55528 réponses à ce sujet

[v0rt3x22]

 I'm not sure everyone saw this - so I'll just double post:

http://social.biowar.../index/12777408 

Modifié par v0rt3x22, 26 juin 2012 - 10:20 .

[Stump01]

SirLugash wrote...

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!" ?

Probably a little late, but I'd say he meant Anderson and his team (Hammer), not Shepard.

If you play as FemShep, Hackett says, "Holy sh*t, SHE did it."

[v0rt3x22]

Stump01 wrote...

SirLugash wrote...

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!" ?

Probably a little late, but I'd say he meant Anderson and his team (Hammer), not Shepard.

If you play as FemShep, Hackett says, "Holy sh*t, SHE did it."

yea thanks I know 

[ArthurVon]

The IT theory is false, the EC confirms it, why continue whining? If you want to belive in IT theory or in god, or in things like those, just do it, but dont say you have proofs... coz you have none.

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Your right, nothing is added to IT. very good. both interpertations are equally valid. Bioware said this.

Do you know why they spent three months to niether deny nor confrim the litereal endings?

To make both interpertations equally valid.... just like bioware said....yay!!

[Headbutters inc]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

 I'm not sure everyone saw this - so I'll just double post:

http://social.biowar.../index/12777408 

Interesting stuff.

[BalianOfIbelin]

I agree that the EC makes the IT theory false...according to BioWare. That does not mean there is not a ton of support for it or that it has no merit. I thought IT had a very persuasive argument, and was impressed. It also worked perfectly with the alternate ending I wrote, check out the link if you are interested:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Modifié par BalianOfIbelin, 26 juin 2012 - 10:24 .

[Candidate 88766]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Your right, nothing is added to IT. very good. both interpertations are equally valid. Bioware said this.

Do you know why they spent three months to niether deny nor confrim the litereal endings?

To make both interpertations equally valid.... just like bioware said....yay!!

Given that they spent three months only expanding the literal interpretation, I'd argue that they're not equally valid, but thats beside the point.

If you take the endings literally, you've seen the ending of the Mass Effect trilogy.

If you believe in the IT, which is still perfectly valid, you have not and will never see the end of the Mass Effect trilogy. It is left entirely to your own interpretation.

I personally believe that Bioware brought closure to their story, even if the closure wasn't all I hoped it would be, rather than not even bothering to finish the story, but to each their own.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

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

Harbinger ignores normandy, catalyst turnsout to be harbinger, refuse option, destroy makes even less sense now.

Of course literalists get some stuff too. Thats the point.



Both sides see what they want to see.

[HellishFiend]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Your right, nothing is added to IT. very good. both interpertations are equally valid. Bioware said this.

Do you know why they spent three months to niether deny nor confrim the litereal endings?

To make both interpertations equally valid.... just like bioware said....yay!!

I disagree on the point that it adds nothing to IT. I think there are several things that add to the IT interpretation. But similar to pre-existing IT evidence and speculation, it is all mostly symbolic in nature, or otherwise employs clever use of contradictions that can apply to either context. 

[HellishFiend]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Harbinger ignores normandy, catalyst turnsout to be harbinger, refuse option, destroy makes even less sense now.

Of course literalists get some stuff too. Thats the point.



Both sides see what they want to see.

On that part I agree, for sure. 

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

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.

Your right, nothing is added to IT. very good. both interpertations are equally valid. Bioware said this.

Do you know why they spent three months to niether deny nor confrim the litereal endings?

To make both interpertations equally valid.... just like bioware said....yay!!

Given that they spent three months only expanding the literal interpretation, I'd argue that they're not equally valid, but thats beside the point.

If you take the endings literally, you've seen the ending of the Mass Effect trilogy.

If you believe in the IT, which is still perfectly valid, you have not and will never see the end of the Mass Effect trilogy. It is left entirely to your own interpretation.

I personally believe that Bioware brought closure to their story, even if the closure wasn't all I hoped it would be, rather than not even bothering to finish the story, but to each their own.

They added stuff to IT as well. Read in other post.

[Headbutters inc]

Also just a quick idea......

What if only with the help of extra dlc's, (ie 'Leviathan of Di's) then will there be more hints of Indoctrination in the future?

To help the despaired.

[llbountyhunter]

HellishFiend wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Your right, nothing is added to IT. very good. both interpertations are equally valid. Bioware said this.

Do you know why they spent three months to niether deny nor confrim the litereal endings?

To make both interpertations equally valid.... just like bioware said....yay!!

I disagree on the point that it adds nothing to IT. I think there are several things that add to the IT interpretation. But similar to pre-existing IT evidence and speculation, it is all mostly symbolic in nature, or otherwise employs clever use of contradictions that can apply to either context. 

I meant add nothig over the literalists view.

[v0rt3x22]

ArthurVon wrote...

The IT theory is false, the EC confirms it, why continue whining? If you want to belive in IT theory or in god, or in things like those, just do it, but dont say you have proofs... coz you have none.

Get in line. 

[dreamgazer]

Thought I'd repost this in regards to the catalyst's Reaper voice:

dreamgazer wrote...

That goes both ways: it does strengthen the figurative interpretation; but, on the surface, it's purely the catalyst sending a nail through Shepard's heart as a reminder that the Reapers will still exist, and in full rage mode.

[SubAstris]

McWhitey3 wrote...

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.

Interesting, although it begs the question why they didn't they just do a short ending which basically said "Shep's indoctrinated", some small cutscenes and then end. I think the fact that ITers are a minority will come as a shock to many ITers on this particular forum

[HellishFiend]

llbountyhunter wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I disagree on the point that it adds nothing to IT. I think there are several things that add to the IT interpretation. But similar to pre-existing IT evidence and speculation, it is all mostly symbolic in nature, or otherwise employs clever use of contradictions that can apply to either context. 

I meant add nothig over the literalists view.

Ahh, gotcha. 

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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

Harbinger ignores normandy, catalyst turnsout to be harbinger, refuse option, destroy makes even less sense now.

Of course literalists get some stuff too. Thats the point.



Both sides see what they want to see.

1) Common trope, a bit like when villains talk to their arch enemies just before they are about to kill them and then get killed themselves (you should have just shot him!). I thought it was a bit cheesy but very understandable in the context of similar media. Also requires hallucination to be before the beam

2) He doesn't.

3) Err what?

4) I'm genuinely interested about what you mean on this one

[llbountyhunter]

Alright going home from work.... will be out for about an hour or so..

[SirLugash]

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.

He sounds like the Reaper on Rannoch, Harbinger's voice was very different in ME2.

[v0rt3x22]

Hmm people are complaining that the "Run towards beam" scene is now worst - in that you stop in order to save your crew and then keep running.

I kind of tend to agree..

[EpyonX3]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

Perhaps. But it still doesn't mean it can't be used. Here's a better question. What do you guys think it is?

Bump...

[byne]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Hmm people are complaining that the "Run towards beam" scene is now worst - in that you stop in order to save your crew and then keep running.

I kind of tend to agree..

Especially since the Normandy was fighting in orbit with Sword fleet, yet magically appears the instant you call for evac.

They replaced teleporting squadmates with teleporting starships.

[HellishFiend]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Hmm people are complaining that the "Run towards beam" scene is now worst - in that you stop in order to save your crew and then keep running.

I kind of tend to agree..

In my opinion, the run to the beam is now even harder to accept in a literal context than it was before.