162 réponses à ce sujet

[JBONE27]

wsandista wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Then what about renegade Shepards? They are doing whats right for their character, but they get rewarded for it?

Look at my edit.

But also, if indoc turned out to be true, there were enough clues throughout the three games that show you that synthesis and control are more "renegade" choices. Why would the control option, shown being used by the illusive man (one of the main big bads), be a "Paragon" option? Just because it's colored blue? Just because some magical kid told you a few seconds ago that it was a good idea?

Shepard's convictions, through 99% of all three games, paragon or renegade, have been in destroying the reapers. Synthesis and Control are two themes utilized by the two main villains of the previous two games (and the third). Even if there is no indoctrination, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

ME was always about player choice though, not right or wrong choices. IT fails not because of evidence, but simply because it snubs player choice for a right/wrong decision.

Renegade has always been the don't worry about collateral damage path, that is destroy. You end up wiping out the Geth and most technology, just to eliminate the Reapers.

Paragon is about diplomacy and trying to save everyone, control fits that. Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save every race from the Reapers, instead of wiping out all AI.

Synthesis is just space-magic nonsense.

Shepard's convictions have been to stop the Reapers not necessarily destroy them, control is more lik exile than outright control, TIM wanted to use them as a weapon, Shepard told the to leave.

I'm not sure where you are getting the Exile from, but I would say that, if IT is true, maybe Bioware is saying, "If you try to save everyone, you end up saving no one."  It's much like the Rachni Queen decision.  If you save the Rachni Queen, you sacrifice a lot of Krogan.

Also, if control were actually the paragon decision and destroy were the renegade decision, why would it be a complete 180 from ME2.  Destroying the Collector's base was the paragon choice, controling the Collector's base was the renegade choice.

[AlanC9]

Unschuld wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
So the EC is expected to have a whole new ending without any gameplay ?

Edit: Oh, right. Since one of the premises of IT is that Bio's lying to us, lying about the content of the DLC isn't fatal to the theory.

I don't know, isn't that the premise of everyone that's being negative on the forums now, not just IT,  that Bioware is spouting nothing but lies? Could have sworn the devs said something a while ago that inferred the "no gameplay" aspect was just a rumor.

I haven't seen the devs say that was a rumor, but they might have. We do tend to repeat things without much evidence around here. I believed the "Bio promised there would be 16 different endings" line for a while, until I dug into it and discovered that nobody from Bio ever said anything like that.

[TheGreenAlloy]

 Touchdown, no doubt.

[mitthrawuodo]

Though there's nothing overly wrong with IT on its own I think that Bioware must know that copying an ending made by the fans would be an all new low even if done right.

[Robhuzz]

It's the only way to fix the plot holes and inconsistencies without retconning the whole thing out of existence (though that would be better) so I'd say it'd be a touchdown.

To be honest I don't really care enough any more to be exited either way. If I can somehow get my Liara&Shepard happy ending, I'll be satisfied, even if we keep the current garbage ending and take it at face value.

Though there's nothing overly wrong with IT on its own I think that Bioware must know that copying an ending made by the fans would be an all new low even if done right.

Yes, they totally weren't thinking of indoctrination AT ALL. I mean the entire codex entry on indoctrination can be seen in the ending word for word, all the signs are there. And we already know BioWare planned for Shepard to become completely indoctrinated in a very early stage of development but they abandoned that idea. One or 2 odd things I am willing to believe but so many things combined can no longer be called a coincidence.

Modifié par Robhuzz, 08 mai 2012 - 07:34 .

[AlanC9]

Robhuzz wrote...
 I mean the entire codex entry on indoctrination can be seen in the ending word for word, all the signs are there.  

Really? I don't recall Shepard feeling that he was being watched. Ghostly presences? No, the dream doesn't count for that. Alien voices in the mind? Nope -- the Catalyst always comes across as external.

Walk me through your interpretation of that entry. I don't see it.

[wsandista]

Unschuld wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Because when people bought it they expected it to complete at the point of purchase. They did not want to wait a month to have the story finished.

