55528 réponses à ce sujet

[ZerebusPrime]

It looks like I'll get to run my 2nd playthrough straight into the Extended Cut since I'm about to do the Thessia mission. I'm still looking for IT clues regardless of the state of the forums here or popular opinion elsewhere, too.

[dreamgazer]

I'm currently being reminded why I took some time away from the forum.

I fear for the future of narrative interpretation and writers' inclination to utilize ambiguity. I fear for it very, very deeply.

[MaximizedAction]

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 23 juin 2012 - 03:34 .

[llbountyhunter]

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Has everyone seen the video where someone flycam'ed the ending and might've found the room Anderson could have been in on the Citadel?

Is there any point making that room?

It seems to me that if they were in a room right next to each other and there was open space between where they could hear each other's voices, they wouldn't have needed a radio until he went through that door.

So.... is there another room for TIM?

I don't think he needed one. He went there before the reapers invaded the citadel

But the room was on the underside of the citadel...  and there dont seem to be anymore paths...

I know...

[masster blaster]

Well if EC does not prove IT is right (which EC will prove it is right) then how are they going to explain the Normandy? They can't just say " oh the Normandy and the crew left Shepard because they were told to" no I am sorry that's some bull ****. They would never leave Shepard to die and you know what's funny when you think about Control, and Synthesis both are similar.

All it really does is save the Reapers, but Control turns you into a reaper, and synthesis well some Collector crap like when we found out the Collectors were the Prothean's. So I have a feeling that once we pick Control, or synthesis it's going to stat off great but then truth would be reviled that all of this was for nothing, and the Reapers start the cycle again after a few years have passed.

All so all Shepard did was combine his, or her energy to the Crucible and just gave new DNA and that's it, so the Reapers can still start killing all organic life all over again and, when Shepard picks control THE GOD CHILD SMILES, so what about Destroy.

Well all I can say is that the cut scene were Shepard breaths is after the Normandy crash lands on that planet. You also have to take in account that it is the only scene after the Normandy crashes which also helps IT so there you go.

Modifié par masster blaster, 23 juin 2012 - 03:38 .

[llbountyhunter]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

I would need to buy a new laptop...

Lol, jk. but seriously... i dont bioware is that silly....maybe

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 03:38 .

[Dwailing]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

Here, this would be my reaction. 
  Also, if it doesn't take, it should be around the :25 mark.

[masster blaster]

llbountyhunter wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

I would need to buy a new laptop...

Lol, jk. but seriously... i dont bioware is that silly....maybe

OR......

[Vinny]

Rifneno wrote...

Epök wrote...

 So you want the game to hold your hand and make sure nothing bad happens. Personally I'd rather have a game where it's possible to **** up. I don't like hand holding. I like consequences for poor decisions.

I won't answer about post traumatic syndrom. You seem to know far more than I do !

What i'm trying to say about the endings... it's not like there is a good or bad ending. It's a roleplaying game and your character is shapped by your choices and the way you want it to be.
I like the Indoctrination Theory because you see things from a different perspective but it doesn't mean it will be the case for every character created. You guys found some amazing stuff, and if you believe in this Theory then you have to go very deep into the rabbit hole and the material is here. The Arrival isn't there for nothing. Remember what Joker said about EDI in ME2 ? : "That doesn't change anything, It's still watching. Like some creepy kid staring at the back of your head in comp sci. You just want to... punch him. But he is "special" and sets fire or somethin'." ME2 is full of things like that. 

But again, the ending is built around what you believe in, not around what's the best for the game. If you listen to the podcast, I believe that's what Hudson and Walters are trying to say when they say : "We can't change the ending because that would be a story we couldn't write."
1. because it has always been designed like that.
2. because they know that if people keep taliking about, the product will stay alive. They wanted "a Blade Runner" and they have it. 

Sorry if I seem harsh about the PTSD, we're just a little tired of hearing the dreams brushed off as PTSD.  One of the biggest symptoms of PTSD is an extreme aversion to the situation or surroundings that led to the trauma.  That's why Kelly Chambers won't come back to the Normandy or the asari at the hospital doesn't want to be near humans or bathe.  They really do have PTSD.  In fact the asari is labeled as PTSD in the game's dialogue files.  Point being, if Shepard had PTSD then s/he'd be finding any excuse possible to stay away from Reapers.  But Shepard behaves the opposite of what you'd expect from a PTSD case.

