303 réponses à ce sujet

[Peranor]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Reason why IT can't be is in my signature...

IT is NOT a change or additional endings....it's clarification of BioWare's intent with the endings whish we clearly see in the file names and production notes released in the Final Hours app. It really is JUST THAT....nothing more, nothing less.

lol at failing to see the point... for the 100000 time:

If IT is true... then it means the game is not over... now.. it has been stated several times even in that quote in my signature that ME3 is the conclusion of Shepard's story....

So, do you really think they would leave the game a moment before shepard does the "real" fight with the reapers?

WhaT IT means, is that it requires shepard to get up.. and kill the reaper.. AKA a NEW ENDING.... guess what? we won't get one of those...

So by LOGICAL conclusion.... IT cannot  be true or BW are contradicting themselves... (Again..).

By logical conclusion they also promised a million other things about the endings like closure and multiple endings and another hundred certifiable lies....what's your point? IT cannot be true because that would mean they lied? They DID lie....a whole lot...unless they didn't have the time to finish all that was intended and all that will now be included in the free EC DLC.

Nope.. beacue it would mean they are liying right NOW... not a promisse made 5+ months ago, which was compromised by the possibility of failed dead lines.

The only way for IT to be true is if EC is are lies.... and at this point, since they are on thin ice,  I doubt they would be lying on anything at all.

Maybe they aren't lying and both of you are right?
What if IT is true and they wanted to end Shepards story on a cliffhanger?
It's not unheard of.

[UrgentArchengel]

It's funny how touchy a subject IT is.

[jijeebo]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Nope.. beacue it would mean they are liying right NOW... not a promisse made 5+ months ago, which was compromised by the possibility of failed dead lines.

The only way for IT to be true is if the things they said about  EC are lies.... and at this point, since they are on thin ice,  I doubt they would be lying on anything at all.

Actually they never said a word about the IT other than it would be too much spoilers to mention so they aren't lying about that. So what "things" have they said about the IT that would be lies if IT was true? You aren't making sense.

All they IT is just a clarification of what they meant....nothing more, nothing less....just like they promised the EC would do.

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

[MadRabbit999]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

Nope.. beacue it would mean they are liying right NOW... not a promisse made 5+ months ago, which was compromised by the possibility of failed dead lines.

The only way for IT to be true is if the things they said about  EC are lies.... and at this point, since they are on thin ice,  I doubt they would be lying on anything at all.

Actually they never said a word about the IT other than it would be too much spoilers to mention so they aren't lying about that. So what "things" have they said about the IT that would be lies if IT was true? You aren't making sense.

All they IT is just a clarification of what they meant....nothing more, nothing less....just like they promised the EC would do.

No dude, right now you are either acting stupid or are trolling:

Even though I said this before... hell I will explain it to you so a 5 years old child will understand:

IT is true= Shepard wakes up.

Shepard wakes up = The story is not over, because the reapers are still alive.

The story is not over = Shepard must destroy the reaper for real this time. Or the game is not concluded (Devs already said this is the conclusion of Shepard story).

Shepard must destroy the reapers = NEW ENDING (meaning BW lied about no new endings)

Game not concluded = meaning BW lied about this would be Sheaprd final story and conclusion.

Get it now? either BW lied or IT is not true... if you do not get it then I recomend playing a less "mind straining" game for you... try angry birds... 

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 14 mai 2012 - 10:59 .

[Bob3terd]

Seriously stop preaching IT, its annoying. Some of us want to wait and see rather than jumping to conclusions.

[Erield]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

All that says is that they scrapped the part where the player lost control because it was too tricky....they NEVER said they scrapped the entire indoctrination plot and even if they wanted too much of it is left for the ending to be reasonably explained or fixed in any other way.

Simply because it would be too tricky for the player to lose control all in the middle of dialogue and conversations doesn't mean the entire indoctrination plot is gone....and eve that is not true....we clearly DO lose control of Shepard when TIM controlls him/her and forces Shep to shoot Anderson....all in the middle of conversations and all.

You can go about it any way you want there is no denying it:

1) BioWare DID come up with the IT long before any fan.
2) The Indoctrination plot is still very much IN.

"And even in November the gameplay team was experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movements and fall under Reaper control.  (This sequence was ultimately dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices.)"