How would you feel if you went to a restaurant and ordered a meal, got most of it, then had the last bit delayed for a week?

If you're going to make a food analogy (which is silly), a better one would be that you DID get a complete meal, which was O.K., but a few weeks later you got a surprise coupon in the mail from the restaurant for a free dessert.

ME3 DID have an ending, and taken literally is pretty definitive (even though a bit ambiguous). There's nothing wrong with adding a twist to the end, especially when it comes at no additional cost besides time. This does not make it an incomplete game any more than ME2 shipping without LotSB or Arrival made it incomplete.

You do know they have to shift zots to make the EC instead of other DLC right? Its not like the devs work for free.

Back to the meal analogy, using your take on it, I got a meal different from what I ordered, and the resturant that served it to me sends a coupon for a slice of cake that would normally cost 1/6th of the steak I ordered to try and make up for the crap they served me. Not gonna cut it for me.

[wsandista]

JBONE27 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Then what about renegade Shepards? They are doing whats right for their character, but they get rewarded for it?

Look at my edit.

But also, if indoc turned out to be true, there were enough clues throughout the three games that show you that synthesis and control are more "renegade" choices. Why would the control option, shown being used by the illusive man (one of the main big bads), be a "Paragon" option? Just because it's colored blue? Just because some magical kid told you a few seconds ago that it was a good idea?

Shepard's convictions, through 99% of all three games, paragon or renegade, have been in destroying the reapers. Synthesis and Control are two themes utilized by the two main villains of the previous two games (and the third). Even if there is no indoctrination, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

ME was always about player choice though, not right or wrong choices. IT fails not because of evidence, but simply because it snubs player choice for a right/wrong decision.

Renegade has always been the don't worry about collateral damage path, that is destroy. You end up wiping out the Geth and most technology, just to eliminate the Reapers.

Paragon is about diplomacy and trying to save everyone, control fits that. Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save every race from the Reapers, instead of wiping out all AI.

Synthesis is just space-magic nonsense.

Shepard's convictions have been to stop the Reapers not necessarily destroy them, control is more lik exile than outright control, TIM wanted to use them as a weapon, Shepard told the to leave.

I'm not sure where you are getting the Exile from, but I would say that, if IT is true, maybe Bioware is saying, "If you try to save everyone, you end up saving no one."  It's much like the Rachni Queen decision.  If you save the Rachni Queen, you sacrifice a lot of Krogan.

Also, if control were actually the paragon decision and destroy were the renegade decision, why would it be a complete 180 from ME2.  Destroying the Collector's base was the paragon choice, controling the Collector's base was the renegade choice.

Shepard is telling the Reapers to leave forever, not taking them over and using them to ensure dominance over the galaxy, that sounds more like exile than control to me.

It is flipped for a simple reason, destroy brings destruction, which is what renegade almost always is about. Control is paragon because it involves the least ammount of destruction and death, which was what paragon has been about throughout the series.

[Legion64]

Unschuld wrote...

I still don't understand the logic of "Grrr Bioware sold an incomplete game?!@!! And then they released the ending later for FREE?!?! GRRRRRRRRRRR!!!1! RAAAAAAAAGE!!!"

Lol. Of all of the stupid things I've heard...

[Robhuzz]

AlanC9 wrote...

Robhuzz wrote...
 I mean the entire codex entry on indoctrination can be seen in the ending word for word, all the signs are there.  

Really? I don't recall Shepard feeling that he was being watched. Ghostly presences? No, the dream doesn't count for that. Alien voices in the mind? Nope -- the Catalyst always comes across as external.

Walk me through your interpretation of that entry. I don't see it.

For the sake of not wasting time typing a huge response, I'll just link the vid, it explains better than I can anyway. Even if not all of the 'evidence' is solid, there's just no way BioWare coincidentally put all these things in the game.

I'm also not interesting in starting another war about whether or not IT is true. All I'm saying is this is no coincidence that all of these things are in the game. Whether IT is proven right or wrong in the end doesn't matter, they did plan at least a portion of it, or intended the fans to speculate about it.