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.

I never saw the validity in the complaints of "if IT is true, they can't just screw over people who picked control or synthesis."  Why shouldn't that choice have consequences?  If you make a bad call during a battle and get killed, that choice has the same consequence.  Besides, according to many IT'ers there should or will be ways to manage even if you pick control/synthesis.  Things like Eve's shard or the rachni queen have been hinted at possibly being able to break Shepard free.  Though they'll probably have a price.

Yep that's what I implied when I said "They wanted a Blade Runner".  However, the questions you're supposed to ask at the end of Blade Runner have an influence on what happened before. If Deckard is a replicant, then he wasn't aware of it. But does that mean he was more happy when he thought he was an organic? Or he knew it and he is on the run now?
The Indoctrination Theory works like that. Does that mean everything we saw during ME3 was real? Did the indoctrination had an influence on him? Did it changed the way he reacted to differents things?

Again Blade Runner ask a big question (if you take things at face value) : Does synthetic life have the same value than organic life? Is there any moment in ME3 where we are supposed to ask this question? I think so.

They designed the game like that. I don't know how to say it in English but in French it would be : They wanted it to be completely hybrid. ME3 is supposed to bring you some answers but is also here to ask some questions. If people are waiting to have all the answers at the end of the game, then I don't think they'll like the extended cut.... 

To stay on topic, I would say that Eve's crystal has a major influence. In case of Indoctrination, Tuchanka has definitely an influence on Shepard's mind. The run at the end of the mission while there's a Reaper shooting at you? The Krogan's who live in chaos and developping along the path the Salarians desire? The existence of Eve and what she represents for the Krogans? The way she describes how she became a Shaman : "In a dark cave where there is no light. I started to dig the wrong way and when every hope was lost I found this crystal..." And she became a symbol for them.

[dreamgazer]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

I participate in this thread and I believe there's some truth in BioWare's intention to include vague elements geared to be interpreted as indoctrination symptoms.  That perception won't change; I've always been about interpreting things on the surface without the promise of an extended cut. 

But when it comes down to it, I sincerely don't care what happens, as long as they exercise the attention to detail and love for the lore that they've preached.

Also: do we know if the Extended Cut will also come with a series of non-end patches?  I know Priestly started a thread about story/romance bugs that should take priority, and I'm wondering if they're folded into the update.

[MaximizedAction]

dreamgazer wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Sooo, how would you guys react if the EC showed Shepard being teleported back down (in the Destroy ending)? Just from near the tube, right down to London?

I participate in this thread and I believe there's some truth in BioWare's intention to include vague elements geared to be interpreted as indoctrination symptoms.  That perception won't change; I've always been about interpreting things on the surface without the promise of an extended cut. 

But when it comes down to it, I sincerely don't care what happens, as long as they exercise the attention to detail and love for the lore that they've preached.

Also: do we know if the Extended Cut will also come with a series of non-end patches?  I know Priestly started a thread about story/romance bugs that should take priority, and I'm wondering if they're folded into the update.

Well, Jessica tweeted something about the EC makind it easier to achieve higher EMS (???), if I read it correctly. Somebody got a link or pic?

The only really bug I care about it the Aequitas bug, if it stays, IT stays.

[masster blaster]

That is what we have to tell Jessica Merizan about if you pick Control your no better then the Reapers because they have been Controlling organics and synthetics to do there biting. And if you pick Synthesis you are doing the Reapers dirty work by over writing everyone's DNA so that the Reapers can harvest them more quickly and maybe control all sentential life.

Modifié par masster blaster, 23 juin 2012 - 03:49 .

[memorysquid]

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

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.

The problem is that they're not actually saying it's false, they've practically left it to us to decide which is where much of the confusion stems from

You don't think, from their perspective, confusion or allowing people to headcanon is better than slapping down a [on BSN at least] popular theory?

[dreman9999]

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Has everyone seen the video where someone flycam'ed the ending and might've found the room Anderson could have been in on the Citadel?

