55528 réponses à ce sujet

[FellishBeast]

I'm asking the most annoying question:

Have I missed anything during the night?

[zambot]

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...


Regardless the events of Arrival are canon as stated by the game creators themselves. Those who opt not to do Arrival (Why would you deprive yourself of such awesome DLC?) are not playing a completely canon storyline. Also, where are you coming up with this heirarchy that says the game trumps the books/comics? I challange you to read the books and comics and come back and tell me they do not add to your understanding of Mass Effect as a whole. 

P.S. You might learn a thing or two about indoctrination from reading.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  If that storyline were indeed canon, then ME3 would not (repeat not) have said that marines blew up Object Rho.  If it were canon, ME3 would have said Shepard destroyed it (even if you did not play it).

Canon: The events of Arrival did actually happen.
Non-canon: Who actually destroyed Object Rho.

Hm. The game writters state Arrival is canon. The comics state Arrival is canon. So I believe I am in fact right. As I said before, the marine explanation is only there as a fill in explanation for those who did not do Arrival. That explanation is clearly not canon. We know this. It's been argued into the ground already. 

It would be utterly retarded for Bioware to make something canon for the 75%+ of their audience that did not play Arrival and thus think the marines destroyed Object Rho.  So until one of the following things happens, it is intellectually dishonest to assume the events at the end of ME3 have anything to do with Shepard being the one that destroys the mass relay in Arrival:

1. Someone from Bioware says "oops we goofed.  That part about the marines should say the Shep went and destroyed the reaper artifact"
2. DLC patches the marines comment out
3. Unicorns descend from outer space and use their rainbow magic to implant memories of Arrival DLC into all of our collective heads.

I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

[MaximizedAction]

FellishBeast wrote...

I'm asking the most annoying question:

Have I missed anything during the night?

Trolls, trolls everywhere.

But now it seems to have calmed down, as expected.

Other than that, the moral doesn't seem at it's highest due to tweets from Jessica. So, nothing really new, IT is not gonna be confirmed or denied...business as usual, only now with additional clarity and closure (for moar speculation, hopefully).

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 23 juin 2012 - 07:54 .

[byne]

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...


I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

Why they bothered explaining it using marines I dont know. It completely removes any reason for keeping Shepard detained on Earth if she didnt blow up the relay.

You cant say its just because she worked with Cerberus, as she never officially joined Cerberus. She was just working with them, like Chakwas, who didnt get detained. Joker left the Alliance and was working for Cerberus, and he never got detained.

Really, the only people who got punished for working with Cerberus were Daniels and Donnelly, and they were being held in custody on the Citadel, not on Earth, so I dont think the Alliance were the ones detaining them.

[Lord Goose]

I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

Wounded Batarian quest, if Shepard completed Arrival.


Wounded Batarian, if Arrival isn't bought.


As you can see, in the first video Shepard takes full responsibility. In the second video, Alliance did it. And it is in actual game.

How do you explain this difference, if Shepard destroyed Alpha Relay in both cases?

Modifié par Lord Goose, 23 juin 2012 - 08:00 .

[zambot]

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...


I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

Why they bothered explaining it using marines I dont know. It completely removes any reason for keeping Shepard detained on Earth if she didnt blow up the relay.

You cant say its just because she worked with Cerberus, as she never officially joined Cerberus. She was just working with them, like Chakwas, who didnt get detained. Joker left the Alliance and was working for Cerberus, and he never got detained.

Really, the only people who got punished for working with Cerberus were Daniels and Donnelly, and they were being held in custody on the Citadel, not on Earth, so I dont think the Alliance were the ones detaining them.

Why can't I say it's just because he/she worked with Cerebus?  That's what the game says, so clearly that is the writers' intention.

[byne]

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...


I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

Why they bothered explaining it using marines I dont know. It completely removes any reason for keeping Shepard detained on Earth if she didnt blow up the relay.