No.  They do not say they dropped the idea of Indoctrination.  However, this can not be used as a "fact" that IT was intended or present in the game that launched.  My speculation on what it all is this: they replaced the scene they were working on with the one we got with TIM.  TIM is clearly Controlling Shepard at this point, presumably with his home-grown brew of implant upgrades that resulted from the Sanctuary project. 

Your 1.  Yes.  We find out, after the fact, that Bioware had a plan in place.  From the very exact same source, about the very same plan, we find out that they scrapped it.  There is no indication that it was actively replaced, or changed.  Any thought process along that point is nothing besides speculation; not fact.

Your 2.  There is no evidence to actively support that Shepard is Indoctrinated.  There are lots of facts that can be used to convey that IT is true; however, they are not themselves "facts."  Please refer to my previous post where I give you examples of a "fact" and "supposition."  

[Darth_Trethon]

jijeebo wrote...

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

Ugh....I've said this before...the IT is nowhere near as rigid as some make it out to be....it can be implemented in several ways including a sort of half-real version where yes Shepard is hallucinating badly but he also really is aboard the citadel....a sort of painted over reality if you will. How BioWare play out the exact details of the choices can even vary. Remember the way the book Revan ended Revan's plot.....I'd elaborate but I don't want to post spoiler suffice to say that defeat can have unexpected results. Yes Shepard could be indoctrinated but there is more room than you'd think for the actual results of that. Think back to the ending of Matrix Revolutions......Neo lost, he was defeated yet that wasn't what anyone would have guessed beforehand. What if the ending cut to the credits as soon as he turned into a Smith and you never saw the rest? Would that resolution have been something you'd have expected?

[Darth_Trethon]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

No dude, right now you are either acting stupid or are trolling:

Even though I said this before... hell I will explain it to you so a 5 years old child will understand:

IT is true= Shepard wakes up.

Shepard wakes up = The story is not over, because the reapers are still alive.

The story is not over = Shepard must destroy the reaper for real this time. Or the game is not concluded (Devs already said this is the conclusion of Shepard story).

Shepard must destroy the reapers = NEW ENDING (meaning BW lied about no new endings)

Game not concluded = meaning BW lied about this would be Sheaprd final story and conclusion.

Get it now? either BW lied or IT is not true... if you do not get it then I recomend playing a less "mind straining" game for you... try angry birds... 

See my reply above.

Destroy choice: reapers are destroyed, Shepard wakes up and so on.

Control/Synthesis choice: Shepard is indoctrinated but something unexpected happens and the war ends.

[jijeebo]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

Ugh....I've said this before...the IT is nowhere near as rigid as some make it out to be....it can be implemented in several ways including a sort of half-real version where yes Shepard is hallucinating badly but he also really is aboard the citadel....a sort of painted over reality if you will. How BioWare play out the exact details of the choices can even vary. Remember the way the book Revan ended Revan's plot.....I'd elaborate but I don't want to post spoiler suffice to say that defeat can have unexpected results. Yes Shepard could be indoctrinated but there is more room than you'd think for the actual results of that. Think back to the ending of Matrix Revolutions......Neo lost, he was defeated yet that wasn't what anyone would have guessed beforehand. What if the ending cut to the credits as soon as he turned into a Smith and you never saw the rest? Would that resolution have been something you'd have expected?

Still requires new endings though, doesn't it?

[MadRabbit999]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

No dude, right now you are either acting stupid or are trolling:

Even though I said this before... hell I will explain it to you so a 5 years old child will understand:

IT is true= Shepard wakes up.

Shepard wakes up = The story is not over, because the reapers are still alive.

The story is not over = Shepard must destroy the reaper for real this time. Or the game is not concluded (Devs already said this is the conclusion of Shepard story).

Shepard must destroy the reapers = NEW ENDING (meaning BW lied about no new endings)

Game not concluded = meaning BW lied about this would be Sheaprd final story and conclusion.

Get it now? either BW lied or IT is not true... if you do not get it then I recomend playing a less "mind straining" game for you... try angry birds... 

See my reply above.

Destroy choice: reapers are destroyed, Shepard wakes up and so on.

Control/Synthesis choice: Shepard is indoctrinated but something unexpected happens and the war ends.

But that's not what IT says.. IT never says that you destroy the reapers by chosing destruction, but you break free of the attempt of indoctrination, so you wake up.

