55528 réponses à ce sujet

[olshi]

I tried the new option (Refusal), and after that the Destroy option. Don't know how I feel about them yet. It is an improvement, but there is still the deus ex machina. As for IT, the EC took some evidence away, but also added some new hints:
- I had the impression that Harbinger let the Normandy go? Or at least that scene was a little stupid. They had to rush towards the beam, but then there is suddenly time for an evac? They sure dragged it out.
- Just before Harbinger shoots you, he makes a weird noise.
- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.
- In the Destroy ending you will see different scenes like the Krogan having children, the repaired Citadel and above all your crew on the Normandy with your LI adding Shepard's name to the memorial. After ALL THAT Shepard wakes up?

I am confused to say the least. I know there won't be a second "EC". But for IT to be true there doesn't have to be one. It is still a possible interpretation of the ending.

[HellishFiend]

dreamgazer wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

He wouldnt let them go. That's my point. Literal ending has no plausible explanation for why he does not shoot the Normandy down or vaporize Shep and friends while they have a heart-to-heart by the wrecked vehicles. 

I'm still digesting the new endings, but I'll take a crack at a quasi-literal "explanation".  Incoming speculation:

Shooting the Normandy down, and at least two of Shepard's squad mates with it (arguably his closest, given the situation), would send Shepard into a rage.  The catalyst, sharing perception with the Reapers, might have seen the situation in such close proximity to the conduit and realized that Shepard---and, in a sense, humanity---was strong enough to handle the decision chamber, so provoking him/her like that would not bode well for the pacifistic options that ultimately don't kill the Reapers.  

If they were to annihilate the allies of humanity's avatar, who has just about reached the goal line, they might expect flared-up retribution during the decision.  Therefore, the catalyst lets them escape so that a non-enraged Shepard would have the knowledge that they remain alive in a post-choice world, and that the decision made would directly affect those that s/he just said goodbye to.

Again, I'm still throwing ideas around in my mind, but that's what I came up with on the fly to make sense of something ... uh, somewhat nonsensical.  

I can appreciate the effort. As objective as I try to be, I dont think I could have come up with an explanation like that. 

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Unschuld wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...


Again.

Synthetic parts in Shepard defribing him.

This. 

Said it earlier. 

Kind of weird to introduce that now - don't you think?
A built in defrib? 

Which has never been mentioned or alluded to...ever<_<

So? We know he has synthetic parts and this is the first time we've seen Shepard go through that much trauma. Not to mention that we can see ome of those part implanted into him in the beginning of ME2 and through his eyes if you went renegade without the surgery.

I dident know they installed defibs in the eyes <_<

That aside you can stop treating me like an idiot, I know full well Shepard has several augments and mechanical body parts in him from his rebuilding. But its is never alluded to that there might be defib unit inside him.

In fact such a thing is ****ing dangerous to have running around inside you. What if a stray shot went through Shepards armor and damaged the power source of said defib in such a way it cracked upon or worse yet set of the defib. Bye, bye Shepard.

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...



It doesn't matter, the hard-nut ITers are never going to be convinced in the same way that 9/11 truthers will be given all the evidence in the world wouldn't change. I'm sorry to make the comparison but it is apt

I know! Such an apt comparison!

One group thinks the government purposely killed 3000 people to achieve its own ends, and another interprets a video game ending in a way you disagree with! They're practically the same!

SubAstris, normally you're not this stupid. I look forward to a quick end to this stupidity and a return to your regular intellect.

[SubAstris]

It makes you think. If BW planned IT or all along, why spend the best part of 3 months on just dreamy cutscenes, in addition to the "dreamy cutscenes" before? It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, why would BW go to the length of explaining why Joker left and how the crew got on the Normandy if again, it was all a dream? Its details gives away that it wasn't one

[Candidate 88766]

olshi wrote...

- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.

Hardly.

It was created by the same beings that created the first Reapers. There's no reason the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't have similar voices. 

