55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Sero303]

Xavendithas wrote...

Overdrive1493 wrote...

Amidst all the arguing and illogical complication, this fact remains:

IT simply cannot be true, because if that were the case, if all the evidence adds up, if we've got an undeniable theory that 100% has to be true here...

We've got a game with no ending.

Neither Bioware or EA are that stupid to think that people are going to pay for a real ending. Then again, the weeping idiots around here saying they're willing to throw $20 down a drain for digital images to gain "closure" might be the target audience for that.

EA are greedy bastards. If they really wanted to, they could feed off this IT and charge for a real ending, but it's just too much of a risk for them. Not one game in history has done that before. There is no way it was planned from the start.

One could argue that the Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2 was the 'real' ending for that game. Or at the very least, that you payed for an Epilogue.

didnt pay for it, watched what I needed on youtube

[munnellyladt]

byne wrote...

Overdrive1493 wrote...

Amidst all the arguing and illogical complication, this fact remains:

IT simply cannot be true, because if that were the case, if all the evidence adds up, if we've got an undeniable theory that 100% has to be true here...

We've got a game with no ending.

Neither Bioware or EA are that stupid to think that people are going to pay for a real ending. Then again, the weeping idiots around here saying they're willing to throw $20 down a drain for digital images to gain "closure" might be the target audience for that.

EA are greedy bastards. If they really wanted to, they could feed off this IT and charge for a real ending, but it's just too much of a risk for them. Not one game in history has done that before. There is no way it was planned from the start.

Are... are you honestly trying to argue that no game in history has charged for a real ending?

I can think of two, right off the bat: Asura's Wrath and Fallout 3.

Also don't forget about prince of persia.

[Uncle Jo]

Trollgunner wrote...

Just a mere question : After getting your hand on EC, how many of you picked Refuse option('cuz of cool Shepard's speech) on your first re-visit on citadel?

Picked it as first choice (thought its outcome would be affected the EMS, but no). Did the others to see what it looks like,. Since then Reject is my canon ending.

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

The message after Stargazer scene congratulates the player on ending the Reaper threat. But choosing Reject leaves the war going on. Am I missing something here?

The reapers are destroyed in the next cycle. They attribute the victory to Shepard anyway because he made it possible. The reapers took heavy losses in our push to the Citadel. The story of how one man united a galaxy must have kept the future cycle from splitting apart in preparation for the reapers.

[Arian Dynas]

Xavendithas wrote...

Overdrive1493 wrote...

Amidst all the arguing and illogical complication, this fact remains:

IT simply cannot be true, because if that were the case, if all the evidence adds up, if we've got an undeniable theory that 100% has to be true here...

We've got a game with no ending.

Neither Bioware or EA are that stupid to think that people are going to pay for a real ending. Then again, the weeping idiots around here saying they're willing to throw $20 down a drain for digital images to gain "closure" might be the target audience for that.

EA are greedy bastards. If they really wanted to, they could feed off this IT and charge for a real ending, but it's just too much of a risk for them. Not one game in history has done that before. There is no way it was planned from the start.

One could argue that the Arrival DLC for Mass Effect 2 was the 'real' ending for that game. Or at the very least, that you payed for an Epilogue.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*buzzers and alarm bells*

THIS

[BatmanTurian]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Also, BatmanTurian, thanks for the words, they'e encouraging.

You're welcome. I'm fine with us only being partially right. I've read people who have come in here and wanted us to admit that we were outright wrong, but we weren't exactly. Something was going on and IT was a part of it, just not the huge part that we thought it was.

[Sero303]

munnellyladt wrote...

byne wrote...

Overdrive1493 wrote...

Amidst all the arguing and illogical complication, this fact remains:

IT simply cannot be true, because if that were the case, if all the evidence adds up, if we've got an undeniable theory that 100% has to be true here...

We've got a game with no ending.

Neither Bioware or EA are that stupid to think that people are going to pay for a real ending. Then again, the weeping idiots around here saying they're willing to throw $20 down a drain for digital images to gain "closure" might be the target audience for that.

