn:P

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

SuperVulcan wrote...

Mr. Hudson has said other things about Mass Effect 3 that were not necessarily accurate. Not that I believe the IT is true. In fact, I've heard of it but never looked into it, sounds like an attempt to grasp straws.

It is:)

Your whole guide is an atempt to grasp straws with an ending that doesnt make sense, and for you to rub it in the faces of us indoc fans.  Guess what, IT is a theory, but it makes more sense than thecatalyst bull****.  
As for the catalyst logic is correct, give me a break, so the geth who from day one of their creation have tried to help their creators (the war was only to defend themselves and the quarians who tried to protect them,) will suddenly and uncharacteristically decide to rebel in XXX years and then go on to destroy all life in the galaxy.  I think that logic is up there with space magic.
So a fail to you sir.  Indoc theory still going strong. 

If it is up there in space magic, why has the catalyst see the same thing happen again, and again, over the past billion+ years. It has most likely seen the rise of countless synthetics, and out of those its highly likely some where peaceful too at first, or only wanted to coexist. But it doesn't matter if down the line something happens and changes that and they become agressive.

[majinbuu1307]

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

[Apollo-XL5]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

Oh there is plenty of logs to burn:P

Really, now who sounds deluded (or indoctrinated)
Plus your little guide also completely forgets about harbinger and the lack of screen time he has, unless as IT puts it, he was with shep the whole time, even at the end as the catalyst.
IT is a theory but it works, not just as a way to make the ending make sense, but also in the sotry of shepard, because he is only human is as suseptable to indoctrination the same as everyone else.  Hell even bioware staff (the ones who are not working on ME, like it, so do the media as well as more and more fans who complete the game lately)  
Have you seen the poll that some one made.  IT has a stronger fanbase than the people who are claim that it was lazy writing, or a brilliant thoughtful ending.( yeah because the normandy running away sequence makes so much sense, just like  the battle of new caprica in BSG, lee adama should have been "galactica is doomed, we legging it in the opposite direction"  I think not.

[majinbuu1307]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

Oh there is plenty of logs to burn:P

Really, now who sounds deluded (or indoctrinated)
Plus your little guide also completely forgets about harbinger and the lack of screen time he has, unless as IT puts it, he was with shep the whole time, even at the end as the catalyst.
IT is a theory but it works, not just as a way to make the ending make sense, but also in the sotry of shepard, because he is only human is as suseptable to indoctrination the same as everyone else.  Hell even bioware staff (the ones who are not working on ME, like it, so do the media as well as more and more fans who complete the game lately)  
Have you seen the poll that some one made.  IT has a stronger fanbase than the people who are claim that it was lazy writing, or a brilliant thoughtful ending.( yeah because the normandy running away sequence makes so much sense, just like  the battle of new caprica in BSG, lee adama should have been "galactica is doomed, we legging it in the opposite direction"  I think not.

The lack of Harbinger just served to make his appearance more dramatic. BOOM (lands) Oh Shi-

[Apollo-XL5]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

Could you elaborate on these conflicting stories about star wars, or is this another attempt to pull evidence from your a***.

[Myskal1981]

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

[KingZayd]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

still conflicts with mass effect 1 (why mess around with saren and sovereign, when the citadel is part of you? why don't you know that the protheans came and fiddled with your keepers?) and with almost everything sovereign says.

Therefore, i have to choose between the lore of the earlier games, and the new lore introduced by the star chiId. prefer to maintain the integrity of the earlier games and indeed most of me3, along with sovereign (who is awesome apart from the whole genocide thing).

Even Star Wars has its fair share of conflicting stories. Doesn't make it a bad series of movies.

if it was something minor, then that'd be okay. However, there are multiple contradictions with major plot points. for a series to have gone to do so well up to the last 5-10 mins and then destroy the mass effect universe with these paradoxes is shocking. 

For me the best parts of the mass effect series are the characters, the story and the lore of the universe. the starchild nerfs the reapers  by making them slaves to an AI who seems to seems to be logically impaired, contradicts the lore established by the earlie games and renders the original game nonsensical. Personally i find this tragic.

