1057 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I guess I just find it hard to believe that EA would make such a technical blunder, squandering guaranteed cash. They have already added elements to the ME series to make it appeal to a wider audience, why in that case craft such a symbolic, metamorphical ending (which I must say runs counter to the views of  even most hardcore IT theorist for most of the rest of the series) to alienate people? One of the big problems with IT is assuming it was pre-designed, why not realise the ending now whilst ME is fresh in people's mind?

Do you really think EA would go the extra mile to take a "gamble to break the 4th wall", as you put it, when mediocrity is enough (and is cheaper)?

I think it is easy to understand why the developer would think it is good when it might not be for gamers. They have spent 7 years on this whole franchise, that's a lot of working and thinking time devoted to one project. One can develop quite an insular approach under such conditions.
Furthermore, no one from BW is publicly going to slag off the game anyway

I don't think that the narrative is considerably less coherent or has loads more inconsistencies during the final assault til after the Anderson moment up until the Catalyst scene, which I agree has many errors.

And what exactly is your problem with the kid?

Apparently I'm the only one on this thread right now...

I have no idea what your first paragraph meant. Why not realise the ending while everything is fresh in there minds? Do you mean why not clarify the ending now instead of 3 months from now? Clearly its not ready. I've said before that I don't think an IT ending explicitly needs more DLC. At least, I can imagine why the devs might not think so. It's possible they never intended to show the rest of the battle, and to let us use our imaginations. They miscalculated, I never denied that.

You and I assume different levels of controlling from EA. I think BW has the reigns on creativity/story, while EA demands certain features for greater accessibility (Multiplayer).

I think everything after Shepard is hit by the beam is nonsensical and riddled with plotholes. They're well documented including here: docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview

I'll add to that that in the convo with TIM, one of the renegade dialog options is "If you can control them, go ahead... I won't stop you" followed by TIM saying "But..But.. I NEED YOU to believe!" How does that make sense outside of IT? I don't think it does.

I don't like the kid because (outside of IT) he's a hamhanded attempt at evoking emotion. Outside of IT he serves no other purpose, and he serves it poorly.

IT, if it was really BW's intention from the off, would have been released by now, esp. since the team working on ME would be doing it now right/have done it by now.  Delaying the release by would lose its impact dramatically. You say that IT doesn't need a new ending. But how does that work? A twist ending needs a point where the twist becomes completely apparent, otherwise you leave your audience stranded in confusion, which is what has happened there. BW are savvy game designers, they have made many games, and they realise that making such an ending just annoys everyone. That's another big problem with IT, it requires stupid marketing decisions from EA and Bioware which are unlikely to have happened.

We shall probably never truly know how much power EA exerts over BW, we can only guess based on the games themselves. As noted by a lot of people, there has been a trend in ME2 and ME3 to appeal to a more mainstream fan base, the COD community (who I have nothing against) etc., some elements of RPG have been stripped back. This indicates to me that EA  has a degree of power over BW.

Interesting article. It has some good bits in it, others not so good and don't agree with.

I agree with you that the Illusive Man is basically a Reaper mouthpiece at this point, being indoctrinated. I don't however think that he is not real which most conspiracy, I mean IT, theorists believe.

I agree with the child being kind of "ham-fisted", why any sci-fi game developer BW would put a kid in (which gamers tend to hate) I don't know. It did seem forced, but you need to separate your general dislike of the character from the fact he does or doesn't exist in the narrative.

[EpyonX3]

Hawk227 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

We don't know enough about the previous cycles to know the extent of the threat of synthetics. The furthest we can go is the last cycle. Javik describes his synthetics as dangerously aggressive machines that took over organics like parasytes. In his time, they were certainly a threat.

This is of course true and it boils down to the Technological Singularity argument. The problems with this (and to me they're big) is that it kind of comes out of left field and it undermines major portions of the story. Why have everything with Legion in ME2 and the Geth consensus where you specifically learn the Quarians attacked first? You have these interesting and moving interactions with EDI where you discuss what it means to be alive. The game is telling you that synthetics and organics can co-exist and then it pulls the rug out from under you in the end. Not to mention "technological singularity" is never mentioned in the entire game. From a narrative stand point (even if the contention is true) it makes no sense.

EpyonX3 wrote....



Go to 15:33. The geth
unit refused to shut down. In the following data cluster, the quarian
soldier yells, "we've got escaped geth!", shoots them and then says one
went for a weapon.

The geth escaped where ever they were being
held. They were not only refusing to shut off but they were trying to
escape and were unpredictably dangerous.

It's easy for us to say they were wrong now since so much time has past and we know the Geth's true motives.

But
for a people who basically saw their creations become self aware out of
no where and ignored you commands, the fear can be somewhat
understandable.

Okay, I'll concede the refusing to shut down point. Thanks for the video. I didn't have time to find it earlier.

