55528 réponses à ce sujet

[dreamgazer]

memorysquid wrote...

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.

If that's the case, then why are you posting in this thread?

I think it's plain enough that they wanted people to interpret and speculate, that the ending is intentionally surreal, that indoctrination is everywhere in the game, and that many of the elements in the storytelling can be easily interpreted towards symptoms.   All they had to do was say: "Here, let's craft these vague elements so they can appear to be indoctrination symptoms".  BAM, intention. 

(shrugs)

[llbountyhunter]

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.

Well if you have even a minimal ounce of critical thinking, then its incredebly clear that IT was indended at least to some degree.

But if you would rather shut yourself off from very basic conculsions, and perfer it,  then enjoy your simple world.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 04:10 .

[memorysquid]

llbountyhunter 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?

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.

Merizan, after talking to the head writer and exec. producer already said they won't be confirming or denying IT.  So doesn't that mean IT is dead, as in, not the literal ending?  If the writers intended for IT to be the case, it would have been easy enough for them to say so, or moreover to make it actually ambiguous, rather than a theory that they didn't appear to include in the first place.  If IT proponents think IT makes the game awesome, then what exactly is BW's advantage in saying, nope you're full of it, rather than simply refusing to comment?  The EC will offer no more or less evidence for IT than the game itself; status quo unchanged.

[masster blaster]

masster blaster wrote...

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.

[BatmanTurian]

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.

If it was plain enough we wouldn't have 3000 pages on the subject. Just sayin'

[Earthborn_Shepard]

byne wrote...

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?

...so, did you just have to suffer through another terrible ending?

[llbountyhunter]

memorysquid wrote...

llbountyhunter 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?

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.

Merizan, after talking to the head writer and exec. producer already said they won't be confirming or denying IT.  So doesn't that mean IT is dead, as in, not the literal ending?  If the writers intended for IT to be the case, it would have been easy enough for them to say so, or moreover to make it actually ambiguous, rather than a theory that they didn't appear to include in the first place.  If IT proponents think IT makes the game awesome, then what exactly is BW's advantage in saying, nope you're full of it, rather than simply refusing to comment?  The EC will offer no more or less evidence for IT than the game itself; status quo unchanged.

? No, not at all.... that doesnt make any sense... if IT wasnt true it would be easier to just say it... 

IT was obviouse to many people so it clearly was inteded at least partialy.

They're obviously not going to say anything either way... and i fail to see how there ambigiouse answers disprove IT.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 04:15 .

[MaximizedAction]

Dwailing wrote...

 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?

Consider mind blown.
It is suspicios that they wouldn't have peer reviewed the book properly, even if it was from another author. Well, seems like a cereal eating Kai Leng didn't make it into the game. Gosh darnit!

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 23 juin 2012 - 04:14 .

[delldo]

ll PAYASO323 ll wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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...

 What better way to explain it right?

That room is fine and dandy except one very important thing...  It does not have an entrance from the beam like Shepards room, maybe this detail isn't necessary...

Modifié par delldo, 23 juin 2012 - 04:14 .

[BatmanTurian]

llbountyhunter wrote...

memorysquid wrote...

llbountyhunter 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?

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.

Merizan, after talking to the head writer and exec. producer already said they won't be confirming or denying IT.  So doesn't that mean IT is dead, as in, not the literal ending?  If the writers intended for IT to be the case, it would have been easy enough for them to say so, or moreover to make it actually ambiguous, rather than a theory that they didn't appear to include in the first place.  If IT proponents think IT makes the game awesome, then what exactly is BW's advantage in saying, nope you're full of it, rather than simply refusing to comment?  The EC will offer no more or less evidence for IT than the game itself; status quo unchanged.

? No, not at all.... that doesnt make any sense... if IT wasnt true it would be easier to just say it... 

They're obviously not going to say anything either way... and i fail to see how there ambigiouse answers disprove IT.

" we believe man ascended from apes. "

" well show us the proof. Where's the missing link? "

" we don't have it but all the evidence we do have seems to point in one direction, that being the evolution of species."