You cant say its just because she worked with Cerberus, as she never officially joined Cerberus. She was just working with them, like Chakwas, who didnt get detained. Joker left the Alliance and was working for Cerberus, and he never got detained.

Really, the only people who got punished for working with Cerberus were Daniels and Donnelly, and they were being held in custody on the Citadel, not on Earth, so I dont think the Alliance were the ones detaining them.

Why can't I say it's just because he/she worked with Cerebus?  That's what the game says, so clearly that is the writers' intention.

I went on to mention why later. Why would they detain Shepard for working with Cerberus to save the galaxy. It doesnt make sense, especially since they dont detain Chakwas or Joker.

[byne]

Lord Goose wrote...

I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

Wounded Batarian quest, if Shepard completed Arrival.


Wounded Batarian, if Arrival isn't bought.


As you can see, in the first video Shepard takes full responsibility. In the second video, Alliance did it. And it is in actual game.

How do you explain this difference, if Shepard destroyed Alpha Relay in both cases?

I'm not saying Shep actually did it if you import a character where she didnt do it. I'm saying I'm fairly sure that players are aware thats what would have happened had they played the Arrival DLC, so I see no reason to include the marines as a backup if they hadnt. I'm aware of the different dialogue with Ghorek.

[zambot]

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...


I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

Why they bothered explaining it using marines I dont know. It completely removes any reason for keeping Shepard detained on Earth if she didnt blow up the relay.

You cant say its just because she worked with Cerberus, as she never officially joined Cerberus. She was just working with them, like Chakwas, who didnt get detained. Joker left the Alliance and was working for Cerberus, and he never got detained.

Really, the only people who got punished for working with Cerberus were Daniels and Donnelly, and they were being held in custody on the Citadel, not on Earth, so I dont think the Alliance were the ones detaining them.

Why can't I say it's just because he/she worked with Cerebus?  That's what the game says, so clearly that is the writers' intention.

I went on to mention why later. Why would they detain Shepard for working with Cerberus to save the galaxy. It doesnt make sense, especially since they dont detain Chakwas or Joker.

Not being a writer for ME3, I cannot tell you for certain why they felt that was sufficient.  They felt it was sufficient, because they opted to leave it in the game (as well as the blurb about the marines, and they even cared enough to make an alternate cutscene for the angry Batarian).  If all those things don't tell you that Bioware considers *not* doing Arrival to be perfectly valid for the conclusion of ME3, then I don't think anything will.

Edit: I.E. Bioware went through a heck of a lot of trouble to explain away the events of Arrival if you did not play through it.

Modifié par zambot, 23 juin 2012 - 08:06 .

[michaelca]

TJBartlemus wrote...

michaelca wrote...

There are a lot of problems with Indoctrination theory. That it is all speculative and that you have to force a lot of events to fit the theory is one problem. But the biggest issue with it is that it means the game has no ending; there is no resolution to the war with the Reapers and regardless what option Shepard chooses, either s/he died when hit by the laser or s/he is alive and lying in a pile of rubble. So what was the point of IT? If IT is saying that the events on the Citadel are real, but part of the Reapers' attempts to indoctrinate Shepard then the ending sucks just as bad as the ending without IT in the mix because ghost child (Reaper agent), and the choices given, and their resultant effects are still highly disconnected from the rest of the story.

With IT or without IT, the ending does not work because neither fits in line with the story that has been told for the past eight years and three games.

I went ahead and bolded everything in that statement that is false. The underlined I had problems understanding. Might want to fix that up. The fact is with IT, we are not forcing anything. It's already there. For now it has a ending. Shepard chooses and wakes up or not. I agree there is no resolution, but there will possibly be one in EC or it will set it up for a sequel. Also according to IT the events of the citadel happened in your mind. As well the alive/dead portion of being in the rubble depends on how much EMS you have. Too low and you don't survive the transition back to reality.