The unpredictably dangerous claim is a stretch. The first data point the geth is clearly non-violent and says he's ready to serve. In the next data cluster, the quarians are massacring geth before a separate one finally goes for a gun. They tried repeatedly in those flashbacks to be peaceful. They were clearly defending themselves when they fought back. You can't try to annihilate a race, then retroactively say they're dangerous because they defended themselves. Just like you can't punish someone for something he hasn't done yet.

The geth even have a special remembrance of the Quarians that died protecting them

I'm starting to think you picked the renegade option to tell EDI that synthetics aren't alive and should just do what they're programmed for.

To your first point. I agree that it felt like it was thrown in out of no where. I think it would have been better if we didn't know why the reapers where doing this. The fact that they lower themselves to our level and try to expplain themselves takes away from their character.

Your second point. There is a gap between the geth not shutting down when they were being executed. A lot of things could have happened between that gap. Also, the following clips show signs of a possible civil war before things got out of hand.

The war probably started out as a small paranoid group of people in power and infulenced the masses into killing all geth either through a fear campaign or by force or both.

I never said the Quarians were right. It was fear that clouded their judgment. They could have went about a different way.

Actually I haven't played a renegade playthrough yet. AI's are built to mimick organic all the way down to the thought processes and behavior. If free will is an intended part of the design then I welcome it and explore it openly and passivly.

If it were out of no where like the geth, I'd be worried about them because they became self aware and gained free will on their own. If they could manage mimicking organics without organic intervention, there's no telling what else they can achieve. I wouldn't go all genocide on them but I wouldn't embrace them with open arms either.

[dreman9999]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

We don't know enough about the previous cycles to know the extent of the threat of synthetics. The furthest we can go is the last cycle. Javik describes his synthetics as dangerously aggressive machines that took over organics like parasytes. In his time, they were certainly a threat.

This is of course true and it boils down to the Technological Singularity argument. The problems with this (and to me they're big) is that it kind of comes out of left field and it undermines major portions of the story. Why have everything with Legion in ME2 and the Geth consensus where you specifically learn the Quarians attacked first? You have these interesting and moving interactions with EDI where you discuss what it means to be alive. The game is telling you that synthetics and organics can co-exist and then it pulls the rug out from under you in the end. Not to mention "technological singularity" is never mentioned in the entire game. From a narrative stand point (even if the contention is true) it makes no sense.

EpyonX3 wrote....



Go to 15:33. The geth
unit refused to shut down. In the following data cluster, the quarian
soldier yells, "we've got escaped geth!", shoots them and then says one
went for a weapon.

The geth escaped where ever they were being
held. They were not only refusing to shut off but they were trying to
escape and were unpredictably dangerous.

It's easy for us to say they were wrong now since so much time has past and we know the Geth's true motives.

But
for a people who basically saw their creations become self aware out of
no where and ignored you commands, the fear can be somewhat
understandable.

Okay, I'll concede the refusing to shut down point. Thanks for the video. I didn't have time to find it earlier.

The unpredictably dangerous claim is a stretch. The first data point the geth is clearly non-violent and says he's ready to serve. In the next data cluster, the quarians are massacring geth before a separate one finally goes for a gun. They tried repeatedly in those flashbacks to be peaceful. They were clearly defending themselves when they fought back. You can't try to annihilate a race, then retroactively say they're dangerous because they defended themselves. Just like you can't punish someone for something he hasn't done yet.

The geth even have a special remembrance of the Quarians that died protecting them

I'm starting to think you picked the renegade option to tell EDI that synthetics aren't alive and should just do what they're programmed for.

To your first point. I agree that it felt like it was thrown in out of no where. I think it would have been better if we didn't know why the reapers where doing this. The fact that they lower themselves to our level and try to expplain themselves takes away from their character.

Your second point. There is a gap between the geth not shutting down when they were being executed. A lot of things could have happened between that gap. Also, the following clips show signs of a possible civil war before things got out of hand.

The war probably started out as a small paranoid group of people in power and infulenced the masses into killing all geth either through a fear campaign or by force or both.

I never said the Quarians were right. It was fear that clouded their judgment. They could have went about a different way.

Actually I haven't played a renegade playthrough yet. AI's are built to mimick organic all the way down to the thought processes and behavior. If free will is an intended part of the design then I welcome it and explore it openly and passivly.

If it were out of no where like the geth, I'd be worried about them because they became self aware and gained free will on their own. If they could manage mimicking organics without organic intervention, there's no telling what else they can achieve. I wouldn't go all genocide on them but I wouldn't embrace them with open arms either.

Also, you haveto understand that the reapers are arragant and do not want to debate with anyone about the facts. They clearly have the fact supporting there belief being that the they aretimeless machine and not only had the time to watch organic for eons but they examine organic to a level they they made a trap that can last for eons, the mass relays. They had to calculate what planet organic will rise up on, were they will advance to in space, and quickly can they learn the tech in a spaned of eons in away that would be constant to each cycle. Add in system decay rate as well. 
The fact that always invade and give no explination to the organic they havest shows clearly they don't want to argue their point. They just force it on use no matter what we think.

