Ce sujet est fermé
Unschuld wrote...
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.
Sareth Cousland wrote...
byne wrote...
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.
Granted, but I think three months of hinting would have been enough. Now this is just annoying.
byne wrote...
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.
Clearly Shepard has arrythmia and uses a pacemaker to treat it!
Seriously Epyon, do you really think Shep has an internal defib? If so, why dont we see it shock her in the breath scene? Why has it never stopped me from dying before? Since Shep has arrythmia should we send her to Yamaku?
Anyone who gets that last reference (without googling like a cheater) gets a cookie.
byne wrote...
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.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
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.olshi wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Hardly.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.
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?
Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
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.
Rifneno wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
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.
Yeah, the guy that just called us 9/11 conspiracy nuts is totally civil. The KKK is big on equality too. Did you know chocolate burns fat?
Novate wrote...
Just like every single IT believers can still keep thinking that IT theory is still true when EC straight out ended the series with their official Epilogue.
I can still believe that the whole ME 1 ~ 3 are just a story made up by Conrad Verner whom is writing a book after meeting with the first Shepard.
And that I believe that Bioware has an DLC titled NOVEL OF CONRAD V , that showed how everything is just a story made by Conrad Verner in the future. Who knows maybe 10 years down the line, even how small the possibilities it is, its still an possibility.
SubAstris wrote...
byne wrote...
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.
Namely the fact that BW clearly went to some lengths to clarify areas such as Shepard not debating with the Catalyst, how did the squadmates get off the ship etc which were often used as evidence for his indoctrination. Why bother if their plan from the start was IT?
In fact why bother with the whole EC? All it does is strengthen the face-value explanation by giving reasons for the aforementioned events (and thereby removing the cracks in which IT resides) without once strengthening evidence for IT. The long and detailed scenes of galactic life after Shepard's meeting with the Catalyst are rendered to frivolous dreams. Are you honestly telling me that they spent the best part of 3 months just on these dreams that didn't actually happen? I don't think so
Modifié par llbountyhunter, 26 juin 2012 - 10:00 .
llbountyhunter wrote...
So angry voices sound like harbinger? lol
SubAstris wrote...
I'm willing to talk if people give me the opportunity. But remember this, don't accuse others of what you yourself do
Even after everything they've said about the EC being the last thing they'll do with the endings you still believe that some 'true ending' DLC is on the way?llbountyhunter wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Very good points.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
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.
SubAstris wrote...
Rifneno wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
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.
Yeah, the guy that just called us 9/11 conspiracy nuts is totally civil. The KKK is big on equality too. Did you know chocolate burns fat?
I'm willing to talk if people give me the opportunity. But remember this, don't accuse others of what you yourself do
llbountyhunter wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Very good points.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
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.
You didn't answer his question.llbountyhunter wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
Namely the fact that BW clearly went to some lengths to clarify areas such as Shepard not debating with the Catalyst, how did the squadmates get off the ship etc which were often used as evidence for his indoctrination. Why bother if their plan from the start was IT?
In fact why bother with the whole EC? All it does is strengthen the face-value explanation by giving reasons for the aforementioned events (and thereby removing the cracks in which IT resides) without once strengthening evidence for IT. The long and detailed scenes of galactic life after Shepard's meeting with the Catalyst are rendered to frivolous dreams. Are you honestly telling me that they spent the best part of 3 months just on these dreams that didn't actually happen? I don't think so
You really are losing some of your smarts.... thats all wrong... EC only seems to enforce EC. (See i can do it too).
SubAstris wrote...
Namely the fact that BW clearly went to some lengths to clarify areas such as Shepard not debating with the Catalyst, how did the squadmates get off the ship etc which were often used as evidence for his indoctrination. Why bother if their plan from the start was IT?
Are you honestly telling me that they spent the best part of 3 months just on these dreams that didn't actually happen? I don't think so
Rifneno wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
I'm willing to talk if people give me the opportunity. But remember this, don't accuse others of what you yourself do
Believe me, I have no desire to talk to you or anyone else that came only to feast on misery.
NoSpin wrote...
Just finished. So....teleporting squadmates is explained by the Normandy landing RIGHT NEXT to Harbinger. Awesome.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Even after everything they've said about the EC being the last thing they'll do with the endings you still believe that some 'true ending' DLC is on the way?llbountyhunter wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Very good points.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
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.
Its been 3 months now. If a 'true ending' had been planned:
-why is not out yet?
-why has no-one from Bioware, either officially or unofficially, confirmed that something is indeed on the way - it would go a long way to stemming the fan and media backlash, and the 'surprise' of the twist has already been ruined for most people if its true
-why did they spend 3 months expanding on the dream sequences instead of making the 'real' ending?
Face it, there is no 'real ending' DLC on the way. What you saw is what you got. You can believe its an indoctrination-induced hallucination. Neither I, nor apparently Bioware, can disprove that.
But literally the entire point of the IT was to trick people and then surprise them with the real endings. Without these 'real' endings, there is no reason for the IT to either be used or believed.
SubAstris wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Very good points.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
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.
It is an opinion, however in the real world, companies don't spend 3 months making useless cinematics, it just doesn't happen. There is frankly nothing more to say, I would seriously question your sanity, not to be impolite, if you agreed that they did just that.
Maecen wrote...
v0rt3x22 wrote...
Maecen wrote...
I'm going to post this again since I didn't get a reply. Sorry if I seem pushy, just want to share.
"I don't know if this has been discussed yet. But, WTH was that twitch Shepard did when Anderson radioed him after he flew out of the beam at the Citadel? There was a weird noise behind it too. I just finished playing and I can't get that out of my head."
Is there a video of that?
Here's a video,
It's kinda dark for me, but at 6:45, when Shepard rolls out of the beam, Anderson calls out to him, Shepard does this weird jerk with a god awful noise.
What the hell did Harby say to Shepard?
Candidate 88766 wrote...
You didn't answer his question.llbountyhunter wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
Namely the fact that BW clearly went to some lengths to clarify areas such as Shepard not debating with the Catalyst, how did the squadmates get off the ship etc which were often used as evidence for his indoctrination. Why bother if their plan from the start was IT?
In fact why bother with the whole EC? All it does is strengthen the face-value explanation by giving reasons for the aforementioned events (and thereby removing the cracks in which IT resides) without once strengthening evidence for IT. The long and detailed scenes of galactic life after Shepard's meeting with the Catalyst are rendered to frivolous dreams. Are you honestly telling me that they spent the best part of 3 months just on these dreams that didn't actually happen? I don't think so
You really are losing some of your smarts.... thats all wrong... EC only seems to enforce EC. (See i can do it too).
Lets make this easy. Which is more likely: Bioware spent 3 months expanding the actual endings to ME3, or Bioware spent 3 months expanding on fake dream sequences?
Probably a little late, but I'd say he meant Anderson and his team (Hammer), not Shepard.v0rt3x22 wrote...
Question:
Why would Hackett say: "Holy sh*t HE did it" - and then say "We have reports that SOMEONE made it"
If he says "HE" - then I suppose that's implying that he knows who he is - and if that someone is Shepard - everyone knows Shepard.
Wouldn't he just say "Shepard made it!" ?
Retour en haut
