55528 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

v0rt3x22 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?

Damage control. EC was never planned - and they had to react somehow. They said it themselves - that they were surprised at the negative feedback. And (lets assume for a second that they did plan to continue the story with IT (for sake of argument)) -> If that content is still 6 months away - and the endings in the original game are already leading towards that outcome - then they had no choice to do something - in order to control the shi*tstorm.

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

I don't necessarily see why not - (again) assuming that this was their plan all along.

EC never being planned seems to contradict IT being their initial plan, not completely, but does seem very odd. But the content isn't 6 months away, that is the last ending DLC they will do, this was their last chance. I am very sure that even if people aren't going particularly pleased with this one they don't want to do yet another one. But anyway, big questions would have to be asked of BW if it was 6 months away- that's not how you do a twist, three months is already way too long.

Or they could have not done the EC and instead devoted all their efforts into getting the "true EC" done (just saying that makes me feel stupid)

Again, I can't imagine EA CEO would be too happy about it

[HellishFiend]

Ninja Stan wrote...

This is a reminder that name-calling and insults are not permitted in this community, so please cut it out and behave in a civil manner. We can disagree with each other without resorting to childishness. Thank you.

Thank you, too. I appreciate your efforts to maintain civility here.  It probably takes a lot more patience than I possess...

[byne]

Ninja Stan wrote...

This is a reminder that name-calling and insults are not permitted in this community, so please cut it out and behave in a civil manner. We can disagree with each other without resorting to childishness. Thank you.

I agree with this. Lets stop name-calling or so help me, I'll turn this thread around.

[masster blaster]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Michael Gamble teases on twitter "Would now be a good time to talk about how we're doing more DLC in the future? :P"

what did he say?

[dreamgazer]

HellishFiend wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

Just finished. So....teleporting squadmates is explained by the Normandy landing RIGHT NEXT to Harbinger. Awesome.

If you think that's bad, you should see people trying to explain why Harbinger didnt shoot the Normandy down... 

Eh. I really don't mind my explanation one bit, considering the ultimate decision's gravity and the fact that it's made pretty clear that he shares perception with the Reapers. 

[llbountyhunter]

OK going out for awhile... not sure if ill be able to answer some of the posts in a civil manner...

[Candidate 88766]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Did i ever say that? No i dont think i did. They said they intend to leave IT open to interpertation. Thay said its not wrong.

But your pervious post made it seem like you knew IT was false.... wierd..

Lets make this real simple.

The entire point of the IT was thus:

Bioware created a fake ending for ME3 so that they could 1) trick players and 2) have time to finish the real ending.

Without the 'real' endings, there is literally no point to the IT. We're three months from release now, and they have already planned and created an ending DLC they didn't expect to make. If they had planned a 'real' ending, they would've started working on it before release and three months down the line we would have it. However, the only ending DLC has simply expanded on the endings in the game - which are hallucinations if the IT is to be believed.

This leads to two conclusions:

The endings in the game were the actual endings.

Bioware has decided not to try to alleviate the fan backlash by telling us there is something on the way, but has instead spent three months expanding on sequences that aren't even real in the context of the story.



Based on this, it should be pretty obvious why I and many others are telling you the IT is dead.

[HellishFiend]

dreamgazer wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

Just finished. So....teleporting squadmates is explained by the Normandy landing RIGHT NEXT to Harbinger. Awesome.

If you think that's bad, you should see people trying to explain why Harbinger didnt shoot the Normandy down... 

Eh. I really don't mind my explanation one bit, considering the ultimate decision's gravity and the fact that it's made pretty clear that he shares perception with the Reapers. 

I wasnt referring to your explanation, specifically. And I hope you dont take my statement personally. I just think that IT explains it a heck of a lot better than any attempt at a literal explanation. 

[v0rt3x22]

For anyone who lives in this thread - they just found info on a DLC: http://social.biowar...ndex/12777408/1

Modifié par v0rt3x22, 26 juin 2012 - 10:12 .