Modifié par dreman9999, 15 avril 2012 - 05:25 .

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I guess I just find it hard to believe that EA would make such a technical blunder, squandering guaranteed cash. They have already added elements to the ME series to make it appeal to a wider audience, why in that case craft such a symbolic, metamorphical ending (which I must say runs counter to the views of  even most hardcore IT theorist for most of the rest of the series) to alienate people? One of the big problems with IT is assuming it was pre-designed, why not realise the ending now whilst ME is fresh in people's mind?

Do you really think EA would go the extra mile to take a "gamble to break the 4th wall", as you put it, when mediocrity is enough (and is cheaper)?

I think it is easy to understand why the developer would think it is good when it might not be for gamers. They have spent 7 years on this whole franchise, that's a lot of working and thinking time devoted to one project. One can develop quite an insular approach under such conditions.
Furthermore, no one from BW is publicly going to slag off the game anyway

I don't think that the narrative is considerably less coherent or has loads more inconsistencies during the final assault til after the Anderson moment up until the Catalyst scene, which I agree has many errors.

And what exactly is your problem with the kid?

Apparently I'm the only one on this thread right now...

I have no idea what your first paragraph meant. Why not realise the ending while everything is fresh in there minds? Do you mean why not clarify the ending now instead of 3 months from now? Clearly its not ready. I've said before that I don't think an IT ending explicitly needs more DLC. At least, I can imagine why the devs might not think so. It's possible they never intended to show the rest of the battle, and to let us use our imaginations. They miscalculated, I never denied that.

You and I assume different levels of controlling from EA. I think BW has the reigns on creativity/story, while EA demands certain features for greater accessibility (Multiplayer).

I think everything after Shepard is hit by the beam is nonsensical and riddled with plotholes. They're well documented including here: docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview

I'll add to that that in the convo with TIM, one of the renegade dialog options is "If you can control them, go ahead... I won't stop you" followed by TIM saying "But..But.. I NEED YOU to believe!" How does that make sense outside of IT? I don't think it does.

I don't like the kid because (outside of IT) he's a hamhanded attempt at evoking emotion. Outside of IT he serves no other purpose, and he serves it poorly.

IT, if it was really BW's intention from the off, would have been released by now, esp. since the team working on ME would be doing it now right/have done it by now.  Delaying the release by would lose its impact dramatically. You say that IT doesn't need a new ending. But how does that work? A twist ending needs a point where the twist becomes completely apparent, otherwise you leave your audience stranded in confusion, which is what has happened there. BW are savvy game designers, they have made many games, and they realise that making such an ending just annoys everyone. That's another big problem with IT, it requires stupid marketing decisions from EA and Bioware which are unlikely to have happened.

We shall probably never truly know how much power EA exerts over BW, we can only guess based on the games themselves. As noted by a lot of people, there has been a trend in ME2 and ME3 to appeal to a more mainstream fan base, the COD community (who I have nothing against) etc., some elements of RPG have been stripped back. This indicates to me that EA  has a degree of power over BW.

Interesting article. It has some good bits in it, others not so good and don't agree with.

I agree with you that the Illusive Man is basically a Reaper mouthpiece at this point, being indoctrinated. I don't however think that he is not real which most conspiracy, I mean IT, theorists believe.

I agree with the child being kind of "ham-fisted", why any sci-fi game developer BW would put a kid in (which gamers tend to hate) I don't know. It did seem forced, but you need to separate your general dislike of the character from the fact he does or doesn't exist in the narrative.

Even if he's a just a reaper mouthpiece, what purpose does that serve? Even he convinces you, then you're more likely to pick control later? That would imply the reapers want you to pick control. Why? Because you can't control them? Because its really indoctrination? If he's not a mouthpiece but unknowingly indoctrinated (like saren) why not just go do it? The Acayvos take on this convo makes way more sense to me than the literal take on it.

As for the need for DLC... I agree that this summer is late. The ideal release (from an IT perspective) would be right now. But the Devs have been pretty open about wanting speculation. It's plausible to me that they didn't think they would need DLC to finish the fight post breath scene. And while I would disagree with that notion, I can relate to it. To me, victory is pretty much implied. You've defeated the last and most insidious Reaper weapon, all you have to do is go up the conduit, kill some husks/banshees, maybe gloat to Harbinger, and activate the crucible. I can do that in my imagination.

Although, we also don't know how long it takes to make DLC, or when this creative decision happened. It may have been a last minute gamble, knowing it would take the better part of 6 months to finish DLC.  It's possible it was always going to be late summer.

As for that "gotcha" moment you keep mentioning. I think that's what the breath scene was supposed to be. Shepard was at the epicenter of the Citadel exploding, not in citadel bunker. There's no good reason for you to be alive, especially on Earth. There's only one plausible explanation... you never left. This isn't just shepard being indoctrinated, it's the player being indoctrinated. That's an important distinction. Indoctrinating you or me loses its power when a minute later we get a "haha, you're indoctrinated" ending. It's much more powerful if you have to figure it out for yourself. Plus, putting it on disc potentially ruins that experience for everyone else. Right now its speculation, but if it was on disc everyone would know it happened (Youtube) and people that hadn't gotten there yet would miss out.

