1357 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Er... it's not quite the same thing. Shepard has first-hand experience in-game and concrete proof that these things have happened. IT is a theory for a reason- not because it's bad, not because it's stupid, but because the evidence isn't air-tight the way Shepard's is in game.

But Shepard has first hand experiance with indoctrination...All of ME1 and some of ME2. He knows it there , he knows the signs and he knows the reapers are after him and trying to control him.(Harbinger ME2). There even a line for this in Arrival in ME2 from Harbinger.."Struggle if you wish, you mind will be mine."
.....It's the same case.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Shepard has first hand experience by seeing and interacting with the Reapers. We, the players who control Shepard, do not have the first hand experience of Indoctrination. IT is based on bits of the game being cobbled together to form a semi-coherent narrative; semi-coherent because much of the evidence that's touted is shaky (such as the one case where someone was trying to 'prove' IT by using reflections that aren't visible to the vast majority of players). IT isn't a bad theory, as theories go, but it's not as self-evident and air-tight as some would like to believe. 

I'm sorry, but it's not the same thing. Apples and oranges. 

Again, yes we do. We don't have it done to us but we see every thing that happen to it. It like how some who is train to deal with posions sees the cases of it. We had it dicribed and shown to us through 5 stable people, we seen its progress and how far it can go...That is first hand knowlege...http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 

If we don't have it done to us, then we're lacking in appreciable first hand knowledge. We can recognise outward signs but as Indoctrination, in game, is a largely mental process, we cannot completely understand the mental reaction to it. I can read about a ringmaster and see one in the circus, but I can't actually understand, on a primal level, what it means to be standing in front of a thousand screaming people as a ringmaster.

We have observational knowledge. Not practical knowledge. It's the difference between recognisning signs of cancer and actually having it. It's not the same thing. Again, I'm not bashing IT but part of the reason why I don't personally follow it is because we don't have enough direct knowledge to maintain a self-diagnosis. The fact that Shepard doesn't follow the trend of 'recognising they're indoctrinated' ala Saren and TIM doesn't help.

http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

Also, if that were true. The only way Shepard would Sovergin was a reaper....Shepard would also have to be a reaper.

Modifié par dreman9999, 05 mai 2012 - 03:50 .

[SubAstris]

Laurencio wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

You can't, which is why IT can't be proven, or disproven, and remains a theory that refuse to die until such a time it's made irrelevant by the developers. Even after EC people could argue that IT was the original idea, it's impossible to disprove without direct communication from the developers, and even then the "they lied before, so they could be lying again" argument could be used.

Very true. Most IT theorists I have spoken to say that even if BW confirmed that IT was false tomorrow, they wouldn't believe them

[Laurencio]

dreman9999 wrote...
How do I know that? Look around, it's clear when people say if they don't fix the ending they are leaving mean that BW is in a hole. Do you really think that after and ending that was in ME3, people would be ageinst something that would get it to make sense in an interesting way that is based on the lore? Really, what is worse then, "I'LL NEVER BY YOUR PRODUCT AGEIN"?

And if they never shipped an ending to the game to begin with then why would that be any less of an outrage? The game just stopped, quite inexplicably, and you're told through back channels, or a message after this abrupt end that the real ending is coming in a DLC, please buy our DLC.

Do you honestly think that would be well recieved?

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...



http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

Also, if that were true. The only way Shepard would Sovergin was a reaper....Shepard would also have to be a reaper.

No, it wouldn't. It's basic observational experience and talking Soverign at its word, plus back up citations by various sources about the 'truth' of the Reapers. Shepard doesn't come to conclusions about the Reaper threat in a vacumn, there is numerous evidence by various persons to buck up the statement. The problem with IT is that it's a stream of continous, second-hand observations by outside (re: players, not in-game) sources who have continually altered the facts (as in, choosing different ones, I'm not accusing ITers of being liars) to fit the theory, whereas in most cases, that's enough to force a debunking or at least a radical change in belief in the theory, neither of which has happened.

