332 réponses à ce sujet

[7he Island Head]

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[Kaelef]

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

Well said.

[Nauks]

Kaelef wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

No, the biggest problem with IT is that it's 215% speculation.

Or is it? As per the Final Hours app BioWare fully intended to make a sequence at the end of the game where the player would lose control of Shepard who would fall under reaper influence.

Yes. But. They. Didn't. Do. That.

They claim so but all the evidence in the game suggests they did. As I said, they probably ran out of time, planned to finish it in DLC and underestimated the lashback they would face.....from there they were forced in a PR game nobody likes.

It doesn't matter if they changed their minds, ran out of time, were forced at gunpoint, or had a brain hemohrrage on the way to typing in the code in their computers: They. Didn't. Do. That.

Whatever they decided upon, they did add numerous lore firendly indoctrination hints in their finished product.
Even if they scrapped this particular scenario (instead opting for the RGB one or w/e) the game still Look. Like. It. Was.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

what does religion have to with this theory?

idiots.

If you can't discuss something without bringing some diety in here, then drop out already , K?

For the record, I'm NOT religious, in any form.

[elecmanexe001]

vurtual3 wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

The biggest problem with IT is that it isn't in ME3. I guess that's a problem to people who really want it to be because they don't like synthesis (which was explained ,for want of a better word ,really poorly imo but also imo was clearly meant to be a good ending). But mostly it's a problem because Shep is not indoctrinated!

Really? Indoctrination has existed in ever game and is most prevalent in ME3. Udina, TIm, Kai Leng, every Cerberus agent, let alone those from previous games. Indoctrination has always been a huge part of ME why would it not be possible for Shepard to have been recieving an attempt to be indoctrinated by the reapers at the end? No matter what you say it is possible and that means IT is plausable.

Reapers think they are **** out of luck.
Reapers have been slowly trying to get to Shepard.
Reapers decide at the end when Shepard is getting close to maybe winning to go all out with indoctrination, the 'fast version'.
You are now resisting this at the end as your whole world is uncertain.

Read up on indoctrination, it is totally plausable to happen this way.

Sorry,didn't mean that there's no indoctrination in ME3,or that it's not important. IT is just about Shep being indoctrinated though,and while I don't think it's impossible at all ,or that IT is dumb or anything like that I just think that the whole game is geared towards synthesis if you play as a Shepard that resolves the geth wars and likes edi . I think whether people like it or not the catalyst /citadel/I don't really know what is representing a higher intelligence that is't understandable by organics and sythnesis is the start of the process of achieving this understanding,not by peace immediately following the choice but much much further down the line.

But synthesis is effectively what Reapers are, if you want to be the Reapers have you really won?

[7he Island Head]

elecmanexe001 wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

The biggest problem with IT is that it isn't in ME3. I guess that's a problem to people who really want it to be because they don't like synthesis (which was explained ,for want of a better word ,really poorly imo but also imo was clearly meant to be a good ending). But mostly it's a problem because Shep is not indoctrinated!

Really? Indoctrination has existed in ever game and is most prevalent in ME3. Udina, TIm, Kai Leng, every Cerberus agent, let alone those from previous games. Indoctrination has always been a huge part of ME why would it not be possible for Shepard to have been recieving an attempt to be indoctrinated by the reapers at the end? No matter what you say it is possible and that means IT is plausable.

Reapers think they are **** out of luck.
Reapers have been slowly trying to get to Shepard.
Reapers decide at the end when Shepard is getting close to maybe winning to go all out with indoctrination, the 'fast version'.
You are now resisting this at the end as your whole world is uncertain.

Read up on indoctrination, it is totally plausable to happen this way.

Udina didn't seem indoctrinated!

They flat out said he was unless I miss interperated something. Having Udina indoctrinated also goes back to the codex entry in ME1 about indoctrinating government officials to cause chaos, it literally happens word for word in 3.

His wiki page doesn't say anything about him being indoctrinated, pluse he doesn't have the crazy eyes
http://masseffect.wi...ki/Donnel_Udina 

you dont get crazy eyes when you are indoctrrinated until the reapers decide to give you implants. And as someone stated he may or may not  be. Regardless thats a maybe and there are plenty others who are indoctrinated.

I forgot about the implants! The people in Arrival didn't have crazy eyes!

[OH-UP-THIS!]

