55528 réponses à ce sujet

[masster blaster]

masster blaster wrote...

But why would they create a new ending that's called ' REFUSE" what are we refusing to give up on Shepard, to let the Reapers win, to let your war assets do the best they can since they may die in the end, or are we refusing to let go of SHEPARD.

I any case i think that they added the Refuse ending because it razzes more speculations about what happened really at the end of ME3, and maybe in ME4 we will find out the true about what really happened, and if you think about it if they wanted to make an ME4 then what will the new villains be because one synthesis brings peace, and control well Shepard control the Reapers in which case nobody will ever try to threaten Shepard's galaxy ever again.

Also if they did want to make an ME4 then why add the Refuse ending and why do we have to fight the Reapers again in ME4 since we can do that option, and it makes no sense to fight them again because we already know about Harby the Reapers and mostly every thing that was in ME1-ME3. And if they wanted to leave it up to the fans then how do they expect to make ME4 unless the pick destroy ending, which open new doors to a new enemy the Beings of light, in which case I want to ask them

" WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU FOR THE LAST BILLION YEARS?"

[Lyria]

*Edit Double Post*

Modifié par protognosis, 26 juin 2012 - 02:46 .

[v0rt3x22]

By the way - what happens to Shepard when you choose reject? Do you see anything happening?
Does the "Shepard live" ending appear as well?

[masster blaster]

[quote]v0rt3x22 wrote...

[quote]Brother Takka wrote...

I know there is still the Breath part at the end, but I just think that's Bioware saying Shep lives. .[/quote]

Yes but why would they bother showing this?
They could just leave the entire thing to your imagination.

And why would they only show it with the "Destroy" ending?

Think about it...

[/quote]

Well, because on Control he isn't alive to take a breath. He's a super reaper.

And on Synth, he's dead.

Reject everyone dies.


I understand why Destroy is red now after seeing the ending changes by the by...

The Star Child is trying to make things right, over and over. He's caught in a logic loop.

The Crucible is like a big giant memory stick, it flies into the Citadel and allows the Catalyst to break the loop. He can then actually change the outcome, which up to that point has sucked for all parties involved really.

But he can't actually make the change. He's just the Catalyst. He is what enables the change to occur, but he doesn't actually do the change himself. He needs someone to do it.


By that logic, Destroy is kind of a renegade choice. Shep lives at the end, but the cost is greater, the loss of the Geth, Edi, other synthetic life. He chooses his own life over the lives of innocents. That's renegade. So he takes a breath at the end. It's showing you flat out that you won, but at a high cost. 


Control is blue, because he sacrifices his corporeal form to win. He lives, but his cost is greater than the common man's. That's paragon.


Green is still weird. I'm still not a fan of space magic.
[/quote]

But remeber Green nobody contolrs the Reapers and each Reaper is independent. So Why would they obey to stay good and just because there is a enew Dna does not mean there still can be war. and in Control why would they even let an Organic control the Reapes. i wondn't because if ther is a slit chanse that it does ot work or even they trick Shepard into becoming a Reaper then why?

 And destroy does not mean Renegade it's is actually Paragon that Bioware stated and the refues ending why is that there because that was the result if Shepard try to refuse what was happening in his, or her mind which support's IT even more.

[/quote]
[/quote]

[Smeffects]

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

[Earthborn_Shepard]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

By the way - what happens to Shepard when you choose reject? Do you see anything happening?
Does the "Shepard live" ending appear as well?

No. Because everyone got killed by the Reapers, apparently.

[masster blaster]

Smeffects wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

But why have a Lengendary save then.

[Smeffects]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

By the way - what happens to Shepard when you choose reject? Do you see anything happening?
Does the "Shepard live" ending appear as well?

Nah you first see shepard looking from where he was when the catalyst vanish, looking at alliance ships getting destroyed by the reapers. It just cuts off to see the beacon of liara underground on some planets talking about their failure of our cycle. Then cut to credit.

[v0rt3x22]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

By the way - what happens to Shepard when you choose reject? Do you see anything happening?
Does the "Shepard live" ending appear as well?

No. Because everyone got killed by the Reapers, apparently.

Fair enough - but what is shown of Shepard in the end?

Ya know - like in "Destroy" he shoots a gun, in "Synthesis" he runs at the beam and in "Control" he evaporates" - just wondering if they show him do anything in "Reject".

[v0rt3x22]

Smeffects wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

By the way - what happens to Shepard when you choose reject? Do you see anything happening?
Does the "Shepard live" ending appear as well?

Nah you first see shepard looking from where he was when the catalyst vanish, looking at alliance ships getting destroyed by the reapers. It just cuts off to see the beacon of liara underground on some planets talking about their failure of our cycle. Then cut to credit.

hmm interesting.

[DeamonSlaz]

IT = dead. The refuse part was added so we could simply tell the Brat to bite our shiny metal ***. I really doubt ME 4 will include Sheppard. Its time for a new Hero. Perhaps similar to Dragon Age, choose your own race, backstory, and then flaunted into the space of time between ME 2 and ME 3.

This is probably what type of game we will see.

Sheppard may or may not be alive. That is your story. I can almost see Bioware rewarding us with small easter eggs based on the saved games you have when/if a new ME game is released, but no more Sheppard. Perhaps an egg saying Liara is expecting a child....

[Piplodocus]

MegaSovereign wrote...

The EC didn't really change the ending, just clarified it. And it's unlikely they'll do an extended cut 2.0.

Actually, given the pre-launch publicity about EC I was pretty surprised at how much DID change (and I haven't seen everything yet).

There is a NEW ENDING ("Refuse"), despite having been told firmly 'No. New. Endings.'

The Relays are 'damaged' rather than 'destroyed', a pretty big change really.