I mean, the Catalyst obviously doesn't speak with a human child's voice the whole time. That was used to make the Catalyst more recognisable to Shepard, which is also why it appears as a child.

Its a massive leap to go from 'Catalyst has a voice like harbingers'' to 'Catalyst is Harbinger'.

[SubAstris]

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



It doesn't matter, the hard-nut ITers are never going to be convinced in the same way that 9/11 truthers will be given all the evidence in the world wouldn't change. I'm sorry to make the comparison but it is apt

I know! Such an apt comparison!

One group thinks the government purposely killed 3000 people to achieve its own ends, and another interprets a video game ending in a way you disagree with! They're practically the same!

SubAstris, normally you're not this stupid. I look forward to a quick end to this stupidity and a return to your regular intellect.

Byne, I respect you for making this thread, but seriously, how can you honestly say taken on an objective basis that the EC doesn't hinder IT in anyway and instead doesn't gives much greater credence to a face-value interpretation?

[v0rt3x22]

olshi wrote...

I tried the new option (Refusal), and after that the Destroy option. Don't know how I feel about them yet. It is an improvement, but there is still the deus ex machina. As for IT, the EC took some evidence away, but also added some new hints:
- I had the impression that Harbinger let the Normandy go? Or at least that scene was a little stupid. They had to rush towards the beam, but then there is suddenly time for an evac? They sure dragged it out.
- Just before Harbinger shoots you, he makes a weird noise.
- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.
- In the Destroy ending you will see different scenes like the Krogan having children, the repaired Citadel and above all your crew on the Normandy with your LI adding Shepard's name to the memorial. After ALL THAT Shepard wakes up?

I am confused to say the least. I know there won't be a second "EC". But for IT to be true there doesn't have to be one. It is still a possible interpretation of the ending.

I feel very similar to you.

I'm more confused than reluctant to not believe in IT.
I still very much do - because there was nothing to debunk it.

But like you said - I'm confused.

I also tried to play the EC from a literal perspective - which is interesting.

If you completely ignore IT - the end also seems to make sense - but then there are still some open questions which aren't explained without IT...

[SubAstris]

spotlessvoid wrote...

@ sub
**** You

Why swear? I only express opinion. I never swear at anyone.

[v0rt3x22]

Byne - check my response on 1208

[byne]

SubAstris wrote...

byne wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



It doesn't matter, the hard-nut ITers are never going to be convinced in the same way that 9/11 truthers will be given all the evidence in the world wouldn't change. I'm sorry to make the comparison but it is apt

I know! Such an apt comparison!

One group thinks the government purposely killed 3000 people to achieve its own ends, and another interprets a video game ending in a way you disagree with! They're practically the same!

SubAstris, normally you're not this stupid. I look forward to a quick end to this stupidity and a return to your regular intellect.

Byne, I respect you for making this thread, but seriously, how can you honestly say taken on an objective basis that the EC doesn't hinder IT in anyway and instead doesn't gives much greater credence to a face-value interpretation?

Because I honestly dont see how it hinders IT at all. It really doesnt show anything but what was implied would happen in the literal endings originally.

And I dont believe I ever said it didnt give more credence to a literal interpretation, I just see no parts that conflict with the IT interpretation.

[SixG90]

Can someone explain me this fourth ending? I'm too tired right now to replay, the EC left me.. exausted, physically and emotionally. Ordering Tali to leave like that, your name in the memorial because they think you are dead, many tears.
Though Harby is really a derp in ME3, you got the normandy there and... I don't even...
Also, I don't understand why they took out the crash scene and not the breath scene, since it seem that they went with literal endings. If it's all indoctrination ( which is my headcanon ), then Shep has a vivid immagination, and really loves Hackett voice

[olshi]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

olshi wrote...

- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.

Hardly.

It was created by the same beings that created the first Reapers. There's no reason the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't have similar voices. 

I mean, the Catalyst obviously doesn't speak with a human child's voice the whole time. That was used to make the Catalyst more recognisable to Shepard, which is also why it appears as a child.