[Hawk227]

EpyonX3 wrote...

To your first point. I agree that it felt like it was thrown in out of no where. I think it would have been better if we didn't know why the reapers where doing this. The fact that they lower themselves to our level and try to expplain themselves takes away from their character.

Your second point. There is a gap between the geth not shutting down when they were being executed. A lot of things could have happened between that gap. Also, the following clips show signs of a possible civil war before things got out of hand.

The war probably started out as a small paranoid group of people in power and infulenced the masses into killing all geth either through a fear campaign or by force or both.

I never said the Quarians were right. It was fear that clouded their judgment. They could have went about a different way.

[...]

There's a pretty good thread on the tech singularity here: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/355/index/10761785

My objections to it are more than just that it was introduced too late. But we can save it for that thread.

As for the Geth... I'm not sure what we're debating anymore. How did this even start? We have very different interpretations of that mission and of the meaning of "rebel" and probably a few other things. Which is fine. At this point I'm comfortable agreeing to disagree.

[SubAstris]

Modifié par SubAstris, 15 avril 2012 - 09:36 .

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

I guess I just find it hard to believe that EA would make such a technical blunder, squandering guaranteed cash. They have already added elements to the ME series to make it appeal to a wider audience, why in that case craft such a symbolic, metamorphical ending (which I must say runs counter to the views of  even most hardcore IT theorist for most of the rest of the series) to alienate people? One of the big problems with IT is assuming it was pre-designed, why not realise the ending now whilst ME is fresh in people's mind?

Do you really think EA would go the extra mile to take a "gamble to break the 4th wall", as you put it, when mediocrity is enough (and is cheaper)?

I think it is easy to understand why the developer would think it is good when it might not be for gamers. They have spent 7 years on this whole franchise, that's a lot of working and thinking time devoted to one project. One can develop quite an insular approach under such conditions.
Furthermore, no one from BW is publicly going to slag off the game anyway

I don't think that the narrative is considerably less coherent or has loads more inconsistencies during the final assault til after the Anderson moment up until the Catalyst scene, which I agree has many errors.

And what exactly is your problem with the kid?

Apparently I'm the only one on this thread right now...

I have no idea what your first paragraph meant. Why not realise the ending while everything is fresh in there minds? Do you mean why not clarify the ending now instead of 3 months from now? Clearly its not ready. I've said before that I don't think an IT ending explicitly needs more DLC. At least, I can imagine why the devs might not think so. It's possible they never intended to show the rest of the battle, and to let us use our imaginations. They miscalculated, I never denied that.

You and I assume different levels of controlling from EA. I think BW has the reigns on creativity/story, while EA demands certain features for greater accessibility (Multiplayer).

I think everything after Shepard is hit by the beam is nonsensical and riddled with plotholes. They're well documented including here: docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview

I'll add to that that in the convo with TIM, one of the renegade dialog options is "If you can control them, go ahead... I won't stop you" followed by TIM saying "But..But.. I NEED YOU to believe!" How does that make sense outside of IT? I don't think it does.

I don't like the kid because (outside of IT) he's a hamhanded attempt at evoking emotion. Outside of IT he serves no other purpose, and he serves it poorly.

IT, if it was really BW's intention from the off, would have been released by now, esp. since the team working on ME would be doing it now right/have done it by now.  Delaying the release by would lose its impact dramatically. You say that IT doesn't need a new ending. But how does that work? A twist ending needs a point where the twist becomes completely apparent, otherwise you leave your audience stranded in confusion, which is what has happened there. BW are savvy game designers, they have made many games, and they realise that making such an ending just annoys everyone. That's another big problem with IT, it requires stupid marketing decisions from EA and Bioware which are unlikely to have happened.

We shall probably never truly know how much power EA exerts over BW, we can only guess based on the games themselves. As noted by a lot of people, there has been a trend in ME2 and ME3 to appeal to a more mainstream fan base, the COD community (who I have nothing against) etc., some elements of RPG have been stripped back. This indicates to me that EA  has a degree of power over BW.

Interesting article. It has some good bits in it, others not so good and don't agree with.

I agree with you that the Illusive Man is basically a Reaper mouthpiece at this point, being indoctrinated. I don't however think that he is not real which most conspiracy, I mean IT, theorists believe.

I agree with the child being kind of "ham-fisted", why any sci-fi game developer BW would put a kid in (which gamers tend to hate) I don't know. It did seem forced, but you need to separate your general dislike of the character from the fact he does or doesn't exist in the narrative.

Even if he's a just a reaper mouthpiece, what purpose does that serve? Even he convinces you, then you're more likely to pick control later? That would imply the reapers want you to pick control. Why? Because you can't control them? Because its really indoctrination? If he's not a mouthpiece but unknowingly indoctrinated (like saren) why not just go do it? The Acayvos take on this convo makes way more sense to me than the literal take on it.