People have provided a long list of items that point to IT. The vast majority are either highly speculative outright forced to fit IT. There are only a few items that reasonablty point to a theory of IT. IT is not necessary to get into a liine-by-line debate about these items because it would only result in a lot of circular argument where people say it works or it is forced.

There are a couple theories of IT... one that it is ALL taking place in Shepard's mind. This is the worst of all possible endings. Because it means there is no resolution to the story. It might mean there is some tentative resolution to Shepard's story, but not to the larger picture. And if the "IT all in the head" theory is true it also means BioWare was setting up a resolution to the larger picture being completed in DLC or yet another game. A cheap cash grab. It would be a slap in the face to everyone involved. So this is an aweful solution.

The other theory of IT is that while Indoctrination is being attempted... it's been going on since Shepard first met Sovereign. That's ok and that is as it should be. Shepard is not immune to indoctination, and given Shepard's ability persevere, he is a prime targe for indoctrination. But it also means that the events on the Citadel are taking place in the real world, but influenced by the strongest, last ditch, desparate attempt by the Reaspers to indocstrinte Shepard. The scene with IM is IM acting as an agent of the Reapers, albeit possibly unknowingly. It also means the ghost child is a Reaper agent. But the choices presented, how they are presented, and the results of those choices are still highly disconnected from the rest of the story. It is very poorly presented and poorly implemented. It is only marginally better than the ending without IT. These idiot choices, as metaphors for succumbing to indoctrination or beating it, are still idiot choices poorly implemented.

If IT is not what was intended, and BioWare has already stated in no uncertain terms that IT is NOT what is happening, then the ending is badly done as it is completely disconnected from the rest of the story.

[GethPrimeMKII]

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...


Regardless the events of Arrival are canon as stated by the game creators themselves. Those who opt not to do Arrival (Why would you deprive yourself of such awesome DLC?) are not playing a completely canon storyline. Also, where are you coming up with this heirarchy that says the game trumps the books/comics? I challange you to read the books and comics and come back and tell me they do not add to your understanding of Mass Effect as a whole. 

P.S. You might learn a thing or two about indoctrination from reading.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  If that storyline were indeed canon, then ME3 would not (repeat not) have said that marines blew up Object Rho.  If it were canon, ME3 would have said Shepard destroyed it (even if you did not play it).

Canon: The events of Arrival did actually happen.
Non-canon: Who actually destroyed Object Rho.

Hm. The game writters state Arrival is canon. The comics state Arrival is canon. So I believe I am in fact right. As I said before, the marine explanation is only there as a fill in explanation for those who did not do Arrival. That explanation is clearly not canon. We know this. It's been argued into the ground already. 

It would be utterly retarded for Bioware to make something canon for the 75%+ of their audience that did not play Arrival and thus think the marines destroyed Object Rho.  So until one of the following things happens, it is intellectually dishonest to assume the events at the end of ME3 have anything to do with Shepard being the one that destroys the mass relay in Arrival:

1. Someone from Bioware says "oops we goofed.  That part about the marines should say the Shep went and destroyed the reaper artifact"
2. DLC patches the marines comment out
3. Unicorns descend from outer space and use their rainbow magic to implant memories of Arrival DLC into all of our collective heads.

Stop. Just stop. You're throwing in random false statistics to prove your point and its just embarrassing.

[byne]

zambot wrote...

Not being a writer for ME3, I cannot tell you for certain why they felt that was sufficient.  They felt it was sufficient, because they opted to leave it in the game (as well as the blurb about the marines, and they even cared enough to make an alternate cutscene for the angry Batarian).  If all those things don't tell you that Bioware considers *not* doing Arrival to be perfectly valid for the conclusion of ME3, then I don't think anything will.

Edit: I.E. Bioware went through a heck of a lot of trouble to explain away the events of Arrival if you did not play through it.

I'm not saying BioWare doesnt consider that a valid conclusion, I'm saying it isnt what they consider to be canon.