If you are quoting facts.. at least get your straight next time please... calling it "IT" but then changing what IT states, it's not how smart conversation should be done, it just ends up confusing people.

Also.. how does it work out.... Harbinger tries to indoctrinate you, but instead ends up blowing trillions of assimilated races under form of reaper? Wow...  I can see more than 1 reaper pissed at Harby for that... also... I did not know Shepard was a Reaper virus

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 14 mai 2012 - 11:18 .

[kumquats]

anorling wrote...

For me it's this:
Shepard empties clip in pipe, triggers a big ass explosion that at least would knock him unconscious (no armor, remember). moments later the citadel goes kaboom. I just don't see how Shepard would make it out in time.

Ever saw an RPG, that has day and night? How is that possible do you ask? Because games like Mass Effect are not happening in Real Time. Shepard never saved Earth in 30 hours, the whole journey happens in months.
So the question would be, why do you think that the cutscenes aren't based on in game time?

Shepard escaping the same way he got into the Citadel is in my opinion a possibility. Something that's 100% not possible is, that we can hear the explosion of the Citadel.

Of course there is always the possibility that Shepard just got wings and all. ^.^

Just asking why everyone is assuming that cutscenes are happening in Real Time and at the same time, everyone just accepts that the Crucible took months to build.

[nightcobra]

jijeebo wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

Ugh....I've said this before...the IT is nowhere near as rigid as some make it out to be....it can be implemented in several ways including a sort of half-real version where yes Shepard is hallucinating badly but he also really is aboard the citadel....a sort of painted over reality if you will. How BioWare play out the exact details of the choices can even vary. Remember the way the book Revan ended Revan's plot.....I'd elaborate but I don't want to post spoiler suffice to say that defeat can have unexpected results. Yes Shepard could be indoctrinated but there is more room than you'd think for the actual results of that. Think back to the ending of Matrix Revolutions......Neo lost, he was defeated yet that wasn't what anyone would have guessed beforehand. What if the ending cut to the credits as soon as he turned into a Smith and you never saw the rest? Would that resolution have been something you'd have expected?

Still requires new endings though, doesn't it?

yes, new in the sense as extra content added to expand on the existing endings.

not in the sense of substituting the current endings for other ones.

the IT is part of the first sentence, they can use the existing endings and expand from then on which is what the DLC is, *expanding and clarifying the existing endings* 

[Darth_Trethon]

jijeebo wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

Ugh....I've said this before...the IT is nowhere near as rigid as some make it out to be....it can be implemented in several ways including a sort of half-real version where yes Shepard is hallucinating badly but he also really is aboard the citadel....a sort of painted over reality if you will. How BioWare play out the exact details of the choices can even vary. Remember the way the book Revan ended Revan's plot.....I'd elaborate but I don't want to post spoiler suffice to say that defeat can have unexpected results. Yes Shepard could be indoctrinated but there is more room than you'd think for the actual results of that. Think back to the ending of Matrix Revolutions......Neo lost, he was defeated yet that wasn't what anyone would have guessed beforehand. What if the ending cut to the credits as soon as he turned into a Smith and you never saw the rest? Would that resolution have been something you'd have expected?

Still requires new endings though, doesn't it?

Really depends on what you mean by new....technically speaking ANY new content no matter how small is a change and therefore the endings are "changed" of "new" even though BioWare said they wouldn't. How much or how little does there have to be for an ending to be considered new/different. By taking the words at face value BioWare's statement is illogical....they are adding to the endings but not changin them....to add on to the ending IS changing them. That's why Priestly posted this asking the fans what do their words mean to us:

http://www.holdtheli...ended-cut.1672/

[SirCrimz]

Has anyone ever thought that when they mean by "extend" their current ending it could be the indoctrination theory still? The IT is an ending that is built upon what we are already shown which could possibly fit the description of an extension of the current ending we're given. I wouldn't say the IT is disproven quite yet.

Note: I'm just speculating and I do not necessarily care if it's IT or not as long as we get closure.

Modifié par SirCrimz, 14 mai 2012 - 11:25 .

[UrgentArchengel]

If Shepard escaped through the conduit, why the hell does he gasp as if waking from a nightmare or nearly died. Also, why would Shepard appear on a pile of rubble after escaping through the conduit? Is he just taking a nap?

