55528 réponses à ce sujet

[senshi420]

why do people still believe bioware when they say no new endings? i seriously have no clue, they said that before the EC too and we got reject, while not being much, it IS a new ending. something they explicitly said they would not be doing.
i for one choose to believe that the game is not over until the last dlc is out, I wont go so far to say i know what it will be, just saying nothing is set in stone, they could literally go anywhere with it, especially seeing as they are very willing to directly lie or mislead us beforehand, not complaining mind you, id rather be surprised i think.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SubAstris wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

Mac and Casey come out and say that IT, while clever, was never intended (or more likely removed earlier in development). Boom. Done. They could also explain why starkid goes all reaper on us in "reject" too.

I think even then a good number of hardcore ITers would reject that given some of their remarks. Especially after the message at the end, "Shepard has defeated the Reapers, become a legend, we at BW would like to thank you". This is a personal message to the player him/herself stating very clearly that the Reaper threat has been ended.

And yet they still added details as to how exactly that "defeat" went down in the EC.

[Lord Luc1fer]

Lat2oo5 wrote...

My LI was Miranda, and I got a static picture of her looking at skyline, very melancholic, but my crew placed the plaquet even when my Shepard was still alive.

That's cos nobody on the normandy has love guiding them... no, that wasn't supposed to be said in a serious tone

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

Mac and Casey come out and say that IT, while clever, was never intended (or more likely removed earlier in development). Boom. Done. They could also explain why starkid goes all reaper on us in "reject" too.

I think even then a good number of hardcore ITers would reject that given some of their remarks. Especially after the message at the end, "Shepard has defeated the Reapers, become a legend, we at BW would like to thank you". This is a personal message to the player him/herself stating very clearly that the Reaper threat has been ended.

Weve rejected nothing. He hasnt postes a link,..... was this some sort of private conversation? Because he interview said otherwise...

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

*SIGH* Honestly, I hoped for IT to be revealed in the EC and was a bit disappointed when it wasn't. The extended ending seems even more literal than the original one. Actually, the breath scene after Destroy serves the exact same role as the transcendence scene in Control (Shepard lives on). Maybe we should take BioWare's words more seriously and don't read between lines too much. *SIGH*

Negative, there can be no stepping back, no retreat, no stepping forward and no attacking reaper forces.

But really how can I look at this ending litterally with the enormous plotholes and problems with the ending which Bioware had 3.5 months to fix, but dident do.

Even more so they themselves said EC would not confirm or deny IT, so until someone can disprove it in its entirety I am sticking with IT. Better than having to believe in two endings which go against everything we have seen and been told over the cause of 3 games.

How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

If there was no evidence supproting it. If there was no mindcontrol ability in the series which is known to cause a wide variety of side effects many of which Shepard suffers throughout the cause of the game. If there was no giant plotholes which can be filled in so easily by IT or if said plotholes had other explanations. If there was no massively strange and ridicoulous sequences in the ending with no or few precedenst in the entire series leading up to that point.

If Bioware had not themsleves said that they would neither confirm of deny IT. Then I would consider this a delusion.

But the fact that we have not only strange happenings suggesting that not all is as it seems alongside a means that can cuase these strange quibs, a means which ahs been a major plotpoint trhoughout all 3 games, means I cannot help but feel there is more than meets the eye. 

They had three months to fix all those strange things, but just about the obnly thing they fixed was telpeorting squadmates...

Well we will disagree about evidence being convincing for IT or otherwise, I really just asked what piece, or pieces of evidence would convince that IT was not planned all along.

But he suffers from maybe dreams, but that is far from convincing. No whispers for example while walking around. If they intended IT in the game, it was incredibly poorly done in that case due to lack of symptoms.

In the same way that Shepard died at the beginning of ME2 and the rest is just a dream, or even died after contacting the Prothean Beacon, IT could fill in plotholes. That doesn't make it any more likely. All said plotholes have reasonable explanations for them without resorting to IT.

There are several moments of foreshadowing the role of the Catalyst, the Reapers being masters to the Catalyst,  the motives of the Reapers throughout ME.

Your last sentence is...unintelligible

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

Mac and Casey come out and say that IT, while clever, was never intended (or more likely removed earlier in development). Boom. Done. They could also explain why starkid goes all reaper on us in "reject" too.

I think even then a good number of hardcore ITers would reject that given some of their remarks. Especially after the message at the end, "Shepard has defeated the Reapers, become a legend, we at BW would like to thank you". This is a personal message to the player him/herself stating very clearly that the Reaper threat has been ended.