" Ha! evolution disproved lol."

[Fiery Phoenix]

Hello, my fellow IT theorists. How are you doing this fine Saturday?

I just wanted to say one thing: The Extended Cut may or may not put out the IT. I fully expect BioWare to STILL leave the ending open-ended for speculation, although, to be quite honest, that would break my heart. But we should all prepare for such an eventuality.

I say this because I see quite a few of you are still holding out hope for IT-related content, which you shouldn't. Being cautiously optimistic is about as much as we can do at the minute.

[BatmanTurian]

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Hello, my fellow IT theorists. How are you doing this fine Saturday?

I just wanted to say one thing: The Extended Cut may or may not put out the IT. I fully expect BioWare to STILL leave the ending open-ended for speculation, although, to be quite honest, that would break my heart. But we should all prepare for such an eventuality.

I say this because I see quite a few of you are still holding out hope for IT-related content, which you shouldn't. Being cautiously optimistic is about as much as we can do at the minute.

Symphony of Science is definitely awesome by the way and I knew about it before I ever saw your sig.

[Dwailing]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

 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?

Consider mind blown.
It is suspicios that they wouldn't have peer reviewed the book properly, even if it was from another author. Well, seems like a cereal eating Kai Leng didn't make it into the game. Gosh darnit!

Yeah, Kai Leng, Cereal Killer, would have been awesome, wouldn't he?   Anyway, the thing that kind of makes me wonder if this is so is that the BW response to Deception was very similar.  To begin with, they said that the book was awesome.  Casey Hudson said that the book portrayed Kai Leng as a bad***.  Then, after people started to rage, they got very quiet, and didn't say anything about it.  After that, they declaired that they would be publishing a second edition.  Reminds me a little of the Extended Cut.  And now, it's been pretty much forgotten in the ****storm that came from the ME3 endings.

Modifié par Dwailing, 23 juin 2012 - 04:21 .

[memorysquid]

llbountyhunter wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


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.

Well if you have even a minimal ounce of critical thinking, then its incredebly clear that IT was indended at least to some degree.

But if you would rather shut yourself off from very basic conculsions, and perfer it,  then enjoy your simple world.

Would that intention have best been demonstrated when they went out of their way to ensure you that TIM made sure you weren't control chipped or otherwise altered, or the complete lack, in game, of Shep spending a significant amount of time inside a Reaper or near a Reaper indoc device?  

[v0rt3x22]

Interesting poll: 
http://social.biowar...57/polls/35619/

Modifié par v0rt3x22, 23 juin 2012 - 04:22 .

[Jadebaby]

Be good to each other people, it'll be a tough 4 days ahead, and an even tougher couple of months should Bioware keep this act up.

[Dwailing]

memorysquid wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


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.

Well if you have even a minimal ounce of critical thinking, then its incredebly clear that IT was indended at least to some degree.

But if you would rather shut yourself off from very basic conculsions, and perfer it,  then enjoy your simple world.

Would that intention have best been demonstrated when they went out of their way to ensure you that TIM made sure you weren't control chipped or otherwise altered, or the complete lack, in game, of Shep spending a significant amount of time inside a Reaper or near a Reaper indoc device?  

Uh, they DO make it clear that Shepard doesn't have a control chip in him.  Also, Shepard spent two days by Object Rho in Arrival.

[MaximizedAction]

Dwailing wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

 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?

Consider mind blown.
It is suspicios that they wouldn't have peer reviewed the book properly, even if it was from another author. Well, seems like a cereal eating Kai Leng didn't make it into the game. Gosh darnit!

Yeah, Kai Leng, Cereal Killer, would have been awesome, wouldn't he?   Anyway, the thing that kind of makes me wonder if this is so is that the BW response to Deception was very similar.  To begin with, they said that the book was awesome.  Casey Hudson said that the book portrayed Kai Leng as a bad***.  Then, after people started to rage, they got very quiet, and didn't say anything about it.  After that, they declaired that they would be publishing a second edition.  Reminds me a little of the Extended Cut.  And now, it's been pretty much forgotten in the ****storm that came from the ME3 endings.