As for the need for DLC... I agree that this summer is late. The ideal release (from an IT perspective) would be right now. But the Devs have been pretty open about wanting speculation. It's plausible to me that they didn't think they would need DLC to finish the fight post breath scene. And while I would disagree with that notion, I can relate to it. To me, victory is pretty much implied. You've defeated the last and most insidious Reaper weapon, all you have to do is go up the conduit, kill some husks/banshees, maybe gloat to Harbinger, and activate the crucible. I can do that in my imagination.

Although, we also don't know how long it takes to make DLC, or when this creative decision happened. It may have been a last minute gamble, knowing it would take the better part of 6 months to finish DLC.  It's possible it was always going to be late summer.

As for that "gotcha" moment you keep mentioning. I think that's what the breath scene was supposed to be. Shepard was at the epicenter of the Citadel exploding, not in citadel bunker. There's no good reason for you to be alive, especially on Earth. There's only one plausible explanation... you never left. This isn't just shepard being indoctrinated, it's the player being indoctrinated. That's an important distinction. Indoctrinating you or me loses its power when a minute later we get a "haha, you're indoctrinated" ending. It's much more powerful if you have to figure it out for yourself. Plus, putting it on disc potentially ruins that experience for everyone else. Right now its speculation, but if it was on disc everyone would know it happened (Youtube) and people that hadn't gotten there yet would miss out.

At the point when there is the meeting between Anderson and
TIM, the Reapers would still want to indoctrinate Shephard, still try and make
him think that he can possibly control them if he wishes (and so fall for the
same trick as TIM). It is also the egomaniacal TIM trying to find some
justification for his beliefs. However, the presence of the Catalyst changes
this, it says that even if TIM wanted to control the Reapers he couldn't
because they already controlled him. Now Shephard is not indoctrinated, as
noted by the fact that he doesn't fall for TIM's rhetoric, and so has the
ability to control/destroy the Reapers or choose synthesis.



Devs want speculation, but not when it is going to damage business like it is
doing now.



You can do all those things in your mind, but if you really left it to your
mind, why did you have buy ME3 and ME2 (which I presume you also have)? Because
you want to see it actually played out in the game, you want to be part of it.



I highly doubt it would be a last minute gamble, game development companies
have tight schedules and don't just add stuff for the sake of it right at the
end. Things are planned well in advance and so it is unlikely that such a thing
would happen ad hoc.



I personally believe that it is possible that Shephard survived on the Citadel,
given the evidence of cables which look incredibly similar to those on the
Citadel (why would BW put them in if not needed?) and are nowhere to be seen
around the beam,. Also the rubble could have only really come from the Citadel,
there are too many sharp edges for it to be non-manufactured and part of a
building, yet there are few buildings on Earth around the beam area. Not to
mention some comments by BW themselves



I suppose when you say there is no reason why he should be on Earth is due to
the unlikeliness of re-entry rather than against IT (because that is what IT
states)?



IT needs to be stated explicitly at the end given that the ending needs to
provide closure. It should be completely unambiguous so that all audience immediately
get it, not just a tiny minority (which seems to have happened here). Otherwise
it is bad storytelling.



BW and EA don't care what people put on Youtube, if they really wanted to they
could easily ban all videos featuring Mass Effect. The fact is that it is in
their commercial interest to have these things up. You would have the same
problem anyway whenever they release it because still a lot of people who in
the future who will play Mass Effect would find out the true ending and so ruin
it for themselves

Modifié par SubAstris, 15 avril 2012 - 09:42 .

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...



At the point when there is the meeting between Anderson and
TIM, the Reapers would still want to indoctrinate Shephard, still try and make
him think that he can possibly control them if he wishes (and so fall for the
same trick as TIM). It is also the egomaniacal TIM trying to find some
justification for his beliefs. However, the presence of the Catalyst changes
this, it says that even if TIM wanted to control the Reapers he couldn't
because they already controlled him. Now Shephard is not indoctrinated, as
noted by the fact that he doesn't fall for TIM's rhetoric, and so has the
ability to control/destroy the Reapers or choose synthesis.

That makes no sense. TIM can indoctrinate him by just talking to him? Come on.

The egomaniacal TIM justifying his beliefs would make sense... except he stated earlier that he was done with shepard, shepard had outlived his usefulness. Also, TIM is indoctrinated, if he's trying to convince shepard to do it, because shepard can actually pull it off, the reapers would reign him in. When Saren deviated from Reapers goals, he got a mindshock and put back on topic.

Devs want speculation, but not when it is going to damage business like it is
doing now.

And yet that's exactly what happened, whether IT is real or not. They made a bad ending for the sake of speculation, it is hurting business. Regardless of interpretation. How does this refute IT?

You can do all those things in your mind, but if you really left it to your
mind, why did you have buy ME3 and ME2 (which I presume you also have)? Because
you want to see it actually played out in the game, you want to be part of it.