And yet they still added details as to how exactly that "defeat" went down in the EC.

What do you mean exactly?

[paxxton]

Both the original and the extended endings have to be viewed in conjunction when seeking IT interpretation. Remember that the original had Shepard alive only in high-EMS Destroy. As this was the original idea it has to have precedence. Now we have Shepard alive in many endings but does that mean those aren't just indoctrination hallucinations? BioWare stated that they aren't changing the ending so the underlying concept must still be the same. The question is whether it's IT.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 juin 2012 - 01:31 .

[Lord Luc1fer]

Doom972 wrote...

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

Is it me having been looking wrong, or did anybody else see if marauder shields had lost his shields in the EC? I'm pretty sure I saw that and it made me LOL so hard.

No, he still had his shields. He lived as Marauder Shields and died as Marauder Health.

For such a short part he got a hell of a lot of cahracter development then!

[NoSpin]

SubAstris wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

Mac and Casey come out and say that IT, while clever, was never intended (or more likely removed earlier in development). Boom. Done. They could also explain why starkid goes all reaper on us in "reject" too.

I think even then a good number of hardcore ITers would reject that given some of their remarks. Especially after the message at the end, "Shepard has defeated the Reapers, become a legend, we at BW would like to thank you". This is a personal message to the player him/herself stating very clearly that the Reaper threat has been ended.

Nah, generic "Thanks for playing!", wouldn't do it. An actual interview with the writers where they actually sit down and ANSWER some of the nagging fan questions. From a literalist perspective the EC was a big improvement, and of course from an IT perspective I absolutely hated it. 

But I would regain complete faith in Bioware if Mac and Casey would come out and explain some of their design choices, and apologize for this mess. "You know, it was stupid for Tali's face reveal to be a crude photoshop. It was stupid to not see your war assets in action. It was stupid that we didn't assume the galaxy was destroyed when we blew up the relays. We learned a lot from our mistakes in ME3, and I can promise you we will never make them again."

That would sway a lot of minds back into Bioware's corner, including mine.

[Lord Luc1fer]

paxxton wrote...

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

We see Shepard die for sure only in Synthesis and low-EMS Destroy. In every other he lives on in some way:

Control - trascends into a being of light (the only ending in which he speaks for himself!)
high-EMS Destroy - the breath scene
Rejection - stands still while the screen fades out to black

I disagree with Control. Shepard, the one we've been playing as dies. A new AI construct is created based on everything that Shepard was. The man talking to us is not Shepard.

I just watched the control ending on youtube and I found it realllyyy unpleasant. It was well done and had a good message, the change to shepard was just too unnerving. It left a bad taste in the mouth which I think was intentional, it's by far for me the saddest ending to see what sheaprd has to give

This ending ensures survival of organics, ends the war and empowers organics by giving them the technology and resources to build a better future (not destroying what they have already achieved and starting all over again like in Destroy). Shepard loses his body but his mind serves as a basis for the new Shepard. The new Catalyst doesn't want to harvest organic civilizations but commands the Reapers to help them rebuild after the war. How can you not see the potential in this solution? And it's not that organics have to do what Shepard wants. He says that many have their own voice. (that leaves the possibility of future organics vs synthetics war still open which is exactly what the old Catalyst told Shepard would always happen (even before the Reapers were created it was so)).

I'm not questioning the viability of the ending. It has huge potential and the messgae at the end is a hopeful one, but just seeing what Shepard him/herself actually has to sacrifice, and what they become, was unpleasant. I felt sorry for sheaprd and didn't want to see his/her very identity to be destroyed

[SubAstris]

paxxton wrote...

I think both the original and the extended ending have to be viewed in conjunction when seeking IT interpretation. Remember that the original had Shepard alive only in high-EMS Destroy. As this was the original idea it has to have precedence. Now we have Shepard alive in many endings but does that mean those aren't just indoctrination hallucinations? BioWare stated that they aren't changing the ending so the underlying concept must still be the same. The question is whether it's IT.

So...BW spent 3 months on useless dream scenes instead of either creating a proper "IT EC" or making more DLC...Unlikely

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

*SIGH* Honestly, I hoped for IT to be revealed in the EC and was a bit disappointed when it wasn't. The extended ending seems even more literal than the original one. Actually, the breath scene after Destroy serves the exact same role as the transcendence scene in Control (Shepard lives on). Maybe we should take BioWare's words more seriously and don't read between lines too much. *SIGH*

Negative, there can be no stepping back, no retreat, no stepping forward and no attacking reaper forces.