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

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

You really are losing some of your smarts.... thats all wrong... EC only seems to enforce EC. (See i can do it too).

Sorry this really isn't an argument. No one has yet explained why anyone higher in the organisation of EA, the money people would greenlight this project which frankly is just making things look cooler but have zero practical purpose.

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Did i ever say that? No i dont think i did. They said they intend to leave IT open to interpertation. Thay said its not wrong.

But your pervious post made it seem like you knew IT was false.... wierd..

Lets make this real simple.

The entire point of the IT was thus:

Bioware created a fake ending for ME3 so that they could 1) trick players and 2) have time to finish the real ending.

Without the 'real' endings, there is literally no point to the IT. We're three months from release now, and they have already planned and created an ending DLC they didn't expect to make. If they had planned a 'real' ending, they would've started working on it before release and three months down the line we would have it. However, the only ending DLC has simply expanded on the endings in the game - which are hallucinations if the IT is to be believed.

This leads to two conclusions:

The endings in the game were the actual endings.

Bioware has decided not to try to alleviate the fan backlash by telling us there is something on the way, but has instead spent three months expanding on sequences that aren't even real in the context of the story.



Based on this, it should be pretty obvious why I and many others are telling you the IT is dead.

What a waste of space.... IT had several reasons.

[Candidate 88766]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Bioware said they spent three months expanding both. Pointless question. 

Bioware actually said they spent 3 months expanding on both the real and the fake endings?

And you can presumably provide some kind of quote for this?

[HellishFiend]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

For anyone who lives in this thread - they just found info on a DLC: http://social.biowar...ndex/12777408/1

Cool, thanks. 

[Simon_Says]

So. Played through the EC. It's... an improvement to be sure. But still.


DISAPPOINTED!

[masster blaster]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

senshi420 wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Michael Gamble teases on twitter "Would now be a good time to talk about how we're doing more DLC in the future? :P"

well the "new" stargazer seen the actress reading the line says it real slow like...ok one...more...story...as in more DLC is coming.
im seriously onboard with the idea that this is a 4th wall message to the players direct like....especially since they took the time to stick one in the end of reject, but nothing else...i mean common.

Well this is one of those things which still keep my IT hope alive.

Well i didn't get the new stargazer scene and I had the Ec downloaded and everytinh was high enof to get the original Breath ending requierment.

[HellishFiend]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Bioware said they spent three months expanding both. Pointless question. 

Bioware actually said they spent 3 months expanding on both the real and the fake endings?

And you can presumably provide some kind of quote for this?

They said the EC was designed to neither confirm nor deny IT, so that infers that it expounds and adds on to both interpretations. 

[Candidate 88766]

llbountyhunter wrote...

What a waste of space.... IT had several reasons.

The IT, if true, has two reasons.

1. To trick/test players by indoctrinating their character
2. To allow Bioware time to either finish the real ending, or delay it and use it as a surprise.

There is literally no other reason for Bioware to have used the IT, and both of these rely on their being a 'real' ending DLC - and there isn't a 'real ending' DLC.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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.

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.

Have you seen EC? it doesnt disprove IT.....  bioware theselves said this.


But if you think yourself above bioware.....

It doesn't disprove anything but nonetheless makes one interpretation much more credible than the other. And still not answering me question

[Candidate 88766]

HellishFiend wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Bioware said they spent three months expanding both. Pointless question. 

Bioware actually said they spent 3 months expanding on both the real and the fake endings?

And you can presumably provide some kind of quote for this?

They said the EC was designed to neither confirm nor deny IT, so that infers that it expounds and adds on to both interpretations. 

It doesn't add anything to the IT though. It adds a hint or two there, and takes away a hint or two here, but there's no payoff. If the IT is true, then three months after release and after a DLC specifically designed to fix and explain the endings, there is still no actual ending. Thus we can assume that there is no real ending coming, and that the real endings are already in the game, and that the IT was not Bioware's intended interpretation.

