55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Lord Luc1fer]

Rifneno wrote...

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?

I'm sorry for voicing an opinion, I'll refrain from doing so in future. You seem to be of the opinoin that mass effect will only ever have a good ending if IT is confirmed, so you're disappointed in the EC, and that's fine, you have every right to be. But please don't take your agner at bioware out on me. I liked the new ending scenes and I simply commented on how in my opinion they leave everything open in the fairest way possibly to the entire fanbase, which consists of both ITers and anti ITers. I realise there's been lots of trolling on this thread lately but my post wasn't any kind of trolling, and I assure you if it came out that way it was completely unintentional as the tone of post probably should reflect, so please don't be so agressive.

[Daryslash]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

Well said, I'm with you.

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

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.

I agree. That's what makes it sadder.

[Rifneno]

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.

I'd tell you what you sound like, but forum rules and all that.  

[SubAstris]

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. 

First, that assumes that BW will do another ME which includes an extension of Shepard's story, which they have said many times they won't. Nor do I really see a 30 game being made after Shepard wakes up; this after all is the final battle and could perhaps be 2 hours or so, but nowhere near enough to be a whole game.

IT could be potentially profitable, however support for it among the general ME3 player base isn't that high and is dropping like flies after this EC.

It still makes a nonsense of the supposed dream scenes in the EC though. It would be like throwing money into the fire

[Sero303]

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.

You are probably right, but if the pieces fit, then why not use it? It wasn't "planned" but it sure as hell would have been better than what we got, times two!

I for one will keep believing in it, because the only other choice is to accept what they gave us and beg for more like we should be grateful for the table scraps they throw at us. Sorry not me, but I am not about to send cupcakes to them or protest. The fact is if they choose to alienate their keyfan base, so be it!

[paxxton]

Sero303 wrote...

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!

In about 1-1.5 years I suppose we'll get to know where ME is headed. It always good to have hope because it makes people achieve goals that are otherwise out of their grasp.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 juin 2012 - 01:43 .

[Earthborn_Shepard]

Rifneno wrote...

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.

I'd tell you what you sound like, but forum rules and all that.  

No need to get insulting. I love IT. But that's exactly what I mean. Mention that maybe, perhaps, IT might not have been planned, and for some you're the antichrist.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

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.

"some don't believe in science"- Sorry what are you on? That's just rubbish, and you know it is

[Lord Luc1fer]

paxxton wrote...

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.

But it was to me the hardest kind of sacrifice as Epyon said, shep is cut off from his loved ones, and to me, eternal existence would be an awful fate.

[SubAstris]

Fingertrip wrote...

Leviathan of Dis.

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

What? You can tell from the name of the titled of as yet undisclosed DLC that the Catalyst is lying. Come on, that's a little farfetch'd

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

llbountyhunter wrote...

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.

OK, I will accept that Refuse does very heavily imply Star Child being Harbinger, with the "SO BE IT" response.

However, how does 'Control' violate Shepard and the Lore?
And how does 'Destroy' make less sense now? In case of this one, I can imagine that, if you view the slideshow as being in chronological sequence, it might raise some odd things, but I suspect that the rebulding sequences takes place far, far after the dedication ceremony and any potential rescue of Shepard.

[Daryslash]

 You seem to be of the opinoin that mass effect will only ever have a good ending if IT is confirmed, so you're disappointed in the EC, and that's fine, you have every right to be.  

I know you're not talking to me, but let me try to clarify something in his behalf, as his opinion is the same as mine.

You got that wrong if you think he is saying the only good ending is IT confirmed. You got it really wrong.
He is saying being left in the dark is completely bul****. He wants an ending that makes sense, IT or not.

[Lord Luc1fer]

What is this stuff about leviathan of dis dlc? link anywhere?

[SubAstris]

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?

In brief, it doesn't add anything to IT. In fact I would argue that it goes against it, but that is my opinion (although it is valid)

[Samuel_Valkyrie]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

What is this stuff about leviathan of dis dlc? link anywhere?

http://social.biowar...ndex/12777408/1 

[Sero303]

After the wife and I finished laughing and making fun of bioware for their latest offense. She asked me, even with IT, how would you end it? because IT is NOT a definitive ending, more like a neat "substory" that "resets" the ending for the player...
Honestly I would use IT, the "original ending" was IT, and you have to mind battle Harbinger, and go through the various endings, but after Shepard defeat the indoctrination he walks up on Earth, just after Harbinger attacks, and THAT is where I would end it. Leaving the door open for Mass Effect 4, to conclude the fight with the Reapers.