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

I like your SIG, does that account for anything?

[Gorkan86]

balance5050 wrote...

The hell? it's just one mans interpretation, he doesn't work for Bioware.

I agree. Moreover, I believe that he is mistaken.

All the clues that led to the creation of IT is the pieces of real ending, Bioware wanted to do but failed. And will not do.
So what's the point to hold on to this theory?

These disputes will last a long time. And you know that they may lead nowhere.
I know about the mass skepticism about the EC. Which, as we promised, will shed light on the ending. And we can already guess, judging by the size of threads (not to mention content) "So, we do not get the ending we want", that there will be many unhappy people.

[Darth_Trethon]

Kaelef wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

Well said.

That's to say there wouldn't be any new and better emotional content.....but above all it would tie up all the plotholes, provide us with a real victory and likely even reunion with squad and LI. Besides i do not think the IT would remove the quality of the showdown with TIM and Anderson's final moments even if they were just aspects of Shepard's mind.

[Iwillbeback]

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[elecmanexe001]

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

The biggest problem with IT is that it isn't in ME3. I guess that's a problem to people who really want it to be because they don't like synthesis (which was explained ,for want of a better word ,really poorly imo but also imo was clearly meant to be a good ending). But mostly it's a problem because Shep is not indoctrinated!

Really? Indoctrination has existed in ever game and is most prevalent in ME3. Udina, TIm, Kai Leng, every Cerberus agent, let alone those from previous games. Indoctrination has always been a huge part of ME why would it not be possible for Shepard to have been recieving an attempt to be indoctrinated by the reapers at the end? No matter what you say it is possible and that means IT is plausable.

Reapers think they are **** out of luck.
Reapers have been slowly trying to get to Shepard.
Reapers decide at the end when Shepard is getting close to maybe winning to go all out with indoctrination, the 'fast version'.
You are now resisting this at the end as your whole world is uncertain.

Read up on indoctrination, it is totally plausable to happen this way.

Udina didn't seem indoctrinated!

They flat out said he was unless I miss interperated something. Having Udina indoctrinated also goes back to the codex entry in ME1 about indoctrinating government officials to cause chaos, it literally happens word for word in 3.

His wiki page doesn't say anything about him being indoctrinated, pluse he doesn't have the crazy eyes
http://masseffect.wi...ki/Donnel_Udina 

you dont get crazy eyes when you are indoctrrinated until the reapers decide to give you implants. And as someone stated he may or may not  be. Regardless thats a maybe and there are plenty others who are indoctrinated.

I forgot about the implants! The people in Arrival didn't have crazy eyes!

Well until that one chick gets Harbinger eyes but thats a different story to the implant eyes but yea.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

7he Island Head wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

The biggest problem with IT is that it isn't in ME3. I guess that's a problem to people who really want it to be because they don't like synthesis (which was explained ,for want of a better word ,really poorly imo but also imo was clearly meant to be a good ending). But mostly it's a problem because Shep is not indoctrinated!

Really? Indoctrination has existed in ever game and is most prevalent in ME3. Udina, TIm, Kai Leng, every Cerberus agent, let alone those from previous games. Indoctrination has always been a huge part of ME why would it not be possible for Shepard to have been recieving an attempt to be indoctrinated by the reapers at the end? No matter what you say it is possible and that means IT is plausable.

Reapers think they are **** out of luck.
Reapers have been slowly trying to get to Shepard.
Reapers decide at the end when Shepard is getting close to maybe winning to go all out with indoctrination, the 'fast version'.
You are now resisting this at the end as your whole world is uncertain.

Read up on indoctrination, it is totally plausable to happen this way.

Udina didn't seem indoctrinated!

Take this ANY way you like, but isn't that THE WHOLE POINT of indoctrination?

[Agugaboo]

7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. And if you pick control you lose! That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true it is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   

Renegades can choose not to go renegade at any point in the game. It's always an option. It's also true that decisions have consequences. Renegades must live with the consequences of their actions. A renegade could shoot Mordin. Truly though the ending choices are not presented as unquestionably paragon/ renegade. It is up to the player's interpretation. If unerringly renegade shepard chooses control because he thinks that is the renegade thing to do, that is his end. On the other hand if he thinks destroy sounds like "I'll take you down with me you wispy blue f** fetus!," according to IT then, he gets to keep his filthy brain.

