55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

Theodoro wrote...

Because I thought the EC was supposed to clarify things.

Excuse my French, but what the hell is this crap? First, they tell us they're not changing the endings. Okay. At least they'll clarify the existing ones. And now they're telling us that we will be "interpreting" the endings for ourselves. But wasn't that what we were doing until now? Enough of this ambiguity, I want to know what really happens so I can get my closure.

Yeah, I know.  I think whatever happens, no matter what Jessica says, this is going to offer some kind of explanation for what's going on.  To not do so would be business suicide.  And if I know EA, they will NEVER let a profitable company that they own commit business suicide. 

[MaximizedAction]

Rifneno wrote...

*snip*

As for Blade Runner, there's a minor difference and a major one.  The minor difference is that there was a moral lesson to not revealing if Deckard was a replicant.  If he is and we can't tell, then you're supposed to ask yourself what the difference between replicants and humans really is.  Should they really be viewed differently?  The major difference is that the fate of all advanced life in the galaxy doesn't depend on Deckard's anatomy.  If IT is true, then the Reapers were never defeated.  They're still murdering people by the millions.  That's not a satisfying ending.  That's not an ending at all.

*snip*

Oh sweet baby Jesus, this!!!

Though, I would insist on clarifying what is meant by IT?
Line a waking dream, where Shepard's actions (whatever they really were) had really the effect of ending the war. In that case, BW never really has to deny or confirm it, or, the Blade Runner case. I.e. it only changes our look on Shepard and the principle of indoctrination.

Or does IT mean  a full blown hallucination, where nothing really happened and...what you wrote. Basically demanding a reveal because otherwise the story is literally incomplete.

People keep asking Jessica or BW about IT, but which version do both parties mean? It's important, because then it does matter that they resolve it within a reasonable amount of time.

[LazyTechGuy]

Fair enough Dwailing. I'm not 100% sold on Jessica's tweets either. Thought people should know though.

[DirtyPhoenix]

Leaving IT on our "interpretation" is even worse that denying it, IMO. It's like saying : you can believe in anything you like and we're OK with that. Maybe they were really poking fun at IT-ers when they laughed at PAX

[Jadebaby]

Ytook wrote...

How can the EC remain ambiguous about IT but extend the ending? It's not possible, if the current ending (literal) is extended in any way then IT can't be the case.

I agree.

[Orph]

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

Epök wrote...

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

Epök wrote...

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

Epök wrote...

An Indoctrination attempt implies that the Reapers tried to mess with his mind, and we know (from ME2) that even a dead Reaper can still indoctrinate people. If Shepard can continue his life normally after the Destroy ending, then the Theory is wrong.
If it's true, he could never be the same again. A part of him would belong to the Reapers.

but we don't know that Indoctrination can't be defeated because the victim doesn't realize he is being indoctrinated. If you don't realize it, and you manage to beat it then you cant really come out and say "oh, i beat indoctrination last night, dood!" So i say it is possible.

Well, from what we know, some people can realize they are indoctrinated at some point. Saren did, TIM did, even Samara's daughter did.
Some others see something is going wrong (the scientists on the dead Reaper in ME2, Brynn....). So, to me, if they tried to indoctrinate him, something would change with him. The Theorists will see it as Indoctrination, maybe the others will see as a simple PTSD.

Yes but i mean the attempts are so subtle that you don't realize you are being indoctrinated. So if you do manage to reject the indoctrination you never realize it

Yep, I don't think Shepard will trully realize it someday. Like you said, he won't wake up one day and say : "Hell, I was indoctrinated." It doesn't work like that.
Like you can't release the Extended Cut and say : "People, that was nice. But if you picked up Synthesis or Control, then you're stupid. What you believed in, the choices you made over the last 3 games and how the galaxy is supposed to be according to your choice at the end... All of this is irrelevant. /spitintheface"

(Sorry if there are mistakes. My English can be pretty bad sometimes...  )

I do realize that it would be a kick in the balls in a way to come out and say you picked wrong. But you also cant help but think that if you picked those, then they truly are wrong. Seeing as those 2 choices go against everything the ME series was about ( Destroying the Reapers once and for all ) I think it would make sense to tell them they should have payed more attention and stayed true to your beliefs. No one was thinking they could control the reapers while playing the game, they were thinking " im going to DESTROY these f***ers!"