[MadRabbit999]

SirCrimz wrote...

Has anyone ever thought that when they mean by "extend" their current ending it could be the indoctrination theory still? The IT is an ending that is built upon what we are already shown which could possibly fit the description of an extension of the current ending we're given. I wouldn't say the IT is disproven quite yet.

Note: I'm just speculating and I do not necessarily care if it's IT or not as long as we get closure.

Nope.. read exactly what they said "Extended scenes", not extend the ending, meaning, they want to EXTEND a currently existing scene... not create a new one... or they would have said "We will add new scenes"

For instance the scene when Joker runs away.. to extend that scene, explaining how he got where he is...

Having Shepard get up and walking about, is not an extension, is a new scene.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 14 mai 2012 - 11:28 .

[jijeebo]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

I don't get how people can create a theory that retcons the current endings into a dream world, invalidates 2 of them and DOESN'T EVEN END THE REAPER THREAT OR THE TIM ARC, and then suddenly say it "Isn't a new ending!!!11" because that would mean it doesn't fit with EC statements and can't be true.

Ugh....I've said this before...the IT is nowhere near as rigid as some make it out to be....it can be implemented in several ways including a sort of half-real version where yes Shepard is hallucinating badly but he also really is aboard the citadel....a sort of painted over reality if you will. How BioWare play out the exact details of the choices can even vary. Remember the way the book Revan ended Revan's plot.....I'd elaborate but I don't want to post spoiler suffice to say that defeat can have unexpected results. Yes Shepard could be indoctrinated but there is more room than you'd think for the actual results of that. Think back to the ending of Matrix Revolutions......Neo lost, he was defeated yet that wasn't what anyone would have guessed beforehand. What if the ending cut to the credits as soon as he turned into a Smith and you never saw the rest? Would that resolution have been something you'd have expected?

Still requires new endings though, doesn't it?

Really depends on what you mean by new....technically speaking ANY new content no matter how small is a change and therefore the endings are "changed" of "new" even though BioWare said they wouldn't. How much or how little does there have to be for an ending to be considered new/different. By taking the words at face value BioWare's statement is illogical....they are adding to the endings but not changin them....to add on to the ending IS changing them. That's why Priestly posted this asking the fans what do their words mean to us:

http://www.holdtheli...ended-cut.1672/

Any content that works within the current endings isn't classed as new to me. If an addition changes something from the current endings and substitutes in something new then that ending has been changed... And depending on the severity of the change it would be a NEW ending, IT is such a change.

The epilogues are an unknown because what they entail hasn't been specified but I'd guess it's just stuff that was previous headcanon and doesn't actually change anything.


And that thread is just PR stuff, convince the fans you're listening and all that.

[nightcobra]

jijeebo wrote...


Any content that works within the current endings isn't classed as new to me. If an addition changes something from the current endings and substitutes in something new then that ending has been changed... And depending on the severity of the change it would be a NEW ending, IT is such a change.

The epilogues are an unknown because what they entail hasn't been specified but I'd guess it's just stuff that was previous headcanon and doesn't actually change anything.


And that thread is just PR stuff, convince the fans you're listening and all that.

it wouldn't be, for it to work you can just expand from when me3 ended, not changing anything to the current endings but giving a new perspective of what just happened.
on technical terms no ending would have to be changed, just your perspective on them.

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 14 mai 2012 - 11:34 .

[Darth_Trethon]

jijeebo wrote...

Any content that works within the current endings isn't classed as new to me. If an addition changes something from the current endings and substitutes in something new then that ending has been changed... And depending on the severity of the change it would be a NEW ending, IT is such a change.

The epilogues are an unknown because what they entail hasn't been specified but I'd guess it's just stuff that was previous headcanon and doesn't actually change anything.


And that thread is just PR stuff, convince the fans you're listening and all that.

EVERY word they say is PR stuff.....even them stating that the endings won't change is PR stuff. And the IT would work within the curent endings just nicely without removing or replacing anything....what you're expecting is complete sameness and predictability. Yet BioWare said that anything they say regarding the IT would be spoilers so there must be something there to surprise us or they wouldn't mind spoilers now would they and anything unexpected at this point accoriding to you would fall within the realm of "new" and "changed" endings. As I said their remarks are nonsensical....it's a PR game wher their word can be read either way and people can stay somewhat calmer and a bit more quiet untill the EC is released.....it's called damage control, don't read too much into it.