[AlanC9]

Well, there's 21 minutes of my life I wont get back. OTOH, I've never seen so much concentrated question-begging in my life, so at least it was of academic interest.

Modifié par AlanC9, 08 mai 2012 - 08:30 .

[Legion64]

IT being proven wrong doesn't matter? It matters to me when I laugh at all of those who believed in it.

[VRtheTrooper]

IT has as many plot holes as the ending we were already given. personally, i wouldn't enjoy. and whats so wrong with the synthesis ending? i found that not many people chose it. its the only ending that lets all life live peacefully together, including the reapers (which would be beneficial to rebuilding the relays and citadel). seems like the only true paragon ending. you get to preserve all life that you have worked so hard to save. "destroy" shuts down the reapers, meaning that humanity can salvage reaper tech and inevitably create another rogue AI that will destroy all life once again. it all depends on your perception of the ending i guess. most people make valid points. the endings are open to interpretation. this is what bioware was going for.

[VRtheTrooper]

Legion64 wrote...

IT being proven wrong doesn't matter? It matters to me when I laugh at all of those who believed in it.

likewise 

[BomberJR]

It will work out better then what we have right now. It explains a few things (but not all)...maybe just cut out the normandy escape/crash?

[Sebbe1337o]

David7204 wrote...

If handled properly, I think it could be a bloody slam dunk.

[blaidfiste]

Touchdown for me

Control Ending
Harbinger: We just got Shepard to electrocute himself. Finish the harvest and lets go.

Synthesis Ending
Harbinger: We just got Shepard to jump off the citadel. Finish the harvest and lets go.

Destroy Ending
Harbinger: NNnnnooooo!!!!

[deuce985]

TD plus a two point conversion.

I love symbolism and Bioware basically indoctrinating their players? Making it to where it's up to the player to help Shepard combat and recognize indoctrination? That would be freaking brilliant...the ultimate player control right there.

[Legion64]

blaidfiste wrote...

Touchdown for me

Control Ending
Harbinger: We just got Shepard to electrocute himself. Finish the harvest and lets go.

Synthesis Ending
Harbinger: We just got Shepard to jump off the citadel. Finish the harvest and lets go.

Destroy Ending
Harbinger: NNnnnooooo!!!!

Here ladies and gentlemen, is an example of small-minded people. Do not feed it!

[JBONE27]

wsandista wrote...

JBONE27 wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

wsandista wrote...

Then what about renegade Shepards? They are doing whats right for their character, but they get rewarded for it?

Look at my edit.

But also, if indoc turned out to be true, there were enough clues throughout the three games that show you that synthesis and control are more "renegade" choices. Why would the control option, shown being used by the illusive man (one of the main big bads), be a "Paragon" option? Just because it's colored blue? Just because some magical kid told you a few seconds ago that it was a good idea?

Shepard's convictions, through 99% of all three games, paragon or renegade, have been in destroying the reapers. Synthesis and Control are two themes utilized by the two main villains of the previous two games (and the third). Even if there is no indoctrination, doesn't that seem a bit odd to you?

ME was always about player choice though, not right or wrong choices. IT fails not because of evidence, but simply because it snubs player choice for a right/wrong decision.

Renegade has always been the don't worry about collateral damage path, that is destroy. You end up wiping out the Geth and most technology, just to eliminate the Reapers.

Paragon is about diplomacy and trying to save everyone, control fits that. Shepard sacrifices him/herself to save every race from the Reapers, instead of wiping out all AI.

Synthesis is just space-magic nonsense.

Shepard's convictions have been to stop the Reapers not necessarily destroy them, control is more lik exile than outright control, TIM wanted to use them as a weapon, Shepard told the to leave.

I'm not sure where you are getting the Exile from, but I would say that, if IT is true, maybe Bioware is saying, "If you try to save everyone, you end up saving no one."  It's much like the Rachni Queen decision.  If you save the Rachni Queen, you sacrifice a lot of Krogan.