And don't worry your English is fine

Imo, if IT is true (please, BW) then should be at least 3 different endings... Two of then with Shepard alive and one with a death Shepard. But why? If Shepard is indoctrinated he has to survive and kill all her friends... And if he overcomes the indoctrination then... He knows what happen when you are indoctrinated, you can't really defeat the indoctrination so he decides to commit suicide as a kamikaze and kill the Harbinger.

I want the IT to be true and this is what I think that could happen. 

As 
Epök  said: 
Sorry if there are mistakes. My English can be pretty bad sometimes...  

[Dwailing]

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Fair enough Dwailing. I'm not 100% sold on Jessica's tweets either. Thought people should know though.

Yeah, I understand.  I'm just saying that I doubt that we're going to get anything worthwhile out of her.  It doesn't hurt to keep posting her tweets or keep following her Twitter thread, but just remember that you should take anything she says with a grain of salt.  She's not going to be able to really say anything about IT in the EC.

[Turbo_J]

Ashep123 wrote...

I will ask this again. Did anybody notice the bench in Shepard's first dream? Its the same bench Shepard's landed on when being hit by the Reaper beam at Alliance headquarters.

Yes. Thought about it quite a bit. That beam hit and Shep hitting the bench coincide with the park disappearing and the boy teleporting to a 9 story building half a mile away from the rooftop where the park was... or wasn't.

The bench is in other places throughout the game... it's just one 'bench' asset, but the fact it coincides with the park and kid oddness has always made me wonder... Especially given right after that you get it with a really messed up Normandy, a Crucible and Liara; who is suddenly incapable of critical thinking and really sucks at keeping really important secrets; blurting out that she is the Shadow Broker in font of both James and the VS... Who don't respond to the information AT ALL.

Modifié par Turbo_J, 23 juin 2012 - 02:40 .

[memorysquid]

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

Okay that is confusing as all hell, it will clarify and explain the ending, but won't tell us if IT is true or not, apparently being up to us to decide?? what the hell dude?

I think it is as plain as day.  IT is false; the original ending was the original ending with nothing further planned.  Bioware has ZERO incentive to say it is false, as that would just alienate the diehard fanbase that wanted a particular ending so badly, that they began speculating all sorts of ways around the actual ending.  So they act mysterious, hold a mirror up to your face and then simply move forward with what they intended for the EC which was to provide more clarity in how your decisions play out after Shep is out of the equation.

[Dwailing]

pirate1802 wrote...

Leaving IT on our "interpretation" is even worse that denying it, IMO. It's like saying : you can believe in anything you like and we're OK with that. Maybe they were really poking fun at IT-ers when they laughed at PAX

I don't know about that.  If you watch the video, one of the BW devs was the one who brought up IT since no one in the audience was asking about it.  And when you also take into account the poll on htl.com, I'm pretty sure that they're not going to completely ignore us.  We actually make up the majority, I think.  It just that it's much like real life.  Those who support it are afraid of the vocal minority, the bat-crap crazy Literalists (Note, I don't mean ALL Literalists, just the psychopathic ones.).  So, while the people who believe in IT may be the majority, they're not the ones doing to majority of the shouting.

[MaximizedAction]

Turbo_J wrote...

Ashep123 wrote...

I will ask this again. Did anybody notice the bench in Shepard's first dream? Its the same bench Shepard's landed on when being hit by the Reaper beam at Alliance headquarters.

Yes. Thought about it quite a bit. That beam hit and Shep hitting the bench coincide with the park disappearing and the boy teleporting to a 9 story building half a mile away from the rooftop where the park was... or wasn't.