As far as we have seen in game, Shepard's knowledge of Indoctrination is through visual clues and later establishment by numerous sources until Shepard's able to recognise it fairly quickly. Not one person makes the same assumption about Shepard, and nothing about Indoc suggests long-term, constant, widespread visual and auditory hallucinations except for some comments by the Rachni Queen, whose form of native communication (the song) is radically different from ours and would require extreme examination. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that other squaddies in the series, who have had serious exposure to Reapers, are suffering from the same issue. We the players have never been inside the head, or seen through the eyes, of an indoctrinated character; therefore it is difficult to conclusively state that we 'know' what IT 'looks' like or feels like. 

Modifié par Valentia X, 05 mai 2012 - 03:59 .

[dreman9999]

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

1) I realise, but absence of evidence is most usually evidence of absence. And there is no "proof" after anyway
2) Yes I do, and I realise that there is a small, but vocal contingent who support IT. Others don't. Basic 101 of Storytelling states that you need to inform your readers properly, if you don't, then you have created a crappy story, which is what has happened here. Hence why people had to turn internet forums and videos to find the "truth"; a good story should not do that. You say it yourself, people were angry, and that is why BW failed

1. But watching the nature of something  is the one of way to predict  how it develops.This one of the oldest ways to predict develpment This is the case of study valcanos, earth quakes, stars and storms.  You can't ignore it's nature if signs point  to it. Shep has been near reaper tech on and off for 3 years and there simptoms that link to it.
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

And it's been stated, form ME1, it is hard to detect early....Really, you can't say no solid evidence means no proof being that it never shows it and it to dangerous to ignore.

2.They you have not been paying attention then.....That's all of ME1, ME2 and Arrival. bw spent 2 game explaining indoctrination.....With codex there to reexplain it. It's not the fault of BW that you forgot.

[dreman9999]

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...



http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

Also, if that were true. The only way Shepard would Sovergin was a reaper....Shepard would also have to be a reaper.

No, it wouldn't. It's basic observational experience and talking Soverign at its word, plus back up citations by various sources about the 'truth' of the Reapers. Shepard doesn't come to conclusions about the Reaper threat in a vacumn, there is numerous evidence by various persons to buck up the statement. The problem with IT is that it's a stream of continous, second-hand observations by outside (re: players, not in-game) sources who have continually altered the facts (as in, choosing different ones, I'm not accusing ITers of being liars) to fit the theory, whereas in most cases, that's enough to force a debunking or at least a radical change in belief in the theory, neither of which has happened.

As far as we have seen in game, Shepard's knowledge of Indoctrination is through visual clues and later establishment by numerous sources until Shepard's able to recognise it fairly quickly. Not one person makes the same assumption about Shepard, and nothing about Indoc suggests long-term, constant, widespread visual and auditory hallucinations except for some comments by the Rachni Queen, whose form of native communication (the song) is radically different from ours and would require extreme examination. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that other squaddies in the series, who have had serious exposure to Reapers, are suffering from the same issue. We the players have never been inside the head, or seen through the eyes, of an indoctrinated character; therefore it is difficult to conclusively state that we 'know' what IT 'looks' like or feels like. 

http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

You can't say this is false..This is the literal meaning......This covers everything Shepard saw as first hand observation and knowleged.

[KingZayd]

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

1) I realise, but absence of evidence is most usually evidence of absence. And there is no "proof" after anyway
2) Yes I do, and I realise that there is a small, but vocal contingent who support IT. Others don't. Basic 101 of Storytelling states that you need to inform your readers properly, if you don't, then you have created a crappy story, which is what has happened here. Hence why people had to turn internet forums and videos to find the "truth"; a good story should not do that. You say it yourself, people were angry, and that is why BW failed

the thing is there is evidence used to back up IT. people may disagree on the interpretation of the evidence, but that's why it's evidence and not proof.

i agree this was handled poorly. If the endings supplied were indeed fake (as i hope and believe they are), then there should have  been more of an effort to make them more satisfying. People wouldn't have flocked to the forums to vent/find some way to like the endings. It's okay that very few people would have noticed indoctrination  then, because the story wouldn't actually be over. If people were satisfied with the ending, and then mysteriously several months later, a twist was revealed, it would be one of the few ways you could have a twist that hadn't been spoiled by people who played the game faster than you did.