EA are greedy bastards. If they really wanted to, they could feed off this IT and charge for a real ending, but it's just too much of a risk for them. Not one game in history has done that before. There is no way it was planned from the start.

Are... are you honestly trying to argue that no game in history has charged for a real ending?

I can think of two, right off the bat: Asura's Wrath and Fallout 3.

Also don't forget about prince of persia.

I'm really glad I just lost interest in Fallout 3 after 30 minutes and never finished it

[llbountyhunter]

Lord Goose wrote...

Except, if you killed the rachni queen in ME1, and saved the fake rachni queen in ME3, the Reapers have verifiably had indoctrinated agents working on the Crucible, yet he still acts like he didnt know about it.

Two possible explanation.

1. Rachni Breeder is not indoctrinated. She is just insane. Why I think so? She is nearly identical to real Rachni Queen. Like real Queen she is kept on Uttuku, chained by Reaper's technology. Like real one she is tormented by sound of "machines". Like real Queen she feels that her "children" are silent. But her psyche is clearly less stable. She call herself monster (self-esteem issues), her promises to "fight the machines" are hysterical etc. So, I guess, it is plausible, that she just went berserk on the Crucible and was killed.

2. Reapers may not consider Crucible to be real threat for them. Without Catalyst it is essentially useless for races of the galaxy, and where is no real chance, that this machine would even work.

That quote would fit whether IT or the literal endings were their intention. It doesnt prove anything one way or another.

But according to IT, we have no ending at all. I mean, Shepard wakes up in the rubble, but the Reapers are still here, and something must be done to defeat them. Essentially, IT requires new ending, to see how Shepard stopped the Reapers. Or we have game with no ending at all.

No,  IT can be used to defeat the reapers.

[Lord Goose]

Um they did because Saren was AT ILLOS and how the hell did Sovrgien even know about Illos in the First PLACE.

They KNEW ABOUT THE CRUCIBLE AND THE PROTHEIN BECAONS AND YA I bet they new about Illos and Liaras plain because They are all knowing.

When, they are just stupid like that. Because, if they knew about Ilos, they allowed Protheans to sabotage Keepers.

Although, if you think about it, they might have known about sabotage when Keepers didn't responded to their signal, and Sovereign had to start picking pieces of puzzle together.

[Xavendithas]

The EC removed some of the weakest and most circumstantial evidence we were using to back up the IT(my opinion). It added a couple of crucial points which I feel are really big.

1. What exactly was happening to Shepard when s/he is jolted back to awareness upon arriving to the Citadel? That sudden jolt coincides with the exact moment that "Admiral" Anderson starts speaking to Shepard.

2. Why didn't Harbinger take the chance to destroy the Normandy? Having watched that scene a couple times, it seems to me as if he knows Shepard isn't on board and has lost interest. He appears to be entirely interested in Shepard.

For a moment, let's forget about the subtle(and not so subtle) changes the EC made in the final 30 minutes of the game. Granted we won't be able to say with certainty until we play through the game from start to finish with the EC modifications made to the game, but I can't imagine that they have gone back and removed all the evidence that existed throughout the rest of the game pointing to IT.

They have shown that they were paying attention to the criticisms of the fans. While it's frustrating, we just got the ending that we should have had 3 months ago. We haven't taken any steps forward, and we certainly haven't taken any steps backwards. I can live with that.

I encourage everyone to be patient. What Bungie/MS did with the Halo series should not be forgotten, because it applies directly to what we are dealing with here. Bungie stated on multiple occasions that Halo 3 would be the end of the Halo storyline, possibly even Master Chiefs last story. But what we got was an easter egg available under the condition of beating the game on Legendary that showed Master Chief still alive. Years later, we are getting Halo4. Not just a new series featuring Master Chief, but Halo 4. The one thing they promised wasn't going to happen. EA isn't going to let this series fade into obscurity, there is too much money to be made here.

BioWare clearly has something more in store. The progression of the MP DLC is leading directly towards an Earth themed DLC. They are obviously still telling the story in 'real time' through multiplayer, and I will be extremely surprised if we don't get a payed DLC pack(single player) at the same time as we get the Operation Blah Blah(Earth) multiplayer event and whatever free Earth themed multiplayer DLC they release.