The bench is in other places throughout the game... it's just one 'bench' asset, but the fact it coincides with the park and kid oddness has always made me wonder... Especially given right after that you get it with a really messed up Normandy, a Crucible and Liara; who is suddenly incapable of critical thinking and really sucks at keeping really important secrets; blurting out that she is the Shadow Broker in font of both James and the VS... Who don't respond to the information AT ALL.

Well, if you chose Liara for the Sur'kesh mission, she and Wrex throw eachother winks about her being the SB while those Salarian guards are around. So she doesn't blur it out to everybody.

[memorysquid]

Dwailing wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Fair enough Dwailing. I'm not 100% sold on Jessica's tweets either. Thought people should know though.

Yeah, I understand.  I'm just saying that I doubt that we're going to get anything worthwhile out of her.  It doesn't hurt to keep posting her tweets or keep following her Twitter thread, but just remember that you should take anything she says with a grain of salt.  She's not going to be able to really say anything about IT in the EC.

You're just ignoring what she said and placing your speculations above the report of someone who actually chatted with the people who wrote the ending.  What she said was the EC won't confirm IT.  Why would it?  Why definitely make Destory diehard fans mad when they can leave it unspecified and not make them mad, and just move forward with their long stated plans to clarify the effects of Shepard's actions in a slightly longer term?

[memorysquid]

Dwailing wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

Leaving IT on our "interpretation" is even worse that denying it, IMO. It's like saying : you can believe in anything you like and we're OK with that. Maybe they were really poking fun at IT-ers when they laughed at PAX

I don't know about that.  If you watch the video, one of the BW devs was the one who brought up IT since no one in the audience was asking about it.  And when you also take into account the poll on htl.com, I'm pretty sure that they're not going to completely ignore us.  We actually make up the majority, I think.  It just that it's much like real life.  Those who support it are afraid of the vocal minority, the bat-crap crazy Literalists (Note, I don't mean ALL Literalists, just the psychopathic ones.).  So, while the people who believe in IT may be the majority, they're not the ones doing to majority of the shouting.

You could do a poll to see if IT is in the majority; I doubt it is because I doubt most players of the game are even aware of IT, but you could at least poll BSN.

[BatmanTurian]

memorysquid wrote...

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

Okay that is confusing as all hell, it will clarify and explain the ending, but won't tell us if IT is true or not, apparently being up to us to decide?? what the hell dude?

I think it is as plain as day.  IT is false; the original ending was the original ending with nothing further planned.  Bioware has ZERO incentive to say it is false, as that would just alienate the diehard fanbase that wanted a particular ending so badly, that they began speculating all sorts of ways around the actual ending.  So they act mysterious, hold a mirror up to your face and then simply move forward with what they intended for the EC which was to provide more clarity in how your decisions play out after Shep is out of the equation.

Just go away. None of us care what you think. Stop trying to preach to us like you're trying to convert us. Get over yourself.

[llbountyhunter]

memorysquid wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Fair enough Dwailing. I'm not 100% sold on Jessica's tweets either. Thought people should know though.

Yeah, I understand.  I'm just saying that I doubt that we're going to get anything worthwhile out of her.  It doesn't hurt to keep posting her tweets or keep following her Twitter thread, but just remember that you should take anything she says with a grain of salt.  She's not going to be able to really say anything about IT in the EC.

You're just ignoring what she said and placing your speculations above the report of someone who actually chatted with the people who wrote the ending.  What she said was the EC won't confirm IT.  Why would it?  Why definitely make Destory diehard fans mad when they can leave it unspecified and not make them mad, and just move forward with their long stated plans to clarify the effects of Shepard's actions in a slightly longer term?

Did you miss the part where they said they werent denying IT either? Im just wondering if your blind or stupid.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 02:48 .

[Rifneno]

Ashep123 wrote...

I will ask this again. Did anybody notice the bench in Shepard's first dream? Its the same bench Shepard's landed on when being hit by the Reaper beam at Alliance headquarters.

Mmm... maybe I'll let that little reaper bastard run around by himself this time. Feel like forever since I just sat down...

Theodoro wrote...

Because I thought the EC was supposed to clarify things.