[dreman9999]

Laurencio wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
How do I know that? Look around, it's clear when people say if they don't fix the ending they are leaving mean that BW is in a hole. Do you really think that after and ending that was in ME3, people would be ageinst something that would get it to make sense in an interesting way that is based on the lore? Really, what is worse then, "I'LL NEVER BY YOUR PRODUCT AGEIN"?

And if they never shipped an ending to the game to begin with then why would that be any less of an outrage? The game just stopped, quite inexplicably, and you're told through back channels, or a message after this abrupt end that the real ending is coming in a DLC, please buy our DLC.

Do you honestly think that would be well recieved?

Personally, after an ending like that. Most would care more about getting a proper ending than being out rage. I understand you point the it is too late  to make it asstounding, but not too late to make it better. That fact that, the ending will be fix, makes it better.

[DJBare]

Laurencio wrote...


And if they never shipped an ending to the game to begin with then why would that be any less of an outrage? The game just stopped, quite inexplicably, and you're told through back channels, or a message after this abrupt end that the real ending is coming in a DLC, please buy our DLC.

Do you honestly think that would be well recieved?

The EC is free, I think that counts for something, they were certainly pushed for time to get the game released, I don't condone this, but I get it.

[Tom Lehrer]

dreman9999 wrote...

1. But watching the nature of something  is the one of way to predict  how it develops.This one of the oldest ways to predict develpment This is the case of study valcanos, earth quakes, stars and storms.  You can't ignore it's nature if signs point  to it. Shep has been near reaper tech on and off for 3 years and there simptoms that link to it.
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

And it's been stated, form ME1, it is hard to detect early....Really, you can't say no solid evidence means no proof being that it never shows it and it to dangerous to ignore.

2.They you have not been paying attention then.....That's all of ME1, ME2 and Arrival. bw spent 2 game explaining indoctrination.....With codex there to reexplain it. It's not the fault of BW that you forgot.

 

ME1 gives us just about everything we know about indoctrination and we get no new info out of ME2. We learn there is NO fighting it. Victims can over come the control for very short momenets but in the end the Reaper control is absolute and the only way to free yourself is to give yourself a new face hole.

You say Arrival was a key point for Shepards indoctrination but what if I never played Arrival? Hackett sends in a spec ops team if Shepard does not do it so he is never in the same system as Project Rho. 

[SubAstris]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

 As much as we all have fought over this theory, their are a few ironies here that much of the Anti-IT seem to miss.
I just want to point it out.
1.The question of sold proof...

 It's been stated in the lore that there is no solid proof of it till it's too late. 

Their are syntoms but they are often spratic and divide in a way that makes it hard to link.....It's subtle. There 2 cases when somone who already knew about indoctrination via contact with reaper and reaper tech how knew and about indoctrination..... Saren, who tried to reduce it with short visits to the test onSovergin over the years, and Dr. Kenson, who may have been too late to try and avoid it.

2."Ah, yes. Reapers......"
No one remeber that time Shepard tried to prove something without solid proof, just proof to support his theory? It's ironic that it 's the same case with IT....Plenty of things to connect the dots with nothing to flatout shows it's true.
Some ever go as far as to say their is nothing to support the theory and ignore solid facts... http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 



It is really twisted how people don't see thisat all.

1) The problem with saying it is "subtle" is that it is often used as an excuse for lack of evidence.
2) The problem here is that from a storytelling perspective you can't lose your audience, which is what IT effectively does and did for millions of people who played the game if it is true

1. But that is what stated in the lore..It's nature...How do you show proof of something before it happens when it naturally shows the solid proof afteR?

2.........Are you serious? Do you even read this board? You think IT will lose fans but keeping the ending as is would not? Did you not see all the angry fans threating to never buy another BW game over this ending? And IT is going to make that worse whne most ofthe people like the theory any away? I think you need to check you're glasses.