I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop there. BioWare isn't done with this story. If they are, they aren't nearly as smart as I try to give them credit for.

edit: I put this up in the group for discussion a little bit ago, but wanted to throw it up out here to help facilitate some productive conversation. Futile gesture, probably.

Modifié par Xavendithas, 27 juin 2012 - 06:02 .

[Arian Dynas]

BatmanTurian wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

LT123 wrote...

@BatmanTurian

Thanks for your long post.

That made a lot of sense, especially the bits about the Hero's Journey.

Destroy is the only choice that makes any sense thematically.

Thank you for your confirmation that someone read it. I thought maybe it might get lost in all of this illogical arguing.

I read it too BT. It's a good post. I just hope that BW isnt going to leave the ending up to interpretation forever. I not only want and expect an answer eventually, but I also expect them to fulfill their other promises such as Rachni being involved in the ending and seeing your war assets take part. 

Well, I looked at the ending objectively and these are the conclusions I came up with. They make logical sense to me but if others feel I am wrong, I'm willing to debate or talk about it.

Personally, I am in total agreement with ya. 

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Lord Goose wrote...

Except, if you killed the rachni queen in ME1, and saved the fake rachni queen in ME3, the Reapers have verifiably had indoctrinated agents working on the Crucible, yet he still acts like he didnt know about it.

Two possible explanation.

1. Rachni Breeder is not indoctrinated. She is just insane. Why I think so? She is nearly identical to real Rachni Queen. Like real Queen she is kept on Uttuku, chained by Reaper's technology. Like real one she is tormented by sound of "machines". Like real Queen she feels that her "children" are silent. But her psyche is clearly less stable. She call herself monster (self-esteem issues), her promises to "fight the machines" are hysterical etc. So, I guess, it is plausible, that she just went berserk on the Crucible and was killed.

2. Reapers may not consider Crucible to be real threat for them. Without Catalyst it is essentially useless for races of the galaxy, and where is no real chance, that this machine would even work.

That quote would fit whether IT or the literal endings were their intention. It doesnt prove anything one way or another.

But according to IT, we have no ending at all. I mean, Shepard wakes up in the rubble, but the Reapers are still here, and something must be done to defeat them. Essentially, IT requires new ending, to see how Shepard stopped the Reapers. Or we have game with no ending at all.

No,  IT can be used to defeat the reapers.

You still have not explained how a battle in Shepard's mind means he defeats the Reapers in the outside world

[byne]

Uncle Jo wrote...

Trollgunner wrote...

Just a mere question : After getting your hand on EC, how many of you picked Refuse option('cuz of cool Shepard's speech) on your first re-visit on citadel?

Picked it as first choice (thought its outcome would be affected the EMS, but no). Did the others to see what it looks like,. Since then Reject is my canon ending.

It seems like they didnt put any work into reject at all. It should have had an epilogue narrated by Liara accounting how we lost the war, and what happened as the Reapers wiped everyone out. I say narrated by Liara, because then we could assume it is her time capsule thingy telling us what happened.

I like the idea  of having a reject ending, but I dont like the implementation, if that makes sense.

[EpyonX3]

Lord Goose wrote...


2. Reapers may not consider Crucible to be real threat for them. Without Catalyst it is essentially useless for races of the galaxy, and where is no real chance, that this machine would even work.

That and they even know who first created it. This partly goes against what I believed, that the reapers didn't know what the crucible was. They knew, but they also didn't know how it worked until it was docked.

[Cecilia L]

Trollgunner wrote...

Just a mere question : After getting your hand on EC, how many of you picked Refuse option('cuz of cool Shepard's speech) on your first re-visit on citadel?

I meant to pick DESTROY, but got refuse by accident when I shot Starbinger

[Lokanaiya]

Since it looks like there probably won't be another ending DLC and even if there is it would be a long ways away, I had an idea. How about we collectively write our own IT ending (Like Jessica Merizan said we should, trolls) where Shepard gets up and defeats the Reapers if he picked Destroy (maybe Refusal also) or helps the Reapers if he chose Control/Synthesis. I have a few ideas about how it could work, but what does everyone else (non-troll) think?