[Memnon]

I was holding out for IT, but I'm not surprised at the EC. In my own, cynical mind I actually think Bioware gave the Starbrat Harbinger's voice ("so be it" if you choose rejection) just to mess with the IT theorists ...

[olshi]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

He can get angry and still use the child's voice. No reason to switch to Harbinger. Also he should rather be angry at the Destroy option, since it won't stop the chaos. He says it himself. The reapers and all synthetics would be destroyed, but the chaos will return, because eventually organics will invent synthetics again. This is not in his interest. The only choice he seems to like is Synthesis.

A few more thing on IT in general:
If one purpose of the EC was to refute the theory, they could have done that easily, and I was so prepared for this. I would have thrown the theory out the window immediately. The EC only explained how Hacket knows Shepard is on the Citadel, why Joker was flying away and how your squad ended up on the Normandy. But these were just plotholes before that could be explained by the IT. The core evidence however is still there. After Shepard gets hit by Harbinger, there are still piles of Ashley bodies behind the makos. The scene is still very dreamlike. The trees are still there. BioWare could have removed them, but they didn't. Would have been a small change and a clear message that there is no indoctrination. The way you meet Anderson and TIM on the Citadel still makes no sense. Where did they come from? The breath scene at the end is still there and is imo now even stronger evidence. And I presume the EC also didn't change the intro of ME3 where the child teleports from one building to another, goes through a locked door and literally disappears in a vent.

Call me stupid, retarded or desperate. I don't care. This still smells like indoctrination.

[NoSpin]

HellishFiend wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

Just finished. So....teleporting squadmates is explained by the Normandy landing RIGHT NEXT to Harbinger. Awesome.

If you think that's bad, you should see people trying to explain why Harbinger didnt shoot the Normandy down... 

Eh. I really don't mind my explanation one bit, considering the ultimate decision's gravity and the fact that it's made pretty clear that he shares perception with the Reapers. 

I wasnt referring to your explanation, specifically. And I hope you dont take my statement personally. I just think that IT explains it a heck of a lot better than any attempt at a literal explanation. 

The ending was broken, they attempted to fix it by putting a band-aid over plot holes.

Duh, Hackett knows Shepard is there because someone hands him a REPORT! (They said we all died, who the hell reported it?)

Duh, the Normandy, a fully loaded highly powerful war machine, lands right next to a highly accurate Reaper and picks up your squad. THEN it leaves without using that REALLY AWESOME cannon you installed on the front.

Duh, you can't reject the catalyst, because if you do you are STUPID.

Thanks for that Bioware. IT was a lot more intelligent, but if you didn't want to go with it you could have scrapped the ending and eliminated the holes to begin with.

[masster blaster]

i did like who Shepard ask " so you tried synthesis before"

God child" yes but um it feel because of the organics"

Husk Synthetics that what it meant.

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Bioware said they spent three months expanding both. Pointless question. 

Bioware actually said they spent 3 months expanding on both the real and the fake endings?

And you can presumably provide some kind of quote for this?

They said the EC was designed to neither confirm nor deny IT, so that infers that it expounds and adds on to both interpretations. 

I'm interested to know how exactly it adds to IT? Maybe someone else can answer since Hellish seems to live upto his name in dealing with him jk

[McWhitey3]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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

You really are losing some of your smarts.... thats all wrong... EC only seems to enforce EC. (See i can do it too).

Sorry this really isn't an argument. No one has yet explained why anyone higher in the organisation of EA, the money people would greenlight this project which frankly is just making things look cooler but have zero practical purpose.

IMO...EC wasnt planned. These new cutscenes and epilogue all show was was implied with the original endings. EA greenlighted because IMO, They needed to. You have to remember ITers are a minority of the overall group who didnt like the endings. BW/EA needed to save face. They do this to show they care in some way. And who knows it could be true that BW wanted to delay to make a better endgame but EA said no...The backlash was used as a "told you so" to EA.