1) I realise, but absence of evidence is most usually evidence of absence. And there is no "proof" after anyway
2) Yes I do, and I realise that there is a small, but vocal contingent who support IT. Others don't. Basic 101 of Storytelling states that you need to inform your readers properly, if you don't, then you have created a crappy story, which is what has happened here. Hence why people had to turn internet forums and videos to find the "truth"; a good story should not do that. You say it yourself, people were angry, and that is why BW failed

1. But watching the nature of something  is the one of way to predict  how it develops.This one of the oldest ways to predict develpment This is the case of study valcanos, earth quakes, stars and storms.  You can't ignore it's nature if signs point  to it. Shep has been near reaper tech on and off for 3 years and there simptoms that link to it.
http://social.biowar...75/blog/212630/ 

And it's been stated, form ME1, it is hard to detect early....Really, you can't say no solid evidence means no proof being that it never shows it and it to dangerous to ignore.

2.They you have not been paying attention then.....That's all of ME1, ME2 and Arrival. bw spent 2 game explaining indoctrination.....With codex there to reexplain it. It's not the fault of BW that you forgot.

1) Yes knowing its nature can be helpful. I have two things to say to that. First, as someone has already noted, we have not played as an indoctrinated player therefore we don't know exactly how it would affect us. There is a great difference between knowing some facts about indoc' and experiencing it in its full force. And secondly, about Shep's exposure to Reaper artifacts, the people we know, Saren and TIM have been under Reaper control for a much longer time than Shep

2) ME1: Only Sovereign at the end
ME2: Admittedly some events with Reaper tech, however lack of effect from those events
Arrival: DLC and therefore discounted (is said to be unimportant in ME3)

[Raiil]

dreman9999 wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...



http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

Also, if that were true. The only way Shepard would Sovergin was a reaper....Shepard would also have to be a reaper.

No, it wouldn't. It's basic observational experience and talking Soverign at its word, plus back up citations by various sources about the 'truth' of the Reapers. Shepard doesn't come to conclusions about the Reaper threat in a vacumn, there is numerous evidence by various persons to buck up the statement. The problem with IT is that it's a stream of continous, second-hand observations by outside (re: players, not in-game) sources who have continually altered the facts (as in, choosing different ones, I'm not accusing ITers of being liars) to fit the theory, whereas in most cases, that's enough to force a debunking or at least a radical change in belief in the theory, neither of which has happened.

As far as we have seen in game, Shepard's knowledge of Indoctrination is through visual clues and later establishment by numerous sources until Shepard's able to recognise it fairly quickly. Not one person makes the same assumption about Shepard, and nothing about Indoc suggests long-term, constant, widespread visual and auditory hallucinations except for some comments by the Rachni Queen, whose form of native communication (the song) is radically different from ours and would require extreme examination. Furthermore, there is nothing to suggest that other squaddies in the series, who have had serious exposure to Reapers, are suffering from the same issue. We the players have never been inside the head, or seen through the eyes, of an indoctrinated character; therefore it is difficult to conclusively state that we 'know' what IT 'looks' like or feels like. 

http://wiki.answers....thand_knowledge 
"Firsthand knowledge" is knowledge gained through direct experience or observation. 

You can't say this is false..This is the literal meaning......This covers everything Shepard saw as first hand observation and knowleged.

All Shepard, and the player has, is first-hand knowledge of how to tell if someone else indoctrinated. There is absolutely, literally, nothing that shows, proves, or insinuates that Shepard 'knows', on a purely personal level, what it's like to be indoctrinated. That is the point I'm trying to make. Shepard can see signs, you and I can see signs, but neither of us has ever been indoctrinated (obviously) and we have no concrete evidence that Shepard themselves are indoctrinated.

What IT tries to do is take observational knowledge (first hand or otherwise) and mash it up with clues, many of them vague, to concoct a 'truth' that hasn't been proved even remotely definitively. Until either Word of God states that IT is true, or we're given the chance to see what it's like, in game, to see the thinking process of someone IT (as in we would need to either control that person or at least 'be' them temporarily), IT can't be more than a theory and should not be construed or portrayed as fact. 

And by the by, using a source that doesn't have to cite where they got their information from would be thrown out, just saying. Might want to find something better, not sure if it would fall under an online dictionary or whatnot.