But really how can I look at this ending litterally with the enormous plotholes and problems with the ending which Bioware had 3.5 months to fix, but dident do.

Even more so they themselves said EC would not confirm or deny IT, so until someone can disprove it in its entirety I am sticking with IT. Better than having to believe in two endings which go against everything we have seen and been told over the cause of 3 games.

How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

If there was no evidence supproting it. If there was no mindcontrol ability in the series which is known to cause a wide variety of side effects many of which Shepard suffers throughout the cause of the game. If there was no giant plotholes which can be filled in so easily by IT or if said plotholes had other explanations. If there was no massively strange and ridicoulous sequences in the ending with no or few precedenst in the entire series leading up to that point.

If Bioware had not themsleves said that they would neither confirm of deny IT. Then I would consider this a delusion.

But the fact that we have not only strange happenings suggesting that not all is as it seems alongside a means that can cuase these strange quibs, a means which ahs been a major plotpoint trhoughout all 3 games, means I cannot help but feel there is more than meets the eye. 

They had three months to fix all those strange things, but just about the obnly thing they fixed was telpeorting squadmates...

Well we will disagree about evidence being convincing for IT or otherwise, I really just asked what piece, or pieces of evidence would convince that IT was not planned all along.

But he suffers from maybe dreams, but that is far from convincing. No whispers for example while walking around. If they intended IT in the game, it was incredibly poorly done in that case due to lack of symptoms.

In the same way that Shepard died at the beginning of ME2 and the rest is just a dream, or even died after contacting the Prothean Beacon, IT could fill in plotholes. That doesn't make it any more likely. All said plotholes have reasonable explanations for them without resorting to IT.

There are several moments of foreshadowing the role of the Catalyst, the Reapers being masters to the Catalyst,  the motives of the Reapers throughout ME.

Your last sentence is...unintelligible

You dont find this conclusive evidence sufficient?


Well thats ok, some people dont believe in science either. Its your opinion.


But please dont try to shove your opinion on to us.

[Fingertrip]

Leviathan of Dis.

I mean, seriously. 'Nuff said. The Catalyst is one big fat liar.

[EpyonX3]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Something else I'm wondering -

If you reject Starchild - why would it get angry with you and why would the reapers attack?

It's like you're forced to act on what Starchild feeds you.......that reason alone makes it very hard to trust.

The catalyst is based on the idea of acting for the greater good. Every rejection Shepard makes, reveals selfish undertones, "I didn't make it this far to lose everything I have", not wanting to set off the destroy option because he wants to save technology and so forth. He won't decide on behalf of the entire galaxy, but the entire galaxy still ends up paying for his decision to not act.

This annoys the catalyst, which explains the voice.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I think both the original and the extended ending have to be viewed in conjunction when seeking IT interpretation. Remember that the original had Shepard alive only in high-EMS Destroy. As this was the original idea it has to have precedence. Now we have Shepard alive in many endings but does that mean those aren't just indoctrination hallucinations? BioWare stated that they aren't changing the ending so the underlying concept must still be the same. The question is whether it's IT.

So...BW spent 3 months on useless dream scenes instead of either creating a proper "IT EC" or making more DLC...Unlikely

IT got the same if not more supprt than he litteral endings

I would of found ha unlikly to, but look at EC now...

[Rifneno]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

Having been an ITer, but now loving the extended cut, I thinks its great that the speculation can continue in a fashion where we ultimately will never have confirmation or denial, but explore the content of the game constructively.

What the hell are you talking about? The ending is still grossly violates established lore, science, and common sense. And how can anyone that was IT not understand that the IT POV still has no ending? Until they say "no, Shepard wasn't indoctrinated" and we know they completely lost their ability to write coherently in the last week of design, or they say "yes, it was indoctrination" and give us an ending that with less plot holes than Pauly Shore's career, then we're left waiting with Reapers still reaping. And... you call this constructively? This parade of "lulz it r like religin" trolls replacing all the intelligent posters who gave up after this screwjob is constructive speculation?

something strange wrote...

And if they were patching all the plot holes (ie the teleporting squad mates) WHY THE HELL did they keep the scene where Shepard looks down at his blood covered hand and magical bullet wound?

Or the TIM eyes. Or Harbinger getting up and leaving the beam unprotected. Or Anderson apparently being 2 cm behind Shepard when he obviously wasn't. Or the white light during the scene transition. In fact, I think they made the white light transition stick longer, as if to call attention to itself.