As far as BioWare is concerned, every possible ending short of having Shepard die on the Suicide Mission is considered a valid conclusion to ME2, but not exactly canon.

[FellishBeast]

Woah woah woah. Jessica Merizan just said we might get an end decision with 3-4 decisions.........

[zambot]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...


Regardless the events of Arrival are canon as stated by the game creators themselves. Those who opt not to do Arrival (Why would you deprive yourself of such awesome DLC?) are not playing a completely canon storyline. Also, where are you coming up with this heirarchy that says the game trumps the books/comics? I challange you to read the books and comics and come back and tell me they do not add to your understanding of Mass Effect as a whole. 

P.S. You might learn a thing or two about indoctrination from reading.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  If that storyline were indeed canon, then ME3 would not (repeat not) have said that marines blew up Object Rho.  If it were canon, ME3 would have said Shepard destroyed it (even if you did not play it).

Canon: The events of Arrival did actually happen.
Non-canon: Who actually destroyed Object Rho.

Hm. The game writters state Arrival is canon. The comics state Arrival is canon. So I believe I am in fact right. As I said before, the marine explanation is only there as a fill in explanation for those who did not do Arrival. That explanation is clearly not canon. We know this. It's been argued into the ground already. 

It would be utterly retarded for Bioware to make something canon for the 75%+ of their audience that did not play Arrival and thus think the marines destroyed Object Rho.  So until one of the following things happens, it is intellectually dishonest to assume the events at the end of ME3 have anything to do with Shepard being the one that destroys the mass relay in Arrival:

1. Someone from Bioware says "oops we goofed.  That part about the marines should say the Shep went and destroyed the reaper artifact"
2. DLC patches the marines comment out
3. Unicorns descend from outer space and use their rainbow magic to implant memories of Arrival DLC into all of our collective heads.

Stop. Just stop. You're throwing in random false statistics to prove your point and its just embarrassing.

They are not random false statistics.  "From Ashes" DLC was the best selling DLC ever...at 40%.  http://xbox360.ign.c.../1220420p1.html 

It's safe to say that substantially less people bought Arrival since it did not ship on Day one and only hardcore fans who were still playing ME2 would pick it up. Another article claimed only half of the players even finished Mass Effect 2.  So I think my 25% estimation is actually pretty damn good.

[byne]

FellishBeast wrote...

Woah woah woah. Jessica Merizan just said we might get an end decision with 3-4 decisions.........

I will lol hard if it turns out to be the fabled purple ending everyone was joking about.

[llbountyhunter]

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...


I'm pretty sure that even the people that didnt play Arrival realize that it was Shep who blew up the relay in Arrival.

I also doubt the people who care little enough about the ME story that they didnt play Arrival cared to read every single war asset. I'd be surprised if they even knew about the Alpha Relay at all if they didnt play Arrival.

Then why would Bioware even bother explaining it using marines instead of just saying Shep did it?  If it's important at all that Shepard blew up Object Rho, Bioware would have not made up some other explanation.  That's far more blatent a plot hole than say a gun with infinite ammo.

Why they bothered explaining it using marines I dont know. It completely removes any reason for keeping Shepard detained on Earth if she didnt blow up the relay.

You cant say its just because she worked with Cerberus, as she never officially joined Cerberus. She was just working with them, like Chakwas, who didnt get detained. Joker left the Alliance and was working for Cerberus, and he never got detained.

Really, the only people who got punished for working with Cerberus were Daniels and Donnelly, and they were being held in custody on the Citadel, not on Earth, so I dont think the Alliance were the ones detaining them.

Why can't I say it's just because he/she worked with Cerebus?  That's what the game says, so clearly that is the writers' intention.

If you do arrival early, hacket gives you permission to work with cerberus to take out the collectors.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 23 juin 2012 - 08:20 .

[MaximizedAction]

FellishBeast wrote...