Modifié par Agugaboo, 12 mai 2012 - 10:38 .

[7he Island Head]

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[/quote]
I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

[vurtual3]

7he Island Head wrote...

vurtual3 wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

7he Island Head wrote...

Chevreau wrote...

Valentia X wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

No, the biggest problem with IT is that it's 215% speculation.

Yep. It's a cluster of hypotheses that have yet to be definitely proven.

I see what you did there.

Anyway, as several people have said, every Shepard had the same mission regardless of their paragon/renegade path: blow the reapers to hell. There is nothing paragon or renegade about picking the destroy option. Forget the colors.

I can't go color blind. Nor can I forget that red and blue are associated with a core mechanic of gameplay and story telling, that being the renegrade/paragon points. 

The main reason IT has the theory of renegade and paragon not mattering or being reversed is due to the fact that Shepard lives in the red one. So people are throwing out the conventional wisdom the game has given us based on color to actually think about their actions. You can argue blue should be this and red should be that, but people are looking at it from a results point of view not color point of view. Regardless looking at it from a color point of view, you get the best ending with red, renagade, and paragon is screwed with or without IT.

I reckon Shepard will end up living in all 3 endings. But not as a human and not until the next Mass Effect game.

That doesn't even make sense 

Why not? In control he's alive but not human (or that's how I took it) In destroy something could be causing his body to breath again that isn't the Shep that went into the crucible and in synthesis could be like control as I saw it and Shep is the catalyst (along with whatever the catalyst was before). Then the next game is set far future and whoever the next hero is could meet this new entity.

[Nauks]

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

[EsterCloat]

ohupthis wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

I like your SIG, does that account for anything?

Um, sure. Thanks for the compliment.

[jijeebo]

Seriously guys, the quote pyramids are going to overload the internet if you don't cut them down.

[OH-UP-THIS!]

jijeebo wrote...

EsterCloat wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

Strange how ITers are using the same argument to defend their theory as Bioware is using in defense of their ending.

It's all a giant conspiracy so Bioware can maintain their artistic integrity.

ITers are indoctrinated Bioware agents who are trying to convince us that Bioware is brilliant', rather than the biggest threat to the known galaxy.

While the same could be said for the PRO-enders.

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

Well said.

That's to say there wouldn't be any new and better emotional content.....but above all it would tie up all the plotholes, provide us with a real victory and likely even reunion with squad and LI. Besides i do not think the IT would remove the quality of the showdown with TIM and Anderson's final moments even if they were just aspects of Shepard's mind.

Yes. Lets give the players a climactic showdown with TIM and a heartfelt goodbye with Anderson. Only to tell them it was all a dream and give them a climatic showdown with TIM and a heartfelt goodbye with Anderson.

Modifié par Lizardviking, 12 mai 2012 - 10:41 .

[Darth_Trethon]

@Iwillbeback and @alecmanexe You need to STOP with the pyramid posts. Learn to cut them down or simply make a no-quote post with the @ remark like I just did.

[Kaelef]

ohupthis wrote...

Kaelef wrote...

ohupthis wrote...

elecmanexe001 wrote...

The biggest problem with those who hate IT; They don't understand IT.

Or want too.

I'm gonna bet, it has more to do with lacking the ability to see beyond the confines, of the itsy-bitsy world they live in.

Ah, the ol' if-they-don't-agree-with-me-it's-because-they-just-don't-understand-like-i-do fallacy.  Tends to go hand-in-hand with religious arguments like these.

what does religion have to with this theory?

idiots.

If you can't discuss something without bringing some diety in here, then drop out already , K?

For the record, I'm NOT religious, in any form.

It's a religious argument not because it has anything to do with deities or religions, but because it forms around a body of "knowledge" which is neither provable nor disprovable.  Calling something a "religious argument" when it takes on this characteristic is a fairly common thing to do.

And the more you use the term "idiot", the more you start sounding like one.

[Nauks]

7he Island Head wrote...

-snip- tsumani of text.

Please edit the replies, thankyouverymuch.

[Iwillbeback]

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

[quote]Iwillbeback wrote...

[quote]7he Island Head wrote...

The biggest problem with the IT, is that control is a renegade option. That means that being a renegade is not a viable way to fight the reapers. If the IT is true is another unfair treatment of renegade players. Just like the rachni and everything else!
   [/quote]


Destroy was considered the Renegade option.