Ultimately let's face it....the endings SUCKED so regardless of what they say expect heavy retcons.

Modifié par Darth_Trethon, 14 mai 2012 - 11:38 .

[jijeebo]

nightcobra8928 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...


Any content that works within the current endings isn't classed as new to me. If an addition changes something from the current endings and substitutes in something new then that ending has been changed... And depending on the severity of the change it would be a NEW ending, IT is such a change.

The epilogues are an unknown because what they entail hasn't been specified but I'd guess it's just stuff that was previous headcanon and doesn't actually change anything.


And that thread is just PR stuff, convince the fans you're listening and all that.

it wouldn't be, for it to work you can just expand from when me3 ended, not changing anything to the current endings but giving a new perspective of what just happened.
on technical terms no ending would have to be changed, just your perspective on them.

Well my "perspective" on the Control ending is that I used that option to end the reaper threat.

Chuck in IT theory and that canonically is no longer the case, I become indoctrinated and God knows what happens to me...


Just because people *think* that IT was Biowares plan, doesn't mean that its implementation into the game is not a new ending, especially considering 95% of people who played it probably aren't aware of it.

[Peranor]

kumquats wrote...

anorling wrote...

For me it's this:
Shepard empties clip in pipe, triggers a big ass explosion that at least would knock him unconscious (no armor, remember). moments later the citadel goes kaboom. I just don't see how Shepard would make it out in time.

Ever saw an RPG, that has day and night? How is that possible do you ask? Because games like Mass Effect are not happening in Real Time. Shepard never saved Earth in 30 hours, the whole journey happens in months.
So the question would be, why do you think that the cutscenes aren't based on in game time?

Shepard escaping the same way he got into the Citadel is in my opinion a possibility. Something that's 100% not possible is, that we can hear the explosion of the Citadel.

Of course there is always the possibility that Shepard just got wings and all. ^.^

Just asking why everyone is assuming that cutscenes are happening in Real Time and at the same time, everyone just accepts that the Crucible took months to build.

Real Time or not. Saying that Shepard shot the pipe, it exploded with a big explosion in his face, he somehow managed to survive that/not get knocked unconscious, makes his way back down to earth, and minutes later the citadel exploded is stretching it.  
You can get the feeling when the game is trying to show you that things are happening in almost-real time and when you just have to imagine that hours/days have passed. I get the impression that what happens after Shepard shoot the pipe happens pretty fast. Not real-time, but maybe in a few minutes.

If he at least get knocked unconscious by the explosion after shooting the pipe
(which is reasonable to believe he was considering he was already half dead when he first meet the Starkid and had no armor). He would not be able to make it back out in time imo.

Modifié par anorling, 14 mai 2012 - 11:47 .

[Thaa_solon]

This thread is also full of speculation theory

[nightcobra]

jijeebo wrote...

nightcobra8928 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...


Any content that works within the current endings isn't classed as new to me. If an addition changes something from the current endings and substitutes in something new then that ending has been changed... And depending on the severity of the change it would be a NEW ending, IT is such a change.

The epilogues are an unknown because what they entail hasn't been specified but I'd guess it's just stuff that was previous headcanon and doesn't actually change anything.


And that thread is just PR stuff, convince the fans you're listening and all that.

it wouldn't be, for it to work you can just expand from when me3 ended, not changing anything to the current endings but giving a new perspective of what just happened.
on technical terms no ending would have to be changed, just your perspective on them.

Well my "perspective" on the Control ending is that I used that option to end the reaper threat.

Chuck in IT theory and that canonically is no longer the case, I become indoctrinated and God knows what happens to me...


Just because people *think* that IT was Biowares plan, doesn't mean that its implementation into the game is not a new ending, especially considering 95% of people who played it probably aren't aware of it.

the whole point of indocrination is that you can't see it happening to you.
i believe in IT though in believe in it as a theory that currently makes more sense than the given product.

if and IF IT is true then i also think there should be a final chance at breaking free from indocrination for people who picked control or synthesis to stop the reapers before you lose yourself (ala benezia)

Modifié par nightcobra8928, 14 mai 2012 - 11:51 .

[Peranor]

Thaa_solon wrote...

This thread is also full of speculation theory

Ofc, that's what they wanted