Its a massive leap to go from 'Catalyst has a voice like harbingers'' to 'Catalyst is Harbinger'.

Then why doesn't he keep the child's voice? Why the sudden change if you refuse?

[monrapias]

olshi wrote...

I tried the new option (Refusal), and after that the Destroy option. Don't know how I feel about them yet. It is an improvement, but there is still the deus ex machina. As for IT, the EC took some evidence away, but also added some new hints:
- I had the impression that Harbinger let the Normandy go? Or at least that scene was a little stupid. They had to rush towards the beam, but then there is suddenly time for an evac? They sure dragged it out.
- Just before Harbinger shoots you, he makes a weird noise.
- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.
- In the Destroy ending you will see different scenes like the Krogan having children, the repaired Citadel and above all your crew on the Normandy with your LI adding Shepard's name to the memorial. After ALL THAT Shepard wakes up?

I am confused to say the least. I know there won't be a second "EC". But for IT to be true there doesn't have to be one. It is still a possible interpretation of the ending.

liara (or your love interest) does not add your name in the destroy ending, she just holds the sign, but never puts it up.

[byne]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

byne wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

byne - as OP - how do you feel about IT? Still believing? Just curious.

Yeah. The EC neither proved nor disproved it, just like they said it wouldnt. 

I've seen people say the refusal ending somehow disproves it, but even I dont see how. If you simply refuse to go along with the Reapers' logic, and dont pick anything, you have basically given up. Even more so than when you accept their logic in control or synthesis.

The scene at the end with Liara's VI thing telling people how to beat the Reapers proves nothing. That VI capsule was sent out regardless of what happened in the endings. 

Interesting.

The way I saw the Refusal ending - is that one part of the theory was strengthened: Starchild may very well be a fabrication of the Reapers.

Yeah, there was really no point in having godchild suddenly get super angry and speak in a big boy voice unless they're hinting at something like that.

[Candidate 88766]

SubAstris wrote...

It makes you think. If BW planned IT or all along, why spend the best part of 3 months on just dreamy cutscenes, in addition to the "dreamy cutscenes" before? It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, why would BW go to the length of explaining why Joker left and how the crew got on the Normandy if again, it was all a dream? Its details gives away that it wasn't one

Very good points.

The whole reason people believed the IT is because it gave them reason to believe that the endings weren't real - that Bioware had an ace up their sleeves and would release a DLC that would make the endings right by adding the 'true' ending. If the IT was true, the EC was their chance to do this.

They didn't, which means there was no 'real ending' DLC planned (we're three months post release - if there was a real ending, we'd have it by now - they wouldn't spend months expanding the dream sequences rather than making the actual ending). The whole point of the IT is to allow Bioware to 'trick' us with a fake choice, and then present the 'real' ending to us. Without a real ending after the current endings, there is no need for the IT at all. So the fact that there isn't an ending after the current very strongly implies that the IT was never intended by Bioware.

It is a very compelling twist, fits with the story, and is very interesting, but its clear now that what I and many others have said all along is correct - Bioware never intended this.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 26 juin 2012 - 09:53 .

[Unschuld]

SubAstris wrote...

spotlessvoid wrote...

@ sub
**** You

Why swear? I only express opinion. I never swear at anyone.

Seriously guys. Subastris is one of the more civil anti-ITers to visit this thread. He obviously has opposite viewpoints and isn't always completely tactful (no one here is 100% of the time), so give him a break and continue the discussion in a civil manner. 

[v0rt3x22]

mrs.N7 wrote...

Can someone explain me this fourth ending? I'm too tired right now to replay, the EC left me.. exausted, physically and emotionally. Ordering Tali to leave like that, your name in the memorial because they think you are dead, many tears.
Though Harby is really a derp in ME3, you got the normandy there and... I don't even...
Also, I don't understand why they took out the crash scene and not the breath scene, since it seem that they went with literal endings. If it's all indoctrination ( which is my headcanon ), then Shep has a vivid immagination, and really loves Hackett voice

Something that was very heartbreaking to see is that Liara tells Joker that they have to go.