Theres a big difference between imagining 10 minutes and 100 hours. I already agreed playing it would be better, preferably in DLC and preferably now. I've just given an alternate plausible explanation for why DLC isn't coming till summer.

I highly doubt it would be a last minute gamble, game development companies
have tight schedules and don't just add stuff for the sake of it right at the
end. Things are planned well in advance and so it is unlikely that such a thing
would happen ad hoc.

The dark energy ending was leaked last year, a decent ways into production. They obviously changed it, and did so late in the process. There isn't much to argue about this. The question is did they change it to a stupid ending that ripped off Deus Ex, or did they decide to go big and try indoctrination? I lean towards the latter. You welcome to lean towards the former, but the fact remains they changed the ending midway through development.

I personally believe that it is possible that Shephard survived on the Citadel,
given the evidence of cables which look incredibly similar to those on the
Citadel (why would BW put them in if not needed?) and are nowhere to be seen
around the beam,. Also the rubble could have only really come from the Citadel,
there are too many sharp edges for it to be non-manufactured and part of a
building, yet there are few buildings on Earth around the beam area. Not to
mention some comments by BW themselves

Those cables are reaper cables, they show up where ever the reapers have set up infrastructure. They're also loosely associated with indoctrination. The Rachni queen is surrounded by a bunch of them, Legion is hooked up to a bunch of them on the Geth Dreadnought. To me they symbolize indoctrination. The scene on earth is in the middle of london, the reapers bulldozed a bunch of area to create "no man's land". There can't be broken up walls etc there? Furthermore, that rubble is broken up the way stone or concrete would break. It's crumbly instead of sheared like metal. The citadel is metal.

That cable is the second most conspicous thing in that shot along with the N7 tags. That tells me its a hint (you may disagree, but apparently you dont). The N7 tags say it's shepard, what does the cable say? Well you could really carefully look up to beams on the crucible and squint real hard and maybe see them (or use that fly cam), or you can think back to the prominent moments you saw them before (rachni queen and legion). Which is a more realistic clue?

I'm not sure why you think he could've survived. Bioware has said there are bunkers in the wards that people like Aria could have survived at. Shepard was on the outside of the citadel tower, at the epicenter of a very big explosion. I don't even think he could have that convo with the catalyst without a helmet and survive. He was out in space. In ME1 you run up a similar area of the citadel tower, and you've got your helmet on. (I know you're gonna say mass effect field around crucible, I guess that's fine. But kind of lame. Continuity fail.)

I suppose when you say there is no reason why he should be on Earth is due to
the unlikeliness of re-entry rather than against IT (because that is what IT
states)?

IT says he couldn't have survived the explostion on the citadel, nor survived reentry, therefore he's on earth. The crumbly concrete rubble reinforces this.

IT needs to be stated explicitly at the end given that the ending needs to
provide closure. It should be completely unambiguous so that all audience immediately
get it, not just a tiny minority (which seems to have happened here). Otherwise
it is bad storytelling.

I feel like a broken record. Bioware wanted speculation, this is irrefutable (see Mac Walters notes in Final Hours app). Either way we were getting an ambiguous ending. In the IT interpretation, the player (you) is indoctrinated. In order for this to work and have an impact (ie: good storytelling) they can't tell you right away.

Bioware likes to be cryptic about things. It's minor compared to the ending, but they indirectly tell you that Joker's sister is dead. You have to listen to the Asari PTSD sufferer on memorial and talk to joker enough to hear about his sister, and then you need to put 2 and 2 together.

BW and EA don't care what people put on Youtube, if they really wanted to they
could easily ban all videos featuring Mass Effect. The fact is that it is in
their commercial interest to have these things up. You would have the same
problem anyway whenever they release it because still a lot of people who in
the future who will play Mass Effect would find out the true ending and so ruin
it for themselves

You clearly missed the point. Maybe that's my bad. Player indoctrination is a unique experience. Saren and TIM believed they weren't indoctrinated, even though they were very familiar with the process. To replicate that experience in the player, they can't come out and tell you. It undermines the effect for you (sovereign never told saren, it was shepard that finally convinced him he was indoctrinated), and a side effect of that is the people who finish quickly put the ending on youtube and potentially ruin the experience for the late arrivals (Say, Japan, who got the game a couple weeks later than everyone else). Doing it this way preserves the ending for 6 months or so.

[Iconoclaste]

The cables can be seen anywhere the Reapers set up infrastructure? If so, why not on the Citadel, which is Reaper construct?

The Citadel is not made of "metal", it's made of an "unknown resilient material". Codex.

Shepard  was behind the bottom part of the Council Tower, on the middle of which the 1st "magic blast" occured. He was shielded by the very thing he was standing on. You compare the case of needing a helmet in ME1 to go out of the tower to needing one on the bottom part of it. Two different places.

Indoctrination is aimed at having the target eventually side with the Reapers.It is not "taking control" of every act and thoughts, like a puppet. If a subject is indoctrinated, the Reapers do not need to influence him any further, the subject will help them anyways. Only if he diverts from objectives will the Reapers try to force the subject back to order. Shepard never sides with the Reapers.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 16 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[Hawk227]

Iconoclaste wrote...