[MidnightRaith]

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

You missed the part where I said that IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification." EC falls under "clarification."

But first:

1. Yes, we have a backlash, however in its present state, ME3 does not spell the end for Bioware and it is not setting the precedent of End Game DLC. The only people threatening to not by future Bioware products are Mass Effect fans. However, Mass effect fans do not make up the entirety of the Dragon Age fans, or the TOR fans, or the Warhammer fans or fans for furture IPs. Mass Effect fans are angry right now and only Mass Effect fans. Yes, these fanbases intertwine. I myself am a fan of DA, ME and TOR. However that does not mean I'm willing to abandon TOR or DA just because ME3 sucked. However, if Bioware does IT, then my trust in them will effectively be shattered. I'd drop them in a second and I imagine that many people feel the same way.

2. You apparently don't understand what EC is designed to do. I do not think that BW is planning to do IT at all, considering that they themselves have stated that EC is going to provide "clarification" and "closure." IT would introduce entirely new information to the game. Your theory may be based on data present in the game itself, but you've put it together in a way that does not build upon what Bioware gave us. The "clarification" part is going to merely add on to what we've already been shown. I.E. Joker's abandonment. Things like that. Not, Shepard wakes up all of a sudden in London and somehow finishes the fight in someway. Perhaps with the Crucible or maybe through actual warfare. Another problem I have with IT. You guys don't have an actual ending. Just a protest of the one given, which is why it is a coping mechanism instead of a viable ending.

I am not against the EC as it stands. I'm against games not giving us an ending as advertised. ME3 ends. It has credits and we can speculate what happened, even if those speculations are awful and depressing. However, IT is a continuation of ME3. Not an ending. Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph I gave which already outlined how the backlash would get worse. What you see here is just ME fans. IT would be the boulder thrown into the BW Fanbase Lake that would ripple across all the IPs. It would get worse. Considering you didn't really address my points, I have to come to the conclusion that you're in denial about the whole thing. IT provides a way out, just like fanfiction for many other fans. The difference here is that you are actually suggesting that Bioware takes your idea and puts it in game. The idea that suggests that essentially the ending was a bad dream where you wake up to continue the fight. Do you not see how.... silly that sounds? What many IT supporters do not consider is how they would react if this is what Bioware gave us in the first place. How many of you would support it if so?

As I said, a coping mechanism that has exploded to the level of obsession. Following this, I'm not going to try to further dissuade you from believing in IT. It's supporters are too into it.....

[Vox Draco]

Just wanna help clarifying the entire "irony"-Discussion


Concerning IT...well...would be nice to see actually...that's all I can contribute...

[balance5050]

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

[balance5050]

MidnightRaith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

You missed the part where I said that IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification." EC falls under "clarification."

But first:

1. Yes, we have a backlash, however in its present state, ME3 does not spell the end for Bioware and it is not setting the precedent of End Game DLC. The only people threatening to not by future Bioware products are Mass Effect fans. However, Mass effect fans do not make up the entirety of the Dragon Age fans, or the TOR fans, or the Warhammer fans or fans for furture IPs. Mass Effect fans are angry right now and only Mass Effect fans. Yes, these fanbases intertwine. I myself am a fan of DA, ME and TOR. However that does not mean I'm willing to abandon TOR or DA just because ME3 sucked. However, if Bioware does IT, then my trust in them will effectively be shattered. I'd drop them in a second and I imagine that many people feel the same way.

2. You apparently don't understand what EC is designed to do. I do not think that BW is planning to do IT at all, considering that they themselves have stated that EC is going to provide "clarification" and "closure." IT would introduce entirely new information to the game. Your theory may be based on data present in the game itself, but you've put it together in a way that does not build upon what Bioware gave us. The "clarification" part is going to merely add on to what we've already been shown. I.E. Joker's abandonment. Things like that. Not, Shepard wakes up all of a sudden in London and somehow finishes the fight in someway. Perhaps with the Crucible or maybe through actual warfare. Another problem I have with IT. You guys don't have an actual ending. Just a protest of the one given, which is why it is a coping mechanism instead of a viable ending.