For star wars (original trilogy, and KOTOR games [not the mmo, which i haven't and probably will not play.. mmo's aren't really my sort of thing, i have.. doubts to the potential effectiveness of a story, and i love a good story in my games]), the story is good and I really do enjoy the universe. However, and i've been thinking this for a while: star wars benefits strongly from the (awesome)  lightsaber gimmick. Take away the lightsabers, and you still have a decent story, but it just doesn't feel as special.

[Apollo-XL5]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

III Achilles II wrote...

I don't understand the point of these threads when it is all speculation on both sides.

Well it wouldn't be much of a forum is no one argued or discussed or speculated:)

Or someone is just trying to stoke the fire of the anti IT brigade.

Oh there is plenty of logs to burn:P

Really, now who sounds deluded (or indoctrinated)
Plus your little guide also completely forgets about harbinger and the lack of screen time he has, unless as IT puts it, he was with shep the whole time, even at the end as the catalyst.
IT is a theory but it works, not just as a way to make the ending make sense, but also in the sotry of shepard, because he is only human is as suseptable to indoctrination the same as everyone else.  Hell even bioware staff (the ones who are not working on ME, like it, so do the media as well as more and more fans who complete the game lately)  
Have you seen the poll that some one made.  IT has a stronger fanbase than the people who are claim that it was lazy writing, or a brilliant thoughtful ending.( yeah because the normandy running away sequence makes so much sense, just like  the battle of new caprica in BSG, lee adama should have been "galactica is doomed, we legging it in the opposite direction"  I think not.

The lack of Harbinger just served to make his appearance more dramatic. BOOM (lands) Oh Shi-

No becuase that would then make people believe that his sudden reapearence has alot more importance to it rather than the blink and you miss it cameo, after all the build up he had in ME2.  Plus you wouldnt even think he was in the game at all unless you read the codex and heard the blink and you miss it bit of dialogue from the reaper on rannoch.  
No there is more to harbinger than we have seen so far and the EE shuold clear that up.  
How bad would thundercats have been if after facing mum-ra for years only to have the final battle against a completely new enemy who has had no foreshadowing or build up before hand.  that would not make any sense.

[iamzer0xx]

DoomManiac wrote...

you have failed,we will find another way

LOLOLOL

[Apollo-XL5]

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

[Myskal1981]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

[KingZayd]

Myskal1981 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

They lose
probably not, but i'd imagine there'd be consequences, maybe you kill some of your companions, maybe they kill you and save the galaxy themselves. maybe you paragon interrupt and shoot your face off.  That said: it'd be interesting if they did make you lose... maybe if you picked control, because you really shouldn't have. the game's been telling you that from the start. I've decided I want people who have picked control to have ended up dooming the galaxy.

[Myskal1981]

KingZayd wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

They lose
probably not, but i'd imagine there'd be consequences, maybe you kill some of your companions, maybe they kill you and save the galaxy themselves. maybe you paragon interrupt and shoot your face off.  That said: it'd be interesting if they did make you lose... maybe if you picked control, because you really shouldn't have. the game's been telling you that from the start. I've decided I want people who have picked control to have ended up dooming the galaxy.

I thought the point was that you cannot wake up if you pick Control or Synthesis or that you are basically indoctrinated, so you lose or you cannot procede fighting the Reapers, right?

IT supporters seem to have a very clear picture how things will turn out if you pick destroy, but with the other two endings it's just lots of speculation.

[Apollo-XL5]

Myskal1981 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

They lose
probably not, but i'd imagine there'd be consequences, maybe you kill some of your companions, maybe they kill you and save the galaxy themselves. maybe you paragon interrupt and shoot your face off.  That said: it'd be interesting if they did make you lose... maybe if you picked control, because you really shouldn't have. the game's been telling you that from the start. I've decided I want people who have picked control to have ended up dooming the galaxy.

I thought the point was that you cannot wake up if you pick Control or Synthesis or that you are basically indoctrinated, so you lose or you cannot procede fighting the Reapers, right?

IT supporters seem to have a very clear picture how things will turn out if you pick destroy, but with the other two endings it's just lots of speculation.