The cables can be seen anywhere the Reapers set up infrastructure? If so, why not on the Citadel, which is Reaper construct?

The Citadel is not made of "metal", it's made of an "unknown resilient material". Codex.

Shepard  was behind the bottom part of the Council Tower, on the middle of which the 1st "magic blast" occured. He was shielded by the very thing he was standing on. You compare the case of needing a helmet in ME1 to go out of the tower to needing one on the bottom part of it. Two different places.

Indoctrination is aimed at having the target eventually side with the Reapers.It is not "taking control" of every act and thoughts, like a puppet. If a subject is indoctrinated, the Reapers do not need to influence him any further, the subject will help them anyways. Only if he diverts from objectives will the Reapers try to force the subject back to order. Shepard never sides with the Reapers.

They specifically were seen on the Citadel. They were seen near the Keeper at the top of the beam, and if you look real hard for them you can see them on the crucible. I stated as much. People are saying they saw them on the citadel so therefore he has to wake up there. I'm pointing out the problem with that explanation.

The initial energy gathering to be shot off to the relay gathered midway up the tower, the explosion occured somewhere near the center of the presidium ring (near the base of the tower) and extends outword beyond that ring (radius ~7km). Thats more than big enough to kill him where he stands.

Outside the tower is outside the tower. He was outside the tower in ME1 and ME3. He should need oxygen.

You just reinforced my point about TIM. Tim needing shepard to understand the crucible can control the reapers only makes sense if he's trying to get shepard to do that. Either that is in the reapers interests or it deviates from their interests. If it deviates, the reapers would have  "forced him back to order."

[Iconoclaste]

Hawk227 wrote...

They specifically were seen on the
Citadel. They were seen near the Keeper at the top of the beam, and if
you look real hard for them you can see them on the crucible. I stated
as much. People are saying they saw them on the citadel so therefore he
has to wake up there. (1) I'm pointing out the problem with that explanation.

The
initial energy gathering to be shot off to the relay gathered midway up
the tower, the explosion occured somewhere near the center of the
presidium ring (near the base of the tower) and extends outword beyond
that ring (radius ~7km). (2) Thats more than big enough to kill him where he stands.

(3) Outside the tower is outside the tower. He was outside the tower in ME1 and ME3. He should need oxygen.

You just reinforced my point about TIM. (4)
Tim needing shepard to understand the crucible can control the reapers
only makes sense if he's trying to get shepard to do that.
Either that is in the reapers interests or it deviates from their
interests. If it deviates, the reapers would have  "forced him back to
order."

(1) - The possibility of waking up on the Citadel or in London are of equal value if only supported by the "cables" evidence.
(2)
- That "energy" doesn't kill anyone on Earth. Shepard is on the other
side of the Tower, standing upside-down on a platform, shielded by these
structures from a direct impact.
(3) - Not a valid argument to counter the fact that there are different areas "outside the Tower".
(4) - No one questions the fact that TIM is indoctrinated. I don't see how this is indicative of Shepard's supposedly being indoctrinated.

[Hawk227]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

They specifically were seen on the
Citadel. They were seen near the Keeper at the top of the beam, and if
you look real hard for them you can see them on the crucible. I stated
as much. People are saying they saw them on the citadel so therefore he
has to wake up there. (1) I'm pointing out the problem with that explanation.

The
initial energy gathering to be shot off to the relay gathered midway up
the tower, the explosion occured somewhere near the center of the
presidium ring (near the base of the tower) and extends outword beyond
that ring (radius ~7km). (2) Thats more than big enough to kill him where he stands.

(3) Outside the tower is outside the tower. He was outside the tower in ME1 and ME3. He should need oxygen.

You just reinforced my point about TIM. (4)
Tim needing shepard to understand the crucible can control the reapers
only makes sense if he's trying to get shepard to do that.
Either that is in the reapers interests or it deviates from their
interests. If it deviates, the reapers would have  "forced him back to
order."

(1) - The possibility of waking up on the Citadel or in London are of equal value if only supported by the "cables" evidence.
(2)
- That "energy" doesn't kill anyone on Earth. Shepard is on the other
side of the Tower, standing upside-down on a platform, shielded by these
structures from a direct impact.
(3) - Not a valid argument to counter the fact that there are different areas "outside the Tower".
(4) - No one questions the fact that TIM is indoctrinated. I don't see how this is indicative of Shepard's supposedly being indoctrinated.

1) I sort of agree. My point is the cables didn't exclude London
2) The energy and the explosion are two separate events. The energy leaves the citadel unharmed, the explosion breaks it apart.
3) I disagree.
4) My post to subastris regarding TIM was about a specific dialog option that didn't make sense outside IT (If TIM is symbolic of Shepards indoctrinated part of his brain, or whatever). I wasn't saying it proved IT, I was just saying it didn't make sense in a literal translation for reasons I've already listed.