Woah woah woah. Jessica Merizan just said we might get an end decision with 3-4 decisions.........

huh...what could be an additional choice that doesn't involve anything IT-y?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 23 juin 2012 - 08:17 .

[zambot]

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

Not being a writer for ME3, I cannot tell you for certain why they felt that was sufficient.  They felt it was sufficient, because they opted to leave it in the game (as well as the blurb about the marines, and they even cared enough to make an alternate cutscene for the angry Batarian).  If all those things don't tell you that Bioware considers *not* doing Arrival to be perfectly valid for the conclusion of ME3, then I don't think anything will.

Edit: I.E. Bioware went through a heck of a lot of trouble to explain away the events of Arrival if you did not play through it.

I'm not saying BioWare doesnt consider that a valid conclusion, I'm saying it isnt what they consider to be canon.

As far as BioWare is concerned, every possible ending short of having Shepard die on the Suicide Mission is considered a valid conclusion to ME2, but not exactly canon.

So clearly then you and I differ on our opinions of what something means to be "canon".  If you're saying that Bioware picks one plot out of the many to be "canon" then writes stories about it that have nothing to do with how we play the game, then I can't argue with that.  In that canon, Shepard is male, destroys Object Rho, and probably does a lot of other things that did not happen for most people's play throughs.  One thing that is important is that those things cannot influence the end of Mass Effect 3, because they would make no sense at all for the people playing the game.  It's expanded universe stuff for people who would rather read about Shepard instead of being Shepard.

[GethPrimeMKII]

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...


Regardless the events of Arrival are canon as stated by the game creators themselves. Those who opt not to do Arrival (Why would you deprive yourself of such awesome DLC?) are not playing a completely canon storyline. Also, where are you coming up with this heirarchy that says the game trumps the books/comics? I challange you to read the books and comics and come back and tell me they do not add to your understanding of Mass Effect as a whole. 

P.S. You might learn a thing or two about indoctrination from reading.

Sorry, but you're wrong.  If that storyline were indeed canon, then ME3 would not (repeat not) have said that marines blew up Object Rho.  If it were canon, ME3 would have said Shepard destroyed it (even if you did not play it).

Canon: The events of Arrival did actually happen.
Non-canon: Who actually destroyed Object Rho.

Hm. The game writters state Arrival is canon. The comics state Arrival is canon. So I believe I am in fact right. As I said before, the marine explanation is only there as a fill in explanation for those who did not do Arrival. That explanation is clearly not canon. We know this. It's been argued into the ground already. 

It would be utterly retarded for Bioware to make something canon for the 75%+ of their audience that did not play Arrival and thus think the marines destroyed Object Rho.  So until one of the following things happens, it is intellectually dishonest to assume the events at the end of ME3 have anything to do with Shepard being the one that destroys the mass relay in Arrival:

1. Someone from Bioware says "oops we goofed.  That part about the marines should say the Shep went and destroyed the reaper artifact"
2. DLC patches the marines comment out
3. Unicorns descend from outer space and use their rainbow magic to implant memories of Arrival DLC into all of our collective heads.

Stop. Just stop. You're throwing in random false statistics to prove your point and its just embarrassing.

They are not random false statistics.  "From Ashes" DLC was the best selling DLC ever...at 40%.  http://xbox360.ign.c.../1220420p1.html 

It's safe to say that substantially less people bought Arrival since it did not ship on Day one and only hardcore fans who were still playing ME2 would pick it up. Another article claimed only half of the players even finished Mass Effect 2.  So I think my 25% estimation is actually pretty damn good.

An assumption is still an assumption, and an assumption does not equal fact. Regardless of how many people played it or not. Going by your logic, the events of Mass Effect 1 and 2 should not be considered canon because not everyone played them. 

[byne]

zambot wrote...

byne wrote...

zambot wrote...