Think about from a purely financial position, why wouldn't EA/Bioware want another game to suck more life...I mean money out of us?

[lex0r11]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

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.

I'd tell you what you sound like, but forum rules and all that.  

No need to get insulting. I love IT. But that's exactly what I mean. Mention that maybe, perhaps, IT might not have been planned, and for some you're the antichrist.

This whole thing right here makes me sad.

[Rifneno]

Earthborn_Shepard wrote...

No need to get insulting. I love IT. But that's exactly what I mean. Mention that maybe, perhaps, IT might not have been planned, and for some you're the antichrist.

Hilarious.  You come in here and call us fanatics, and then play the victim when you're treated in the same tone.   "Let's face it, Bioware never intended it."  That's a pretty definitive statement.  There's no if's and's or but's.  Especially not after saying people who think otherwise are "fanatics."  Now all of a sudden it's "maybe, perhaps they didn't"?  Oh please, do backpeddle faster.

EC only shows that they aren't intending some grand DLC right around the corner.  It doesn't mean they "accidentally" created a DLC about a character being indoctrinated through dream-based guilt trips then gave Shepard a bunch of dream-based guilt trips reeking of indoctrination symptoms.  That's kind of hard to do on accident.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

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.

"some don't believe in science"- Sorry what are you on? That's just rubbish, and you know it is

By science that means science theories, like evolution and quantom mechanics. Wich some people still dont believe in.

There you go again failing to connect the dots. Geeze you literalist need everything spelled out.... no wonder you cant see IT even though its so obviouse.

[BalianOfIbelin]

I agree with using IT in an ending, and I wrote one that allows for potential ME4 and beyond. Check it out and let me know what you think:
http://social.biowar.../index/11739343

Modifié par BalianOfIbelin, 27 juin 2012 - 01:49 .

[Super-Model]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

What is this stuff about leviathan of dis dlc? link anywhere?

http://social.biowar...ndex/12777408/1

There ya go

[NoSpin]

SubAstris wrote...

Fingertrip wrote...

Leviathan of Dis.

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

What? You can tell from the name of the titled of as yet undisclosed DLC that the Catalyst is lying. Come on, that's a little farfetch'd

You can read some of the dialog from the DLC in the text file. Check the thread. The Catalyst come out very negatively.

[paxxton]

Lord Luc1fer wrote...

paxxton wrote...

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.

But it was to me the hardest kind of sacrifice as Epyon said, shep is cut off from his loved ones, and to me, eternal existence would be an awful fate.

Sacrifices are scarcely pleasant when they have to be made but I wouldn't mind infinite existence as a perfect being.

Modifié par paxxton, 27 juin 2012 - 01:56 .

[MegumiAzusa]

My take on why Opt Out aka refuse is the new true option.

Just look at the new final sequence:
First off: the woman (yay for Wynnes VA, it just fits when you have played DAO) looks like an Asari, but with additional small spikes at about the height of the ear, this could be just evolution, or it could be something like an Asari/Turian hybrid.

Now the text:

"Did that all really happen?"
"We'll never know exactly what it was like, but yes. The Archives tell the true story of whose who came before us. ..."
It is never said if it is the next cycle or species who survived the Reaper war.

"... They fought a terrible war so we wouldn't have to."
This could be interpreted as the Reapers are defeated.

"And that's why we have peace?"
"Yes, without everything they accomplished, ..."
Defeated the Reapers?

"... without the information they passed down we too would be threatened."
Information about peaceful coexistence between Organics and Synthetics?

Sure it could be they only severely weakened the Reapers and the information was used to build countermeasures but as stated in ME1 the Reapers are thorough in their destruction and I can't believe they could let more behind than the Protheans. It is still presumed the Prothean beacons were corrupted, Nazara tells Shep she touches its mind after interfacing with one. Also the Catalyst avoids the question of who designed the Crucible and then proceeds to tell us they thought they had destroyed the plans? With all their spies? Seriously?
Oh and the full Reaper Rage Mode for the "So be it." is very strange.

In my opinion they had to change red and implement this new ending to keep the facade up so you couldn't just see "oh destroy is clearly different".