ME3 is one hell of an expensive form of damage control.
"Sir, the fanbase thinks the book sucks"
"Fine, let's make an ending to ME3 that will suck to them even more"
???
Profit!

[byne]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

byne wrote...

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?

...so, did you just have to suffer through another terrible ending?

No, not terrible, since the ghost that made everything better is actually an established part of the world in Legend of Korra, and not some random last minute addition.

Rating the ending, I'd say it was ok. Not counting the last two minutes I'd say it was actually pretty good.

Plus, its only a season finale, not a series finale.

[Dwailing]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

Be good to each other people, it'll be a tough 4 days ahead, and an even tougher couple of months should Bioware keep this act up.

Don't worry, we'll hold the line, no matter what.  We haven't come this far to give up now.

Modifié par Dwailing, 23 juin 2012 - 04:24 .

[Fiery Phoenix]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Fiery Phoenix wrote...

Hello, my fellow IT theorists. How are you doing this fine Saturday?

I just wanted to say one thing: The Extended Cut may or may not put out the IT. I fully expect BioWare to STILL leave the ending open-ended for speculation, although, to be quite honest, that would break my heart. But we should all prepare for such an eventuality.

I say this because I see quite a few of you are still holding out hope for IT-related content, which you shouldn't. Being cautiously optimistic is about as much as we can do at the minute.

Symphony of Science is definitely awesome by the way and I knew about it before I ever saw your sig.

[llbountyhunter]

memorysquid wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


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.

Well if you have even a minimal ounce of critical thinking, then its incredebly clear that IT was indended at least to some degree.

But if you would rather shut yourself off from very basic conculsions, and perfer it,  then enjoy your simple world.

Would that intention have best been demonstrated when they went out of their way to ensure you that TIM made sure you weren't control chipped or otherwise altered, or the complete lack, in game, of Shep spending a significant amount of time inside a Reaper or near a Reaper indoc device?  

Oh rats, your right. It would of been much better to have miranda tell you many times that there wasnt any kind of control chip in you....

IT would make more sense if bioware had shepard in constant on and off contact with reaper tech right? Like maybe have him board a disabled reaper, or attack a reaper pawn base full of reaper technology... and then have shepard fight a baby reaper...

And i know this sounds crazy but possibly even have shepard be abducted and come in contact with a reaper artifact on a astroid!!

Yeah stuff like that wouldve really made IT more plausable.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 04:30 .

[Andromidius]

BatmanTurian wrote...

" we believe man ascended from apes. "

" well show us the proof. Where's the missing link? "

" we don't have it but all the evidence we do have seems to point in one direction, that being the evolution of species."

" Ha! evolution disproved lol."

Though there is no 'missing link' anymore, it was discovered a long time ago.  Along with many other links between those.

Its more akin to this sort of conversation:

"So we can both agree species adapt over time?"

"Sure.  But evolution is just a theory, and you can't prove it!"

"But you can't prove a theory, you can only find evidence to support it!"

"Ha!  You just disproved evolution!"

Its eerily similar...  And the fact they call us religious zealots.  Hmmm.

[BatmanTurian]

memorysquid wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

memorysquid wrote...


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.

Well if you have even a minimal ounce of critical thinking, then its incredebly clear that IT was indended at least to some degree.

But if you would rather shut yourself off from very basic conculsions, and perfer it,  then enjoy your simple world.

Would that intention have best been demonstrated when they went out of their way to ensure you that TIM made sure you weren't control chipped or otherwise altered, or the complete lack, in game, of Shep spending a significant amount of time inside a Reaper or near a Reaper indoc device?  

Fighting Reapers, indoctrinated enemies, and husks during all three games is a significant amount of time. I know you keep saying it isn't, but it is. Stop parroting this false presumption.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 23 juin 2012 - 04:27 .