Also, if control were actually the paragon decision and destroy were the renegade decision, why would it be a complete 180 from ME2.  Destroying the Collector's base was the paragon choice, controling the Collector's base was the renegade choice.

Shepard is telling the Reapers to leave forever, not taking them over and using them to ensure dominance over the galaxy, that sounds more like exile than control to me.

It is flipped for a simple reason, destroy brings destruction, which is what renegade almost always is about. Control is paragon because it involves the least ammount of destruction and death, which was what paragon has been about throughout the series.

Where did you get that?  It doesn't show the Reapers leaving.  Shepard doesn't say, "I'm going to tell them to leave and never come back."  It is in no way implied.

Again, it is a complete 180 from the ending of the second game.  ME2 (destory the CB: Paragon; control the CB: Renegade).  And the CB isn't even a potentially sentiant being.  Unlike the Heretics in "A House Divided," we are not changing the way the Reapers think, we are basically enslaving them.  What was it that Saren said in the first game, "Isn't subserviance better than destruction?"  It's pretty clear that in the first and second games that it is not.  Owning another sentiant being is simply wrong.

Then that leads to the question of whether or not the Reapers are actually sentiant.  In the first two games they appear to be, but in the third, it seems as though they are being controlled by something else and are unable to think.  If the former is the case then Control would clearly be the renegade choice, if he latter is true then it would really make no difference since it is no different than crushing cars or melting microwaves (yes I do love illiterations).  Granted, you could argue that if it is the latter then control would be the preferable choice since Shepard could use them to rebuild what they've destroyed.

Modifié par JBONE27, 08 mai 2012 - 11:15 .

[dreamgazer]

Touchdown, without question, even if it'll be met with folks claiming that it's just BioWare taking the easy way out, pandering to their fans, and using something they never intended.

[JBONE27]

In answer to the OP's question... field goal. It won't please everyone (which a touch down would), but it will please enough people to possibly win.

[N7-RedFox]

Touchdown for sure. Everything would make so much more sense if it were true.

[OdanUrr]

JBONE27 wrote...

Again, it is a complete 180 from the ending of the second game.  ME2 (destory the CB: Paragon; control the CB: Renegade).  And the CB isn't even a potentially sentiant being.  Unlike the Heretics in "A House Divided," we are not changing the way the Reapers think, we are basically enslaving them.  What was it that Saren said in the first game, "Isn't subserviance better than destruction?"  It's pretty clear that in the first and second games that it is not.  Owning another sentiant being is simply wrong.

First, it's not. You can't just argue that because we can destroy things in ME2 and that's the paragon choice, destroying something in ME3 must be the paragon choice as well. You need to look at the reason behind the destruction. Shepard's motives for destroying the CB in ME2 have to do with destroying the Human Reaper, because it was the result of the deaths of thousands of humans, maybe even your own crew. It was tainted, if you like, and Shepard would not bring himself to use such a weapon. On the other hand, your choices in ME3 are the result of the Crucible, a weapon designed and constructed through galactic cooperation, not mass murder.

An interesting point you bring up with Legion's LM in ME2. In ME2, you have the choice of reprogramming them or destroying them and this is actually a very complex decision. The first one might win you more allies sometime in the near future and the latter one will get rid of the immediate threat, but it goes beyond that. Reprogramming the Heretic Geth in ME2 is also a form of slavery. Would you rather die fighting or live as a slave? Perhaps you believe this is a question that doesn't apply to synthetics? They're not alive after all, right? They're just machines. This choice is actually quite similar to the choice you're forced to make in ME3.

And for the last part, that depends entirely on your Shepard, on what kind of wo/man s/he is. Destroy in ME3 comes at the expense of killing the Geth, a civilization that has now become "alive" upon Legion's upload of the Reaper code. There's also some mention, if memory serves, that technology will take several steps backward. On the other hand, you're offered to take control of the Reapers. You propose that would be akin to slavery and, in fact, the Reapers are already "slaves to the pattern." Moreover, Shepard would become a slave himself, forever trapped in the Citadel as, in all probability, the new Catalyst.

Right or wrong is up to the player.