Excuse my French, but what the hell is this crap? First, they tell us they're not changing the endings. Okay. At least they'll clarify the existing ones. And now they're telling us that we will be "interpreting" the endings for ourselves. But wasn't that what we were doing until now? Enough of this ambiguity, I want to know what really happens so I can get my closure.

Well it's not like they literally promised us "answers to everything" or anything... oh no wait, yes they did.

byne wrote...

Well, if the EC doesnt confirm or deny IT, maybe it will at least add new fuel for IT speculations.

I know I've said this a lot lately but... Not good enough!

And... oh God. trollsquid is back. /facepalm

[byne]

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, if the EC doesnt confirm or deny IT, maybe it will at least add new fuel for IT speculations.

I know I've said this a lot lately but... Not good enough!

And... oh God. trollsquid is back. /facepalm

I didnt say it was good enough, but it would fit with Arian's old theory that the EC was never planned, and they expected us to like the endings enough to hold us over until the actual IT DLC was released.

I think Arian's theory was that the IT DLC would have originally been planned to be the final DLC released or some such.

[MaximizedAction]

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, if the EC doesnt confirm or deny IT, maybe it will at least add new fuel for IT speculations.

I know I've said this a lot lately but... Not good enough!

And... oh God. trollsquid is back. /facepalm

I didnt say it was good enough, but it would fit with Arian's old theory that the EC was never planned, and they expected us to like the endings enough to hold us over until the actual IT DLC was released.

I think Arian's theory was that the IT DLC would have originally been planned to be the final DLC released or some such.

That was his idea!

So I don't see how suddenly nearly everyone seems so crushed about the EC not making a clear statement about IT.

[llbountyhunter]

I'm just curious how their going to bring clarity to the current endings in a non definative way without leaning heavily towards IT...

[LazyTechGuy]

memorysquid wrote...

You could do a poll to see if IT is in the majority; I doubt it is because I doubt most players of the game are even aware of IT, but you could at least poll BSN.

lol, there seems to be a tweet for everything. Here's one regarding their research and how it differs from what we know from the polls. (Again, grain of salt, this isn't 100% fact, etc, but still telling)

[Rifneno]

MaximizedAction wrote...

byne wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

byne wrote...

Well, if the EC doesnt confirm or deny IT, maybe it will at least add new fuel for IT speculations.

I know I've said this a lot lately but... Not good enough!

And... oh God. trollsquid is back. /facepalm

I didnt say it was good enough, but it would fit with Arian's old theory that the EC was never planned, and they expected us to like the endings enough to hold us over until the actual IT DLC was released.

I think Arian's theory was that the IT DLC would have originally been planned to be the final DLC released or some such.

That was his idea!

So I don't see how suddenly nearly everyone seems so crushed about the EC not making a clear statement about IT.

Because I don't believe in his theory and I never have.

[MaximizedAction]

llbountyhunter wrote...

I'm just curious how their going to bring clarity to the current endings in a non definative way without leaning heavily towards IT...

Use that deleted scene where you see your squadmates get shot during the beamrun, but maybe still be able to get back to a shuttle, fly to the Normandy, and head to the next relay. Basically all that stuff literalists have been complaining about, that it was missing.

[McWhitey3]

After reading the tweets, watching interviews, and reading all the posts, IMO I think EC is not going o be what we have been hoping for. Not that IT is not true. I still think it is but this EC will not confirm it directly. I think this is going to be what everyone was wanting in some way we wanted that final fight to include the people we saved or helped. Like groups of krogan charging in and clearing the way, geth primes dropping in and killing stuff,etc. I think they will put more obvious hints in for IT to continue later on in future DLC. Why I think this, is because the evidence is there for IT. I think this is what they wants but didn't expect the backlash. But mainly the breath scene. This scene alone is the hook. Without this scene then IT doesn't exist. They wanted the hook at the end to continue the story. They will still have this scene with EC which to me still means they have plans for the future AFTER the ending. I know they said different. EC will expand and give more clues (probably more in your face) to IT then they will release another DLC or heck maybe ME4 to continue.

I hope anyway....