[tractrpl]

While I would hope that IT is real, I highly doubt that it is. Like Garrus says I expect the worse. There's always a small chance I'll be pleasantly surprised.

[tractrpl]

So that explains the holes in IT theory. It's a hopeful theory, and effort to make the endings work to our wants and dreams. This is actually the single most damning evidence that IT is not real, because we only hope it to be real.

[Hawk227]

tractrpl wrote...

So that explains the holes in IT theory. It's a hopeful theory, and effort to make the endings work to our wants and dreams. This is actually the single most damning evidence that IT is not real, because we only hope it to be real.

Huh? what is the most damning evidence?

[tractrpl]

The entire theory is built upon assumptions. First of all people complain about the suit having "no way to have radio comms",well it's pretty well established that omni-tools are implants, not something built into the suit. Comms are likely the same way. Having a damaged suit doesn't necessarily meant that he won't have radio comms. Then they say that in the control ending Shepard gets eyes that look like the Illusive Man's, and that means Shepard is indoctrinated because TIM is indoctrinated. However, TIM had those eyes long before he was ever indoctrinated. Every single assertion can be discounted as pure hopefulness or pure bad storytelling on Bioware's part. There's no evidence to suggest that IT is real and that's the most damning evidence against it.

[balance5050]

tractrpl wrote...

The entire theory is built upon assumptions. First of all people complain about the suit having "no way to have radio comms",well it's pretty well established that omni-tools are implants, not something built into the suit. Comms are likely the same way. Having a damaged suit doesn't necessarily meant that he won't have radio comms. Then they say that in the control ending Shepard gets eyes that look like the Illusive Man's, and that means Shepard is indoctrinated because TIM is indoctrinated. However, TIM had those eyes long before he was ever indoctrinated. Every single assertion can be discounted as pure hopefulness or pure bad storytelling on Bioware's part. There's no evidence to suggest that IT is real and that's the most damning evidence against it.

The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

  

 

Also, the white light "dream transition effect is very telling that the ending could be a combination of a dream and being somehow mentally linked to some reaper somehow.


Dreams
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

  
Shepard in Geth consensus



The ending

  

Also, look at Shepards eyes when he chooses either control or synthesize

 

Modifié par balance5050, 16 avril 2012 - 06:59 .

[tractrpl]

Shepards eyes don't matter. TIM had those eyes BEFORE he got indoctrinated. They could have merely put those eyes in there as a nod to TIM. I would like for IT to be real too, but let's face it. The chances of that happening are close to zero.

[balance5050]

tractrpl wrote...

Shepards eyes don't matter. TIM had those eyes BEFORE he got indoctrinated. They could have merely put those eyes in there as a nod to TIM. I would like for IT to be real too, but let's face it. The chances of that happening are close to zero.

Do you know where he got those eyes from? Reaper tech, during the first contact war. Indoctrination is slow and subtle.

Modifié par balance5050, 16 avril 2012 - 07:10 .

[Hawk227]

tractrpl wrote...

Shepards eyes don't matter. TIM had those eyes BEFORE he got indoctrinated. They could have merely put those eyes in there as a nod to TIM. I would like for IT to be real too, but let's face it. The chances of that happening are close to zero.

But what would that nod have been? What did TIM represent? Indoctrination!

[tractrpl]

TIM represents human ambition, not indoctrination. He only 'represented' indoctrination in the last game, and those eyes had nothing to do with his process of indoctrination, it's his obsession over the remains of the collector base that finally did him in.

Modifié par tractrpl, 16 avril 2012 - 07:15 .

[tractrpl]

Look you guys are totally getting your hopes up with this IT, and if you're right, then we're all happy. If I'm right, then I'm merely not any more disappointed than normal. You guys, on the other hand, will be devastated.

[Hawk227]

tractrpl wrote...

TIM represents human ambition, not indoctrination. He only 'represented' indoctrination in the last movie, and those eyes had nothing to do with his process of indoctrination, it's his obsession over the remains of the collector base that finally did him in.

For the entirety of the final game he was indoctrinated. Therefore he represented indoctrination at that point.

[tractrpl]

He was only marginally indoctrinated. Not anything near the point of, say, Saren. He's a character with a long history. To say he 'represents' indoctrination invalidates his established character before that point. Again, I mention he had those eyes BEFORE indoctrination. Those eyes represent his ambition, his "vision", forgive the pun, not his indoctrination.

[balance5050]

tractrpl wrote...

TIM represents human ambition, not indoctrination. He only 'represented' indoctrination in the last movie, and those eyes had nothing to do with his process of indoctrination, it's his obsession over the remains of the collector base that finally did him in.

Wut. Reaper tech indoctrinates and TIM got those eyes from reaper tech/artifact. The Thessia VI states "There was a splinter group who sought to use the crucible to "control the reaper" this splinter group was later found to be indoctrinated" Sound familiar? TIM is indoctrinated at the end of the game, he represents how the desire to "control" will lead you to indoctrination.