Ce sujet est fermé
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
Andromidius wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Personally I don't know what to believe. The catalyst tells you he was unaware that the plans for the crucible had survived yet in the last cycle it was still kicking he couldnt have not known. He certainly wouldn't have just allowed it to slip away again. So I find it hard to believe that liara's time capsule survives and the next cycle goes on to use the data to defeat the reapers. But it seems like the kind of thing a reaper who's indoctrinating you would want you to believe.
Yeah, Starbinger claiming to not know much about the history of the Crucible was very weak. Considering the Reapers' standard tactic is a suprise assault where they capture all the information of the organics using the Citadel right off the bat, not to mention their love of indoctrinated sleeper agents, I find it very hard to believe they'd not know about it. And considering how well they clean up evidence of previous civilisations each time, not finding the plans for the Crucible seem... Very weak.
I do agree with Starbinger on one point though - the Crucible makes sense if its just a big battery. Thus the builders would know its full of immense power, but not have a clue what its supposed to do.
But do I beleive that he's in the dark about it, and isn't involved? Not for a second. He's a devious little bugger, and I'm pretty sure he started it off and made sure it survived from Cycle to Cycle. Its the perfect sabotage, a way to waste your enemy's resources and make sure they never get to actually use it for themselves and also misdirect any other tactics they may have employed.
And yet that same message is still here in the EC, or at least a variation that amounts to the same thing.Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
I've been saying that since release, and I've still yet to see an actual argument as to why the game tells you "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat", (which simply would not be true if the IT was true), if it is not true.
Grrr....can't resist.
Either you're a liar or you've not looked. A bunch of us have stated repeatedly that message is a blantant 4th wall break! How obvious does something have to be?
Candidate 88766 wrote...
And yet that same message is still here in the EC, or at least a variation that amounts to the same thing.Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
I've been saying that since release, and I've still yet to see an actual argument as to why the game tells you "Commander Shepard has become a legend by ending the Reaper threat", (which simply would not be true if the IT was true), if it is not true.
Grrr....can't resist.
Either you're a liar or you've not looked. A bunch of us have stated repeatedly that message is a blantant 4th wall break! How obvious does something have to be?
Why would that still be there if it wasn't true?
SubAstris wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
I'm really struggling to find an answer for the ending message if IT is true. It is so clearly aimed at the player and it basically says that Shepard has become a "legend". How can that be true at all? Or is this another lie/red herring?
Maybe.
Maybe it's a lie? It does seem strange though if IT is true to put it in, surely the rest of the evidence speaks for itself? Especially since it is directed straight at the reader. But I guess if you still believe IT you are in continual limbo
do you honestly believe the ec took 3 months to make? come on now. if the whole team was working it probably took a week it was not a significant investment of resources I guarantee thatCandidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
plfranke wrote...
Yet now the mass effect twitter is seemingly in the literalist camp and would have us believe the normandy flew into the most hostile zone on earth to do a pickup in record time and flew back all while harbinger just stared and did nothing.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
They had to write, edit, and record all the dialogue and get all the VAs back.plfranke wrote...
do you honestly believe the ec took 3 months to make? come on now. if the whole team was working it probably took a week it was not a significant investment of resources I guarantee thatCandidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
Modifié par v0rt3x22, 27 juin 2012 - 09:57 .
plfranke wrote...
Personally I don't know what to believe. The catalyst tells you he was unaware that the plans for the crucible had survived yet in the last cycle it was still kicking he couldnt have not known. He certainly wouldn't have just allowed it to slip away again. So I find it hard to believe that liara's time capsule survives and the next cycle goes on to use the data to defeat the reapers. But it seems like the kind of thing a reaper who's indoctrinating you would want you to believe.SubAstris wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
EpyonX3 wrote...
Here's one question for you guys. If Shepard rejects, why doesn't he still wake up anyway? Listen to his words, he's not giving up, he's going to fight, just not with the help from the catalyst. He stands erect, like in destroy and states how free he is.If IT were in play, that would be breaking free any day, because you didn't pick any reaper options. Yet, we don't see Shepard wake up. Instead we all die, the next cycle gets the message and prepare the right way.
Hadn't thought of that, pretty good. If IT were true, we would have the same breath scene as destroy instead of this presumption that the species will not be able to activate the Crucible and will lose if you pick "Refuse"
You kinda just reiterated why refuse wpuldmt work.... shepard gave up on the mental battle. Saying "oh i want to fight, but not like this" is the same as giving up.
No, it is about fighting on his terms by defending what is great about organics and not letting his ideals be swept aside by the Catalyst. "Giving up" would be just shooting himself.
If IT is true, the Catalyst (or Harbinger-in-disguise) wants you to choose just two options: Control or Synthesis. Those are the only ones that will lead in Shepard's indoctrination (according to ITers), since these are the only endings in which we see the indoc. eyes and being given up to the Reapers. Refuse and Destroy are the opposite because they see the refusal of the acceptance of the Catalyst's new information, turning your back on indoctrination. It is not about giving up the mental fight, it is about positively rejecting the Catalyst and by extension the Reapers
Fine, lets put it this way - before the EC, all these hints were meant to show that the endings aren't real, with the eventual reveal of a real ending.Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Isent it obvious why IT is not debunked? The strange dreams, strange noises, almost all the plotholes (yet to see a litteral supporter explain to me how Shepard survived in Destroy) and strange effects we originally based this theory on remains.