I am not against the EC as it stands. I'm against games not giving us an ending as advertised. ME3 ends. It has credits and we can speculate what happened, even if those speculations are awful and depressing. However, IT is a continuation of ME3. Not an ending. Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph I gave which already outlined how the backlash would get worse. What you see here is just ME fans. IT would be the boulder thrown into the BW Fanbase Lake that would ripple across all the IPs. It would get worse. Considering you didn't really address my points, I have to come to the conclusion that you're in denial about the whole thing. IT provides a way out, just like fanfiction for many other fans. The difference here is that you are actually suggesting that Bioware takes your idea and puts it in game. The idea that suggests that essentially the ending was a bad dream where you wake up to continue the fight. Do you not see how.... silly that sounds? What many IT supporters do not consider is how they would react if this is what Bioware gave us in the first place. How many of you would support it if so?

As I said, a coping mechanism that has exploded to the level of obsession. Following this, I'm not going to try to further dissuade you from believing in IT. It's supporters are too into it.....

I.T. would count as clarification, it would only need to "extend" the scenes.

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

True, but if it was dropped then it is likely that the decision wasn't taken lightly and was definitve . The amount of time, 6 months instead of 3, is frankly rather irrelevant

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

You missed the part where I said that IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification." EC falls under "clarification."

But first:

1. Yes, we have a backlash, however in its present state, ME3 does not spell the end for Bioware and it is not setting the precedent of End Game DLC. The only people threatening to not by future Bioware products are Mass Effect fans. However, Mass effect fans do not make up the entirety of the Dragon Age fans, or the TOR fans, or the Warhammer fans or fans for furture IPs. Mass Effect fans are angry right now and only Mass Effect fans. Yes, these fanbases intertwine. I myself am a fan of DA, ME and TOR. However that does not mean I'm willing to abandon TOR or DA just because ME3 sucked. However, if Bioware does IT, then my trust in them will effectively be shattered. I'd drop them in a second and I imagine that many people feel the same way.

2. You apparently don't understand what EC is designed to do. I do not think that BW is planning to do IT at all, considering that they themselves have stated that EC is going to provide "clarification" and "closure." IT would introduce entirely new information to the game. Your theory may be based on data present in the game itself, but you've put it together in a way that does not build upon what Bioware gave us. The "clarification" part is going to merely add on to what we've already been shown. I.E. Joker's abandonment. Things like that. Not, Shepard wakes up all of a sudden in London and somehow finishes the fight in someway. Perhaps with the Crucible or maybe through actual warfare. Another problem I have with IT. You guys don't have an actual ending. Just a protest of the one given, which is why it is a coping mechanism instead of a viable ending.

I am not against the EC as it stands. I'm against games not giving us an ending as advertised. ME3 ends. It has credits and we can speculate what happened, even if those speculations are awful and depressing. However, IT is a continuation of ME3. Not an ending. Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph I gave which already outlined how the backlash would get worse. What you see here is just ME fans. IT would be the boulder thrown into the BW Fanbase Lake that would ripple across all the IPs. It would get worse. Considering you didn't really address my points, I have to come to the conclusion that you're in denial about the whole thing. IT provides a way out, just like fanfiction for many other fans. The difference here is that you are actually suggesting that Bioware takes your idea and puts it in game. The idea that suggests that essentially the ending was a bad dream where you wake up to continue the fight. Do you not see how.... silly that sounds? What many IT supporters do not consider is how they would react if this is what Bioware gave us in the first place. How many of you would support it if so?

As I said, a coping mechanism that has exploded to the level of obsession. Following this, I'm not going to try to further dissuade you from believing in IT. It's supporters are too into it.....

I.T. would count as clarification, it would only need to "extend" the scenes.

It depends what you think BW will do. If you think they will just say "you were indoctrinated", then yes, that would just be clarification. However, to end the Reaper threat, talk with Anderson and TIM etc, have a bg final battle with Harbinger (which most IT theorists think will happen), that is much more than mere clarification

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

True, but if it was dropped then it is likely that the decision wasn't taken lightly and was definitve . The amount of time, 6 months instead of 3, is frankly rather irrelevant

Wut? LOL at you thinking that Bioware was rushed is irrelevant to a dropped game mechanic.