Well I read on one of the threads, that if you pick control, shep wakes up and has not completely overcome indoctrination but manages to destroy the reapers or halt them enough for his friends and the fleet to finish the job but dies in the attempt.  BUt if you pick synthesis, then its just the reapers win montage.
so
destroy = shep lives, he over comes indoctrination, reapers are beaten, happy ending with LIcontrol = shep does not fully over come indoc and sacrifices himself to give everyone the chance to beat the reapers, reapers are beaten, shep gets hero funeral.synthesis = shep never wakes up and reapers win.

[KingZayd]

Myskal1981 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

They lose
probably not, but i'd imagine there'd be consequences, maybe you kill some of your companions, maybe they kill you and save the galaxy themselves. maybe you paragon interrupt and shoot your face off.  That said: it'd be interesting if they did make you lose... maybe if you picked control, because you really shouldn't have. the game's been telling you that from the start. I've decided I want people who have picked control to have ended up dooming the galaxy.

I thought the point was that you cannot wake up if you pick Control or Synthesis or that you are basically indoctrinated, so you lose or you cannot procede fighting the Reapers, right?

IT supporters seem to have a very clear picture how things will turn out if you pick destroy, but with the other two endings it's just lots of speculation.

you are indoctrinated, but then so was Saren, so was Beneziah. This allows for a cutscene dominated ending, and with potentially some moments of  action (EDIT: choice, not action film action) (like paragon interrupt suiciding). Much like the current ending in fact. (EDIT: except it makes sense)

Modifié par KingZayd, 13 avril 2012 - 11:25 .

[Apollo-XL5]

KingZayd wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

KingZayd wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Myskal1981 wrote...

There are parts of the game that hint to IT, but everything outside the game hints that these are the real endings. Can someone explain to me, what the motivation would be for Bioware to state so often that these are the real endings, that they are just explaining them, clarifying them? If IT was true, we would not have any ending.

If IT is true, then the EE will show him wake up, reunite with his crew, and then you get to see all your war assets at work as you kill harbinger and end the reaper threat, because if anyone believes that the crucible will do it for them is a fool.
THe crucible is just to much of a coincidence and false hope to be truly believed.

Thank you for not answering my question, but well, I bite.
Ok, what happens to all the players that choose Control and Synthesis?

They lose
probably not, but i'd imagine there'd be consequences, maybe you kill some of your companions, maybe they kill you and save the galaxy themselves. maybe you paragon interrupt and shoot your face off.  That said: it'd be interesting if they did make you lose... maybe if you picked control, because you really shouldn't have. the game's been telling you that from the start. I've decided I want people who have picked control to have ended up dooming the galaxy.

I thought the point was that you cannot wake up if you pick Control or Synthesis or that you are basically indoctrinated, so you lose or you cannot procede fighting the Reapers, right?

IT supporters seem to have a very clear picture how things will turn out if you pick destroy, but with the other two endings it's just lots of speculation.

you are indoctrinated, but then so was Saren, so was Beneziah. This allows for a cutscene dominated ending, and with potentially some moments of  action (EDIT: choice, not action film action) (like paragon interrupt suiciding). Much like the current ending in fact. (EDIT: except it makes sense)

Exactly what i was thinking, all we need is the cinematics to show what happened after shep wakes up, and through the cutscenes add some choices and then show cinematics that lead to the epilogue cinematics that show the state of the galaxy and sheps fate, if still alive.  there is no need for any more playable content in this ending.

[Myskal1981]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...
*snip*

Exactly what i was thinking, all we need is the cinematics to show what happened after shep wakes up, and through the cutscenes add some choices and then show cinematics that lead to the epilogue cinematics that show the state of the galaxy and sheps fate, if still alive.  there is no need for any more playable content in this ending.

The cinematics could also show in more detail what happens if you pick Control and Synthesis, without IT.
We can discuss this all day and we won't get anywhere.

Tell you what: I don't believe IT was intended, but may as well be used by Bioware to some extent. The reason I don't believe it is that real life events, outside the game, speak a different language.
I do not believe Bioware intended to indoctrinate the players as there is no value behind such an attempt.

[balance5050]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...


Exactly what i was thinking, all we need is the cinematics to show what happened after shep wakes up, and through the cutscenes add some choices and then show cinematics that lead to the epilogue cinematics that show the state of the galaxy and sheps fate, if still alive.  there is no need for any more playable content in this ending.

That makes a lot of sense to me.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 11:38 .