They dident remove or explain very much of what made up the IT and they specifically said EC would not debunk or confirm IT so obviusly it still remains.
Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
Isent it obvious why IT is not debunked? The strange dreams, strange noises, almost all the plotholes (yet to see a litteral supporter explain to me how Shepard survived in Destroy) and strange effects we originally based this theory on remains.
They dident remove or explain very much of what made up the IT and they specifically said EC would not debunk or confirm IT so obviusly it still remains.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Fine, lets put it this way - before the EC, all these hints were meant to show that the endings aren't real, with the eventual reveal of a real ending.Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Isent it obvious why IT is not debunked? The strange dreams, strange noises, almost all the plotholes (yet to see a litteral supporter explain to me how Shepard survived in Destroy) and strange effects we originally based this theory on remains.
They dident remove or explain very much of what made up the IT and they specifically said EC would not debunk or confirm IT so obviusly it still remains.
After 3 months and a DLC specifically designed to fix the endings, where is the payoff for the IT?
The endings are still the same. if you believe the IT, you still don't have an ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.
if you seriously think that the charge is anything like the opening of the game there's no point in continuing this discussion we have two totally different understandings of the game and nothing productive can come from itCandidate 88766 wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Yet now the mass effect twitter is seemingly in the literalist camp and would have us believe the normandy flew into the most hostile zone on earth to do a pickup in record time and flew back all while harbinger just stared and did nothing.
Thats basically what happened in the game's opening.
So instead of getting the whole team to work on this 'real ending' you still think is coming, they instead decided to expand the fake endings, all the while giving absolutely no indication that they have this ace up their sleeves.v0rt3x22 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
If the IT was their intended interpretation, then why did they spend 3 months expanding on dream sequences rather than making the 'real' ending that ITers hope for?Andromidius wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
But this basically debunks the idea that the IT is Bioware's intended interpretation.
No, it really doesn't.
And I should stop replying to anti-ITers. Its only going to annoy me. This'll be the last time.
You say that it doesn't show the IT is wrong, but you can't say why.
I heard this one before and like to point out that EC was never actually intended. Not until the sh!tstorm.
So its logical to assume that there is content which they had planned - which ties to IT - but that it was still in the planning phases and too big to release quickly....so they had to develop a bridge.
In the opening, the Normandy hovers in front of a Reaper for almost 2 minutes. In the ending, the Normandy hovers in front of Harbinger for like a minute and a half.plfranke wrote...
if you seriously think that the charge is anything like the opening of the game there's no point in continuing this discussion we have two totally different understandings of the game and nothing productive can come from itCandidate 88766 wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Yet now the mass effect twitter is seemingly in the literalist camp and would have us believe the normandy flew into the most hostile zone on earth to do a pickup in record time and flew back all while harbinger just stared and did nothing.
Thats basically what happened in the game's opening.
If you take the endings literally, you've got closure. You may not like the closure provided, but its there. If you believe the IT, you still have no payoff for it. All these hints have built up to a big fat nothing so far - Shepard has undergone indoctrination, possibly breaking free, but there's no way to know because you have no idea what happens after.v0rt3x22 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Fine, lets put it this way - before the EC, all these hints were meant to show that the endings aren't real, with the eventual reveal of a real ending.Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Isent it obvious why IT is not debunked? The strange dreams, strange noises, almost all the plotholes (yet to see a litteral supporter explain to me how Shepard survived in Destroy) and strange effects we originally based this theory on remains.
They dident remove or explain very much of what made up the IT and they specifically said EC would not debunk or confirm IT so obviusly it still remains.
After 3 months and a DLC specifically designed to fix the endings, where is the payoff for the IT?
The endings are still the same. if you believe the IT, you still don't have an ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.
Thus I feel bad for those of us who won't get any closure.
This basically seems to mean - that if IT was never intended - we dug our own hole.
There is a big difference between saying the IT is flat out wrong (its not - there is plenty of evidence that lends it credence) and saying that the IT is not Bioware's intended interpretation (which is pretty clear by now given that the EC expands only the literal interpretation of the endings).HellishFiend wrote...
Moreover, they explicitly stated that the EC is not meant to confirm or deny IT, and that they, as a company, are not interested in confirming or denying it at this time. It's folly to waste time and energy looking for reasons to categorically dismiss IT.
Candidate 88766 wrote...
If you take the endings literally, you've got closure. You may not like the closure provided, but its there. If you believe the IT, you still have no payoff for it. All these hints have built up to a big fat nothing so far - Shepard has undergone indoctrination, possibly breaking free, but there's no way to know because you have no idea what happens after.v0rt3x22 wrote...
Candidate 88766 wrote...
Fine, lets put it this way - before the EC, all these hints were meant to show that the endings aren't real, with the eventual reveal of a real ending.Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...