The Normandy SR2 does not receive the rather sever-looking damage it receeivd in the original.

[masster blaster]

Smeffects wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

But there will Be an ME4 Biowae was talking about it and it's a Trilogy

[Tirian Thorn]

You can view the new endings here. (Sorry if a repost, I didn't see this anywhere else.)

http://www.computera...ew-ending-here/

As for me - well, it doesn't look like IT is going to be part of Bioware's "plan." Regardless, it is fantastic head-cannon/fanfiction and I am proud to have been a part of this discussion for so long.

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 26 juin 2012 - 02:50 .

[Smeffects]

masster blaster wrote...

Smeffects wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

But why have a Lengendary save then.

Those saves are the one we use to reload to assault on cerberus base, to fight the final mission again (and further dlc) It actually does not save anything about your "ending" so it would useless for a ME4.

[nullobject]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Now consider that in context:

- Bioware just spent big piles of time and money making a new ending DLC that expands on the endings given, taking them completely seriously, and removes many of the plot holes and inconsistencies that prompted the IT

Removes? Which ones?

No more teleporting squadmates - there is now a scene showing them being picked up.

No more out-of-character fleeing of Normandy - orders are given by Hackett and the crew discuss it

Less 1M1 textures (but not completely gone)

Less inconsistencies about Shepard/Anderson placement in citadel - Shepard is shown being tossed into pile of bodies after ascending beam (haven't seen this, going on someone's post only)

No more destroyed citadel, destroyed relays, galactic wasteland and stranded Normandy - retconned away (these weren't so much plot holes as things people hated, that made them want a better ending)

Shepard less out-of-character in Catalyst conversation (investigate and reject options).

Probably find more once I actually get to play it.

Why put all this effort into "fixing" a hallucination sequence? According to the IT, the whole point of these inconsistencies was that they showed the clever people that "it was all just a dream"?

[v0rt3x22]

Piplodocus wrote...

The Relays are 'damaged' rather than 'destroyed', a pretty big change really.

It's kind of interesting to see.....it creates a conflict of what's really happening (in a canon sense).

Because now you have people who play without EC - where the relays get destroyed - and you have people playing with EC - where the relays get damaged.

If you think outside of IT - that's really strange.

[nullobject]

masster blaster wrote...

But there will Be an ME4 Biowae was talking about it and it's a Trilogy

They said there will be additional games in the universe. They could be set at any point in time, and likely will be set before ME3 as that makes continuity with the existing games much easier. Just like Bioware said in their "wasteland" comment.

And Mass Effect being a Trilogy does not help your point. It suggests new games in the universe will tell different stories, not continue this one.

[v0rt3x22]

nullobject wrote...

Why put all this effort into "fixing" a hallucination sequence? According to the IT, the whole point of these inconsistencies was that they showed the clever people that "it was all just a dream"?

Sorry - as stuborn as I may sound - those changes don't debunk the individual ideas that form the theory.

[FellishBeast]

masster blaster wrote...

Smeffects wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

But there will Be an ME4 Bioware was talking about it and it's a Trilogy

Are you f***ing serious? I hope you're trolling, I really do.

[Razerath]

estebanus wrote...

Oh look, it's Razerath.

Still think the world will end in nuclear fire because launching a nuke is so extremely easy?

I'm glad you showed up just in time for me to tell you that I was completely right about the endings and I was dead on about the EC before it even came out.

SWISH

[FellishBeast]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

nullobject wrote...

Why put all this effort into "fixing" a hallucination sequence? According to the IT, the whole point of these inconsistencies was that they showed the clever people that "it was all just a dream"?

Sorry - as stuborn as I may sound - those changes don't debunk the individual ideas that form the theory.

Is there anything they added in the EC that you think supports IT?

[nullobject]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

nullobject wrote...

Why put all this effort into "fixing" a hallucination sequence? According to the IT, the whole point of these inconsistencies was that they showed the clever people that "it was all just a dream"?

Sorry - as stuborn as I may sound - those changes don't debunk the individual ideas that form the theory.

You quoted my question, then did not answer it. 

Even if you claim these changes don't contradict the IT (I think they do), you surely aren't arguing that they further confirm it, are you? What possible explanation do you have for why Bioware would do all this work altering insignificant (according to the IT) elements of a dream sequence?

[nullobject]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Piplodocus wrote...

The Relays are 'damaged' rather than 'destroyed', a pretty big change really.

It's kind of interesting to see.....it creates a conflict of what's really happening (in a canon sense).

Because now you have people who play without EC - where the relays get destroyed - and you have people playing with EC - where the relays get damaged.

If you think outside of IT - that's really strange.

Only if you assume there will be further games set in the period immediately after the end of ME3 - something Bioware already they wouldn't do.

If future games are set earlier, or much later, it is no problem at all.

[masster blaster]

FellishBeast wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Smeffects wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

FellishBeast wrote...

jpraelster93 wrote...

Wish people would stop saying the ec disproves the IT it really doesnt

Care to elaborate?

IT dictates that rejecting the child is the only way to win, when rejecting him is the only way to lose. <_<

Then what's the point of ME4 then if there is peace in the galaxy in the ending Synthesis, and the Control ending in which case if a new enemy were to apper they will have to go through Shepard and the Reapers. And the Refuse ening well I hate to say it sucks if we have to fight the Reapers all over again and we have to learn about everything all over again.

The problem in your theory is that you are assuming there is/need to be a ME4. Which is something as far as we know will not happen. If it does happen it does not mean it will tie into the ending either.

But there will Be an ME4 Bioware was talking about it and it's a Trilogy

Are you f***ing serious? I hope you're trolling, I really do.

No I am not Bioware said this is the end for Shepard but not the ME universy.

Modifié par masster blaster, 26 juin 2012 - 03:00 .