I'm starting to wonder if they thought the indoctrination part was too obvious and they were trying to tone it down on the surrealness while still keeping some hints to point that way. Though I still don't know where they're headed with the story and both logical options (a new game, or nowhere at all) I find enraging.

Fingertrip wrote...

Leviathan of Dis.

I mean, seriously. 'Nuff said. The Catalyst is one big fat liar.

Childhood obesity. Tsk tsk.

[paxxton]

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I think both the original and the extended ending have to be viewed in conjunction when seeking IT interpretation. Remember that the original had Shepard alive only in high-EMS Destroy. As this was the original idea it has to have precedence. Now we have Shepard alive in many endings but does that mean those aren't just indoctrination hallucinations? BioWare stated that they aren't changing the ending so the underlying concept must still be the same. The question is whether it's IT.

So...BW spent 3 months on useless dream scenes instead of either creating a proper "IT EC" or making more DLC...Unlikely

Because BioWare might be planning on Mass Effect 4 in which they'll reveal IT. And the game won't be free like the EC. Seriously, EA and BioWare aren't charities and IT is an enormous selling opportunity. From the business perspective giving it away for free would be like throwing money into fire. 

[EpyonX3]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

We see Shepard die for sure only in Synthesis and low-EMS Destroy. In every other he lives on in some way:

Control - trascends into a being of light (the only ending in which he speaks for himself!)
high-EMS Destroy - the breath scene
Rejection - stands still while the screen fades out to black

I disagree with Control. Shepard, the one we've been playing as dies. A new AI construct is created based on everything that Shepard was. The man talking to us is not Shepard.

I just watched the control ending on youtube and I found it realllyyy unpleasant. It was well done and had a good message, the change to shepard was just too unnerving. It left a bad taste in the mouth which I think was intentional, it's by far for me the saddest ending to see what sheaprd has to give

This ending ensures survival of organics, ends the war and empowers organics by giving them the technology and resources to build a better future (not destroying what they have already achieved and starting all over again like in Destroy). Shepard loses his body but his mind serves as a basis for the new Shepard. The new Catalyst doesn't want to harvest organic civilizations but commands the Reapers to help them rebuild after the war. How can you not see the potential in this solution? And it's not that organics have to do what Shepard wants. He says that many have their own voice. (that leaves the possibility of future organics vs synthetics war still open which is exactly what the old Catalyst told Shepard would always happen (even before the Reapers were created it was so)).

I'm not questioning the viability of the ending. It has huge potential and the messgae at the end is a hopeful one, but just seeing what Shepard him/herself actually has to sacrifice, and what they become, was unpleasant. I felt sorry for sheaprd and didn't want to see his/her very identity to be destroyed

That and Catalyst Shepard is aware of his friends existence but cannot comunicate with them. No one else speaks reaper, I'm guessing. Or he gets locked away on the Citadel.

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

I don't believe in IT, but I am curious about its present state: can someone give me a short summary of why, post-EC, there are still arguments to be found in favor of it?

[SubAstris]

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


How would anyone ever be able to disprove IT in its entirety? What sort of evidence would an ITer look for?

Mac and Casey come out and say that IT, while clever, was never intended (or more likely removed earlier in development). Boom. Done. They could also explain why starkid goes all reaper on us in "reject" too.

I think even then a good number of hardcore ITers would reject that given some of their remarks. Especially after the message at the end, "Shepard has defeated the Reapers, become a legend, we at BW would like to thank you". This is a personal message to the player him/herself stating very clearly that the Reaper threat has been ended.

Nah, generic "Thanks for playing!", wouldn't do it. An actual interview with the writers where they actually sit down and ANSWER some of the nagging fan questions. From a literalist perspective the EC was a big improvement, and of course from an IT perspective I absolutely hated it. 

But I would regain complete faith in Bioware if Mac and Casey would come out and explain some of their design choices, and apologize for this mess. "You know, it was stupid for Tali's face reveal to be a crude photoshop. It was stupid to not see your war assets in action. It was stupid that we didn't assume the galaxy was destroyed when we blew up the relays. We learned a lot from our mistakes in ME3, and I can promise you we will never make them again."

That would sway a lot of minds back into Bioware's corner, including mine.