I'm not sure if this was the LI version - but if it was - it's very very sad to see that Liara has to give an order which will abandon her love 

[HellishFiend]

olshi wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

olshi wrote...

- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.

Hardly.

It was created by the same beings that created the first Reapers. There's no reason the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't have similar voices. 

I mean, the Catalyst obviously doesn't speak with a human child's voice the whole time. That was used to make the Catalyst more recognisable to Shepard, which is also why it appears as a child.

Its a massive leap to go from 'Catalyst has a voice like harbingers'' to 'Catalyst is Harbinger'.

Then why doesn't he keep the child's voice? Why the sudden change if you refuse?

Because he has no reason to lead you on anymore. It's like when a crabby girlfriend tries to sweet talk you into something. She bats her eyelashes and uses her cutesy voice. But when you dont cave, she says FINE! in the ugliest manner possible, storms off, and reaps the galaxy refuses to sleep with you that night. 

Their pleasant demeanor only lasts as long as they believe they still have a chance to convince you of something while hiding their ulterior motives. 

Modifié par HellishFiend, 26 juin 2012 - 09:55 .

[RaenImrahl]

Robust discussion is welcome, but insulting or swearing at other users is not. For example, "**** you" got @spotlessvoid banned for 24 hours.

Let's be nice to each other, please.

[Candidate 88766]

olshi wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

olshi wrote...

- When you refuse the three choices OR if you try to shoot the Godchild, he will say in Harbinger's voice: "So be it." Which means he is in fact Harbinger and not the Catalyst.

Hardly.

It was created by the same beings that created the first Reapers. There's no reason the Catalyst and the Reapers wouldn't have similar voices. 

I mean, the Catalyst obviously doesn't speak with a human child's voice the whole time. That was used to make the Catalyst more recognisable to Shepard, which is also why it appears as a child.

Its a massive leap to go from 'Catalyst has a voice like harbingers'' to 'Catalyst is Harbinger'.

Then why doesn't he keep the child's voice? Why the sudden change if you refuse?

Anger, most likely. It has given Shepard the opportunity to end the Cycle and do what both it and its creators were not able to do. Instead, Shepard throws the choices back in its face and chooses to let the Cycle of extinction continue.

[byne]

Anyways, I'm going back to playing Dawnguard. I got this cool skeleton horse with blue flames on it.

[v0rt3x22]

RaenImrahl wrote...

Robust discussion is welcome, but insulting or swearing at other users is not. For example, "**** you" got @spotlessvoid banned for 24 hours.

Let's be nice to each other, please.

We'll behave. Thanks for checking in <3

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

It makes you think. If BW planned IT or all along, why spend the best part of 3 months on just dreamy cutscenes, in addition to the "dreamy cutscenes" before? It just doesn't make sense. Furthermore, why would BW go to the length of explaining why Joker left and how the crew got on the Normandy if again, it was all a dream? Its details gives away that it wasn't one

Very good points.

The whole reason people believed the IT is because it gave them reason to believe that the endings weren't real - that Bioware had an ace up their sleeves and would release a DLC that would make the endings right by adding the 'true' ending. If the IT was true, the EC was their chance to do this.

They didn't, which means there was no 'real ending' DLC planned (we're three months post release - if there was a real ending, we'd have it by now - they wouldn't spend months expanding the dream sequences rather than making the actual ending). The whole point of the IT is to allow Bioware to 'trick' us with a fake choice, and then present the 'real' ending to us. Without a real ending after the current endings, there is no need for the IT at all. So the fact that there isn't an ending after the current very strongly implies that the IT was never intended by Bioware.

It is a very compelling twist, fits with the story, and is very interesting, but its clear now that what I and many others have said all along is correct - Bioware never intended this.

Nice opinion.