[davishepard]

balance5050 wrote...
Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

When Final Hours was released? Yeah, that's your answer right there.

One cannot fight against others denial.

[balance5050]

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

You missed the part where I said that IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification." EC falls under "clarification."

But first:

1. Yes, we have a backlash, however in its present state, ME3 does not spell the end for Bioware and it is not setting the precedent of End Game DLC. The only people threatening to not by future Bioware products are Mass Effect fans. However, Mass effect fans do not make up the entirety of the Dragon Age fans, or the TOR fans, or the Warhammer fans or fans for furture IPs. Mass Effect fans are angry right now and only Mass Effect fans. Yes, these fanbases intertwine. I myself am a fan of DA, ME and TOR. However that does not mean I'm willing to abandon TOR or DA just because ME3 sucked. However, if Bioware does IT, then my trust in them will effectively be shattered. I'd drop them in a second and I imagine that many people feel the same way.

2. You apparently don't understand what EC is designed to do. I do not think that BW is planning to do IT at all, considering that they themselves have stated that EC is going to provide "clarification" and "closure." IT would introduce entirely new information to the game. Your theory may be based on data present in the game itself, but you've put it together in a way that does not build upon what Bioware gave us. The "clarification" part is going to merely add on to what we've already been shown. I.E. Joker's abandonment. Things like that. Not, Shepard wakes up all of a sudden in London and somehow finishes the fight in someway. Perhaps with the Crucible or maybe through actual warfare. Another problem I have with IT. You guys don't have an actual ending. Just a protest of the one given, which is why it is a coping mechanism instead of a viable ending.

I am not against the EC as it stands. I'm against games not giving us an ending as advertised. ME3 ends. It has credits and we can speculate what happened, even if those speculations are awful and depressing. However, IT is a continuation of ME3. Not an ending. Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph I gave which already outlined how the backlash would get worse. What you see here is just ME fans. IT would be the boulder thrown into the BW Fanbase Lake that would ripple across all the IPs. It would get worse. Considering you didn't really address my points, I have to come to the conclusion that you're in denial about the whole thing. IT provides a way out, just like fanfiction for many other fans. The difference here is that you are actually suggesting that Bioware takes your idea and puts it in game. The idea that suggests that essentially the ending was a bad dream where you wake up to continue the fight. Do you not see how.... silly that sounds? What many IT supporters do not consider is how they would react if this is what Bioware gave us in the first place. How many of you would support it if so?

As I said, a coping mechanism that has exploded to the level of obsession. Following this, I'm not going to try to further dissuade you from believing in IT. It's supporters are too into it.....

I.T. would count as clarification, it would only need to "extend" the scenes.

It depends what you think BW will do. If you think they will just say "you were indoctrinated", then yes, that would just be clarification. However, to end the Reaper threat, talk with Anderson and TIM etc, have a bg final battle with Harbinger (which most IT theorists think will happen), that is much more than mere clarification

Well, I know that the voice actors are in the studio, so whetever it is it sounds like they are really putting some effort into it 

[balance5050]

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

When Final Hours was released? Yeah, that's your answer right there.

One cannot fight against others denial.

Final Hours was made throughout the production of ME3.

Edit: there is another chapter in the works according to Geoff Keighly.

Modifié par balance5050, 05 mai 2012 - 04:34 .

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

davishepard wrote...

DJBare wrote...

davishepard wrote...

Why should a care for an irony about fanfiction?

Maybe because there's a basis for the fan fiction?


Seriously, I recommend the Final Hours app, got some great info.

You know, people ignores that this endgame sequence was dropped (and insist to say that only the gameplay part was dropped, ignoring the meaning of "sequence" totally), so it's better don't even bring this up.

Because it's apparently too hard to read and understand that they dropped the said sequence, and put in the game a sequence with TIM where Shepard lose control of Shepard's movements and fell under TIM control. And that this control is limited only to it's body movements in both the dropped engame sequence and the sequence shown in the game.

Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

True, but if it was dropped then it is likely that the decision wasn't taken lightly and was definitve . The amount of time, 6 months instead of 3, is frankly rather irrelevant

Wut? LOL at you thinking that Bioware was rushed is irrelevant to a dropped game mechanic.

Because to a large extent it is. They said they dropped it, get over it

[davishepard]

balance5050 wrote...

davishepard wrote...

balance5050 wrote...
Bioware asked for 6 extra months and EA gave them 3, theres no reason to think that just because it was dropped doesn't mean it can't be reimplimented.

When Final Hours was released? Yeah, that's your answer right there.

One cannot fight against others denial.

Final Hours was made throughout the production of ME3.

I didn't ask when it was made. I asked when it was released. That's indeed your answer, but feel free to ignore it and remain in denial.

Modifié par davishepard, 05 mai 2012 - 04:37 .

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

MidnightRaith wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
1. The ending we have right now made a bigger backlash that holding and ending....
2. The fact they are making EC.

........
Your not really agients IT...Your ageinst BW doing addon dlc endings...A thing other companies have done before with little back lash. I understand you point but it's clearthe back lash already happened. How can it get worse then a horde of your fans theating to not buy your product over the ending?

You missed the part where I said that IT is completely different than a retcon or "clarification." EC falls under "clarification."

But first:

1. Yes, we have a backlash, however in its present state, ME3 does not spell the end for Bioware and it is not setting the precedent of End Game DLC. The only people threatening to not by future Bioware products are Mass Effect fans. However, Mass effect fans do not make up the entirety of the Dragon Age fans, or the TOR fans, or the Warhammer fans or fans for furture IPs. Mass Effect fans are angry right now and only Mass Effect fans. Yes, these fanbases intertwine. I myself am a fan of DA, ME and TOR. However that does not mean I'm willing to abandon TOR or DA just because ME3 sucked. However, if Bioware does IT, then my trust in them will effectively be shattered. I'd drop them in a second and I imagine that many people feel the same way.

2. You apparently don't understand what EC is designed to do. I do not think that BW is planning to do IT at all, considering that they themselves have stated that EC is going to provide "clarification" and "closure." IT would introduce entirely new information to the game. Your theory may be based on data present in the game itself, but you've put it together in a way that does not build upon what Bioware gave us. The "clarification" part is going to merely add on to what we've already been shown. I.E. Joker's abandonment. Things like that. Not, Shepard wakes up all of a sudden in London and somehow finishes the fight in someway. Perhaps with the Crucible or maybe through actual warfare. Another problem I have with IT. You guys don't have an actual ending. Just a protest of the one given, which is why it is a coping mechanism instead of a viable ending.

I am not against the EC as it stands. I'm against games not giving us an ending as advertised. ME3 ends. It has credits and we can speculate what happened, even if those speculations are awful and depressing. However, IT is a continuation of ME3. Not an ending. Apparently, you didn't read the paragraph I gave which already outlined how the backlash would get worse. What you see here is just ME fans. IT would be the boulder thrown into the BW Fanbase Lake that would ripple across all the IPs. It would get worse. Considering you didn't really address my points, I have to come to the conclusion that you're in denial about the whole thing. IT provides a way out, just like fanfiction for many other fans. The difference here is that you are actually suggesting that Bioware takes your idea and puts it in game. The idea that suggests that essentially the ending was a bad dream where you wake up to continue the fight. Do you not see how.... silly that sounds? What many IT supporters do not consider is how they would react if this is what Bioware gave us in the first place. How many of you would support it if so?

As I said, a coping mechanism that has exploded to the level of obsession. Following this, I'm not going to try to further dissuade you from believing in IT. It's supporters are too into it.....

I.T. would count as clarification, it would only need to "extend" the scenes.

It depends what you think BW will do. If you think they will just say "you were indoctrinated", then yes, that would just be clarification. However, to end the Reaper threat, talk with Anderson and TIM etc, have a bg final battle with Harbinger (which most IT theorists think will happen), that is much more than mere clarification

Well, I know that the voice actors are in the studio, so whetever it is it sounds like they are really putting some effort into it 

Doesn't answer my point about clarification.