I think you are missing the point. It's not necessarily the fact that they said "Thank you!" but that they addressed the player directly. That means the bit beforehand was also addressed directly to the player, the fact that Shepard defeated the Reapers. This means that IT cannot be correct unless BW, for some unknown reason (just to troll people I guess), lied when they made that message.

For my mind, the EC was decent; it had its own niggles and problems, but it gave a much better explanation for some of the events.

I agree it would. But you believe in IT, with all it subtle clues such as "infrasound" in dreams, trees in the Catalyst room etc (I have heard a lot of absurd pieces of evidence). They pay attention to little things that only a handful of their player base will ever find, but when it comes to things like Tali's face, a big thing for a lot of people, they don't try? Seems very very odd

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

We see Shepard die for sure only in Synthesis and low-EMS Destroy. In every other he lives on in some way:

Control - trascends into a being of light (the only ending in which he speaks for himself!)
high-EMS Destroy - the breath scene
Rejection - stands still while the screen fades out to black

I disagree with Control. Shepard, the one we've been playing as dies. A new AI construct is created based on everything that Shepard was. The man talking to us is not Shepard.

I just watched the control ending on youtube and I found it realllyyy unpleasant. It was well done and had a good message, the change to shepard was just too unnerving. It left a bad taste in the mouth which I think was intentional, it's by far for me the saddest ending to see what sheaprd has to give

This ending ensures survival of organics, ends the war and empowers organics by giving them the technology and resources to build a better future (not destroying what they have already achieved and starting all over again like in Destroy). Shepard loses his body but his mind serves as a basis for the new Shepard. The new Catalyst doesn't want to harvest organic civilizations but commands the Reapers to help them rebuild after the war. How can you not see the potential in this solution? And it's not that organics have to do what Shepard wants. He says that many have their own voice. (that leaves the possibility of future organics vs synthetics war still open which is exactly what the old Catalyst told Shepard would always happen (even before the Reapers were created it was so)).

I'm not questioning the viability of the ending. It has huge potential and the messgae at the end is a hopeful one, but just seeing what Shepard him/herself actually has to sacrifice, and what they become, was unpleasant. I felt sorry for sheaprd and didn't want to see his/her very identity to be destroyed

That and Catalyst Shepard is aware of his friends existence but cannot comunicate with them. No one else speaks reaper, I'm guessing. Or he gets locked away on the Citadel.

One word: sacrifice. There are no crystally good solutions during a war. And seeing the new Shepard I think it wasn't too big a sacrifice for what can now be done after the war.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 juin 2012 - 01:37 .

[Sero303]

paxxton wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

paxxton wrote...

I think both the original and the extended ending have to be viewed in conjunction when seeking IT interpretation. Remember that the original had Shepard alive only in high-EMS Destroy. As this was the original idea it has to have precedence. Now we have Shepard alive in many endings but does that mean those aren't just indoctrination hallucinations? BioWare stated that they aren't changing the ending so the underlying concept must still be the same. The question is whether it's IT.

So...BW spent 3 months on useless dream scenes instead of either creating a proper "IT EC" or making more DLC...Unlikely

Because BioWare might be planning on Mass Effect 4 in which they'll reveal IT. And the game won't be free like the EC. Seriously, EA and BioWare aren't charities and IT is an enormous selling opportunity. From the business perspective giving it away for free would be like throwing money into fire. 

I would like to believe that, I really would, that there will be a Mass Effect 4, continuing Shepard story about fighting the reapers. Unfortunately I doubt it, very seriously, this is like when Halo 3 came out/ended. This is different. I am not holding out hope for another game with Shepard and his crew ( Garrus, Tali, Liara, Ash, Joker ). I would like to hope, but that little God-Child took it all away. Thanks bioware!

[Earthborn_Shepard]

I have to say, some of the IT people are really clinging to it. Let's face it, Bioware never intended it. It was a fun theory, but not planned.

You can keep believing in it if you want, of course, but some of you start to sound fanatic.

[llbountyhunter]

Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...

I don't believe in IT, but I am curious about its present state: can someone give me a short summary of why, post-EC, there are still arguments to be found in favor of it?

We'll EC itself added new evidence.

The refuse option supports IT
The catalyst is now harbinger.
The normandy is ignored by harbinger(maybe)
The control ending is a violation of shepard and the lore.
The destroy ending makes less sense now.

[paxxton]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

I have to say, some of the IT people are really clinging to it. Let's face it, Bioware never intended it. It was a fun theory, but not planned.

You can keep believing in it if you want, of course, but some of you start to sound fanatic.

Really? Who?