Yes, and we already argued ageints it. It's still wrong. Anderson has no way to get out of that room nor a way across that chasum if he came from that room and we still would of saw him.

[dreman9999]

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Humakt83 wrote...

LazyTechGuy wrote...

Has everyone seen the video where someone flycam'ed the ending and might've found the room Anderson could have been in on the Citadel?

Is there any point making that room?

It seems to me that if they were in a room right next to each other and there was open space between where they could hear each other's voices, they wouldn't have needed a radio until he went through that door.

So.... is there another room for TIM?

I don't think he needed one. He went there before the reapers invaded the citadel

Yes, he would need a room. Where did he came from?

[Dwailing]

memorysquid wrote...

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

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.

The problem is that they're not actually saying it's false, they've practically left it to us to decide which is where much of the confusion stems from

You don't think, from their perspective, confusion or allowing people to headcanon is better than slapping down a [on BSN at least] popular theory?

I think, no, I'm CERTAIN that the response to more ambiguity would be worse than the response to them manning up and telling us we're wrong.  Not that I think that going to happen, mind you, but I would rather be told to my face that I'm nuts than be left with something even MORE ambiguous than we have now. 

[llbountyhunter]

memorysquid wrote...

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

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.

The problem is that they're not actually saying it's false, they've practically left it to us to decide which is where much of the confusion stems from

You don't think, from their perspective, confusion or allowing people to headcanon is better than slapping down a [on BSN at least] popular theory?

No, it would make more sense to ween the players off that notion now, rather than when actually experiencing EC, in order to make EC more enjoyable... and if players had to play EC with false impressions from bioware the backlash would be even worse.

[IronSabbath88]

I for one will see this EC and if it makes the fact that it could be all an indoctrination attempt that much clearer

If it makes it so, then yeah, Arian was right all along.

[byne]

Oh god dammit. I was totally joking when I thought to myself 'Maybe a ghost will show up and make everything better with the power of Deus Ex Machina!' about Legend of Korra earlier today.

Why must I tempt fate?

[memorysquid]

Dwailing wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

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.

The problem is that they're not actually saying it's false, they've practically left it to us to decide which is where much of the confusion stems from

You don't think, from their perspective, confusion or allowing people to headcanon is better than slapping down a [on BSN at least] popular theory?

I think, no, I'm CERTAIN that the response to more ambiguity would be worse than the response to them manning up and telling us we're wrong.  Not that I think that going to happen, mind you, but I would rather be told to my face that I'm nuts than be left with something even MORE ambiguous than we have now. 

Why does it matter what the writer says?  I mean I think it is plain enough IT was not what they intended, but if you like it, then enjoy it.

[Dwailing]

 OK, I was thinking, and I think I might have an explanation for why Deception sucked so much.  Maybe it was a test to see what the reaction would be to the endings.  Now, I know what you're thinking, "What does a book have to do with an ending to a game?"  Well, here's what I'm thinking.  Maybe they were testing how the fanbase would respond to the plotholes and inconsistencies of the book, so they would know how the fanbase would respond to the plotholes and inconsistencies of the endings.  If you look, the response to Deception was very similar to the response to the endings.  Specifically, there were a lot of upset fans, there was/were a thread/threads dedicated to talking about how much it sucked, and there was a movement to get it either banned from canon, or changed so that it was actually not horrible.  Does this remind you of anything?

[Dwailing]

memorysquid wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

Unbreakable Shepard wrote...

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.

The problem is that they're not actually saying it's false, they've practically left it to us to decide which is where much of the confusion stems from

You don't think, from their perspective, confusion or allowing people to headcanon is better than slapping down a [on BSN at least] popular theory?

I think, no, I'm CERTAIN that the response to more ambiguity would be worse than the response to them manning up and telling us we're wrong.  Not that I think that going to happen, mind you, but I would rather be told to my face that I'm nuts than be left with something even MORE ambiguous than we have now. 

Why does it matter what the writer says?  I mean I think it is plain enough IT was not what they intended, but if you like it, then enjoy it.

You say that it was plain enough that IT isn't what they intended, and yet you didn't actually provide any evidence as to why it is not what they intended.  Yeah, I'm TOTALLY going to respect that. <_<

Modifié par Dwailing, 23 juin 2012 - 04:08 .