Not being a writer for ME3, I cannot tell you for certain why they felt that was sufficient.  They felt it was sufficient, because they opted to leave it in the game (as well as the blurb about the marines, and they even cared enough to make an alternate cutscene for the angry Batarian).  If all those things don't tell you that Bioware considers *not* doing Arrival to be perfectly valid for the conclusion of ME3, then I don't think anything will.

Edit: I.E. Bioware went through a heck of a lot of trouble to explain away the events of Arrival if you did not play through it.

I'm not saying BioWare doesnt consider that a valid conclusion, I'm saying it isnt what they consider to be canon.

As far as BioWare is concerned, every possible ending short of having Shepard die on the Suicide Mission is considered a valid conclusion to ME2, but not exactly canon.

So clearly then you and I differ on our opinions of what something means to be "canon".  If you're saying that Bioware picks one plot out of the many to be "canon" then writes stories about it that have nothing to do with how we play the game, then I can't argue with that.  In that canon, Shepard is male, destroys Object Rho, and probably does a lot of other things that did not happen for most people's play throughs.  One thing that is important is that those things cannot influence the end of Mass Effect 3, because they would make no sense at all for the people playing the game.  It's expanded universe stuff for people who would rather read about Shepard instead of being Shepard.

The only thing I really think is canon of the things you listed is that Shep destroyed Object Rho. Shep's gender is specifically kept vague in the novels and comics, as far as I know.

[GethPrimeMKII]

MaximizedAction wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Woah woah woah. Jessica Merizan just said we might get an end decision with 3-4 decisions.........

huh...what could be an additional choice that doesn't involve anything IT-y?

If I had to guess these 3-4 decisions will likely be the real choices Shepard will have to make that affect the galaxy, and not more choices tacked onto the 3 choices made in the hallucination.

[LazyTechGuy]

[zambot]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

An assumption is still an assumption, and an assumption does not equal fact. Regardless of how many people played it or not. Going by your logic, the events of Mass Effect 1 and 2 should not be considered canon because not everyone played them. 

No that is not my logic.  I have already said that if you did not play ME1 and ME2, the events that you did are clearly explained to you in the beginning of and throughout ME3.  If indeed my Shep destroyed Object Rho, ME3 is lying to me in 3 places about it. 

 If you insist that a comic about Arrival made the events of Arrival canon, then clearly ME3 retcon'd it, because ME3 is in fact canon as well, and it came out later than the comic.  Again, unless you think ME3's explanation of the events in Arrival are errors by the writers, the game explicitly contradicts it.  This is either because the events were not canon to begin with, or Bioware changed canon.

[dreamgazer]

MaximizedAction wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

Woah woah woah. Jessica Merizan just said we might get an end decision with 3-4 decisions.........

huh...what could be an additional choice that doesn't involve anything IT-y?

Who knows.  Maybe it'll be the "shoot yourself" ending that so many claimed to want at the beginning, just to avoid the choice. 

[GethPrimeMKII]

zambot wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

An assumption is still an assumption, and an assumption does not equal fact. Regardless of how many people played it or not. Going by your logic, the events of Mass Effect 1 and 2 should not be considered canon because not everyone played them. 

No that is not my logic.  I have already said that if you did not play ME1 and ME2, the events that you did are clearly explained to you in the beginning of and throughout ME3.  If indeed my Shep destroyed Object Rho, ME3 is lying to me in 3 places about it. 

 If you insist that a comic about Arrival made the events of Arrival canon, then clearly ME3 retcon'd it, because ME3 is in fact canon as well, and it came out later than the comic.  Again, unless you think ME3's explanation of the events in Arrival are errors by the writers, the game explicitly contradicts it.  This is either because the events were not canon to begin with, or Bioware changed canon.

We'll just agree to disagree on Arrival then. Even without that DLC, there is still a million 'n one ways Shepard could have been affected by the reapers and indoctrinated. Shepard walked around inside one afterall.