[/quote]
In the IT is is flipped to confuse Shep. This means the IT supports that aragon Shep wins and renegade Shep loses.
[/quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.

[/quote]
Nope. The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best, and that is why the destroy ending is red to confuse Shep. It's not about what you think. It is about what the IT theory says. And it says the renegade Sheps can't win.

[/quote]

I would need a link to this official IT theory and where you got this quote from

[quote]The IT theory assumes that paragon options are always the best[/quote]


Can't say I care  either way, but I will have an argument with whoever made it.
[/quote]

http://www.youtube.c...FFhBn2U#t=3684s
Here is a link, it is only  talked about for a few moments

[/quote]

That is merely a documentary.
Ignoring the colors as they don't matter.
What matters is what you do.

[quote]

I don't see it as Renegade or Paragon or Neutral.
A shepard that succumbs to the will of the Reapers will always lose.
A shepard who stands his ground and knows what to do will survive and have a chance to destroy the Reapers.
[/quote][/quote]
Then why did bioware color code the options? 

[/quote]

Probably to weed out weak shepards.
A strong shepard will know what to do and will not be tricked by lies.

[/quote]
So you're saying that Bioware lied to the players? Just to weed out weak Sheps? 

[/quote]

I would not say lied.
Weak shepards chose their own faith, their knowledge was lacking because they did not understand the Indoctrination examples presented to them throughout their journey.


[/quote]
But you did say lies!!!!

[/quote]

That was referring to what the Catalyst said.

[/quote]
Bioware wrote what the Catalyst said thought 

[/quote]

Doesn't mean Bioware was lying.

[/quote]
They were lying via proxy!

[/quote]

Probably, though I can't say I care as my shepards are all strong.

[/quote]
Or you mean that they all took the red option, or the paragon optition under the IT labels 

[/quote]

Some indoctrinated shepard may consider it Renegade, some strong shepard's may consider it Paragon.
It is what it is. a way to say no.
Doesn't matter what color is coming out of it a strong shepard will know what to do after listening to the Catalyst.

[/quote]
I think the red option is a paragon option. They show you Anderson in the destroy option, and he is a paragon. Why reject the reengade/paragon system in the last minute of the game? If it wasn't renegade/paragon they could have used different colors.

[/quote]

I don't usually base my decisions on wherever it is red or blue.
I look at facts and make a judgement.

But sure maybe it was a way to trick people who only choose Paragon into thinking they're doing the right thing despite what the catalyst said.
Another example of this would be a pure paragon shepard who was made in ME2 without doing anything in ME1.
Pure Paragon is punished on the Rachni choice for not making a good judgement.


[/quote]
Renegades and new players get screwed over with the rachni choice, because the Rachni shouldn't have been in ME3 if the they queen was killed. The pure me1 paragon gets extra war assests! 

I have pure paragon sheps, pure renegade sheps, and play throughs with mixed choices. I like having slightly different endings, cut scenes and stories due to my sheps alignment and that was missing. And under the IT only one options matters 

[/quote]

I'm sure after Shepard wakes up you will get more choices.
Kinda like how you could of killed Wrex as renegade in ME1 or could of waited to really renegade him in Mass effect 3.

[/quote]
I thought you can only wake up in the destroy ending, not the control ending?

[/quote]

I was referring to the Destroy ending but I do have some other ideas of shepard waking in the other endings but in different position and possibly a different path, maybe.

Modifié par Iwillbeback, 12 mai 2012 - 10:42 .

[elecmanexe001]

Nauks wrote...

Lizardviking wrote...

I dislike IT because replacing poor writing with even more poor writing is not what EC should do. IT will ruin what little good there is in the current ending by completely removing any emotional meaning to the showdown with TIM and the goodbye with Anderson by reducing it "It was all a dream".

If it were as simple as "it was all a dream" sure, however what happens in the end sequence serves a very deliberate purpose, we're supposed to feel emotional and/or triumphant w/e, it's the whole point.

If IT is correct it is more then "lol that was just a dream" yea, its much more important, and again it seems like not all of IT is understood here.


Guys cut out the quote pyramid... you are not breaking the page....

Modifié par elecmanexe001, 12 mai 2012 - 10:43 .