Isent it obvious why IT is not debunked? The strange dreams, strange noises, almost all the plotholes (yet to see a litteral supporter explain to me how Shepard survived in Destroy) and strange effects we originally based this theory on remains.
They dident remove or explain very much of what made up the IT and they specifically said EC would not debunk or confirm IT so obviusly it still remains.
After 3 months and a DLC specifically designed to fix the endings, where is the payoff for the IT?
The endings are still the same. if you believe the IT, you still don't have an ending to the Mass Effect trilogy.
Thus I feel bad for those of us who won't get any closure.
This basically seems to mean - that if IT was never intended - we dug our own hole.
First of all let me say I think you could make an argument both sides that reject is being indoctrinated or fighting indoctrinated I haven't made up my mind yet which one I subscribe to. What I meant was this though. He tells you that he thought the plans for the crucible had been eradicated. If after coming so close to destruction and having a cycle for the first time finish the crucible if they didn't make absolute certain they had destroyed all evidence then they deserve to be defeated.SubAstris wrote...
plfranke wrote...
Personally I don't know what to believe. The catalyst tells you he was unaware that the plans for the crucible had survived yet in the last cycle it was still kicking he couldnt have not known. He certainly wouldn't have just allowed it to slip away again. So I find it hard to believe that liara's time capsule survives and the next cycle goes on to use the data to defeat the reapers. But it seems like the kind of thing a reaper who's indoctrinating you would want you to believe.SubAstris wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
EpyonX3 wrote...
Here's one question for you guys. If Shepard rejects, why doesn't he still wake up anyway? Listen to his words, he's not giving up, he's going to fight, just not with the help from the catalyst. He stands erect, like in destroy and states how free he is.If IT were in play, that would be breaking free any day, because you didn't pick any reaper options. Yet, we don't see Shepard wake up. Instead we all die, the next cycle gets the message and prepare the right way.
Hadn't thought of that, pretty good. If IT were true, we would have the same breath scene as destroy instead of this presumption that the species will not be able to activate the Crucible and will lose if you pick "Refuse"
You kinda just reiterated why refuse wpuldmt work.... shepard gave up on the mental battle. Saying "oh i want to fight, but not like this" is the same as giving up.
No, it is about fighting on his terms by defending what is great about organics and not letting his ideals be swept aside by the Catalyst. "Giving up" would be just shooting himself.
If IT is true, the Catalyst (or Harbinger-in-disguise) wants you to choose just two options: Control or Synthesis. Those are the only ones that will lead in Shepard's indoctrination (according to ITers), since these are the only endings in which we see the indoc. eyes and being given up to the Reapers. Refuse and Destroy are the opposite because they see the refusal of the acceptance of the Catalyst's new information, turning your back on indoctrination. It is not about giving up the mental fight, it is about positively rejecting the Catalyst and by extension the Reapers
I thought that was a lousy answer, however I have no knowledge that the Reapers knew about it, and their actions seem to suggest that they didn't anyway . But then, everything done with the Crucible in this game is done lousily, it's just a very bad plot device.
As for Liara's time capsule, I don't think that is that weird, the Protheans had a similar thing so it's not that strange, in fact I thought it was a nice touch. I don't know why a Reaper would want you to believe it either- you would expect in that refuse scene a breath by Shepard
Its a 4th wall breaking message that explicitly tells you that the Reaper threat has been ended by Shepard. It is a message directly from Bioware - the writers of the story - to the player - the one controlling Shepard. You simply cannot get any clearer - the IT was not their intention.Andromidius wrote...
BECAUSE ITS A BLOODY 4TH WALL BREAK WHERE BIOWARE IS DIRECTLY TALKING TO THEIR PLAYERBASE!!!
Seriously, go read it and tell me that's an in-universe message! Go find where this 'Bioware' is in the Mass Effect universe! Go on, go find it!
Seriously, gah! I need to go bed.
Unschuld wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
Unschuld wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
I'm really struggling to find an answer for the ending message if IT is true. It is so clearly aimed at the player and it basically says that Shepard has become a "legend". How can that be true at all? Or is this another lie/red herring?
Maybe.
Maybe it's a lie? It does seem strange though if IT is true to put it in, surely the rest of the evidence speaks for itself? Especially since it is directed straight at the reader. But I guess if you still believe IT you are in continual limbo
Maybe because it depends on Bioware if they will take this series any further. With widely divergent paths, one of the endings would need to be made canon. ME is an established franchise and a cash cow, so I don't see why EA wouldn't milk it. Shepard is essentially the icon of the series so... well... that only leaves one ending. IF that's the direction they go. Still doesn't mean it would be IT however, I just think it would fit better.
About ITers being in limbo? I wouldn't say that. The ending is open enough to come to just about any conclusion you want to. The only ones in limbo are those that need some sort of solid answer from the game/developers themselves. Personally, I'm fine with thinking my Shepard made the right choice with destroy, and his crew came back and found him in the rubble/London hospital. In my mind, synthesis and control were not only reaper traps, but outright ethical abominations that I would never choose. I have closure in that, and I'm fine with this being the end of the series, as much as it hurts to see it go. I'm not stuck in limbo in the slightest.
Retour en haut