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

The message after Stargazer scene congratulates the player on ending the Reaper threat. But choosing Reject leaves the war going on. Am I missing something here?

The reapers are destroyed in the next cycle. They attribute the victory to Shepard anyway because he made it possible. The reapers took heavy losses in our push to the Citadel. The story of how one man united a galaxy must have kept the future cycle from splitting apart in preparation for the reapers.

Wow. You must have played some yet-unreleased post-ending DLC. Because the Reapers controlled almost the whole Galaxy just before the Battle of Earth. And the last place I saw all the forces of the Galaxy was near Earth.

[byne]

Sero303 wrote...


I'm really glad I just lost interest in Fallout 3 after 30 minutes and never finished it

Well, thats your loss I suppose.

Despite charging for an ending DLC being kind of a shady business practice, the ending DLC itself was pretty damned good and worth every penny.

[Cecilia L]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Since it looks like there probably won't be another ending DLC and even if there is it would be a long ways away, I had an idea. How about we collectively write our own IT ending (Like Jessica Merizan said we should, trolls) where Shepard gets up and defeats the Reapers if he picked Destroy (maybe Refusal also) or helps the Reapers if he chose Control/Synthesis. I have a few ideas about how it could work, but what does everyone else (non-troll) think?

I'm still hoping for a ME4 announcement at Comic Con.

[Lord Goose]

No, IT can be used to defeat the reapers.

Currents ending are:

1. Commander Shepard used Crucible to destroy Reapers.
2. Commander Shepard used Crucible to control Reapers.
3. Commander Shepard used Crucible to synthesise Reapers.
4. Commander Shepard refused to use Crucible. Bad end.

If IT is true, where should be new ending.

1. Commander Shepard defeated Reapers in mind to mind battle, and they all died.

Logic.

[Trollgunner]

Oh, and last thing about Refuse end, that I wanted to ask about. Ahem, do you think it's funny how at first bioware tells us: " No new endings, period" and then " We thought it would be fun to add a whole new ending with a different stargazer with a silhouette of asari and the only different last message about that war still continues" ?

[Overdrive1493]

Xavendithas wrote...

The EC removed some of the weakest and most circumstantial evidence we were using to back up the IT(my opinion). It added a couple of crucial points which I feel are really big.

1. What exactly was happening to Shepard when s/he is jolted back to awareness upon arriving to the Citadel? That sudden jolt coincides with the exact moment that "Admiral" Anderson starts speaking to Shepard.

2. Why didn't Harbinger take the chance to destroy the Normandy? Having watched that scene a couple times, it seems to me as if he knows Shepard isn't on board and has lost interest. He appears to be entirely interested in Shepard.

For a moment, let's forget about the subtle(and not so subtle) changes the EC made in the final 30 minutes of the game. Granted we won't be able to say with certainty until we play through the game from start to finish with the EC modifications made to the game, but I can't imagine that they have gone back and removed all the evidence that existed throughout the rest of the game pointing to IT.

They have shown that they were paying attention to the criticisms of the fans. While it's frustrating, we just got the ending that we should have had 3 months ago. We haven't taken any steps forward, and we certainly haven't taken any steps backwards. I can live with that.

I encourage everyone to be patient. What Bungie/MS did with the Halo series should not be forgotten, because it applies directly to what we are dealing with here. Bungie stated on multiple occasions that Halo 3 would be the end of the Halo storyline, possibly even Master Chiefs last story. But what we got was an easter egg available under the condition of beating the game on Legendary that showed Master Chief still alive. Years later, we are getting Halo4. Not just a new series featuring Master Chief, but Halo 4. The one thing they promised wasn't going to happen. EA isn't going to let this series fade into obscurity, there is too much money to be made here.

BioWare clearly has something more in store. The progression of the MP DLC is leading directly towards an Earth themed DLC. They are obviously still telling the story in 'real time' through multiplayer, and I will be extremely surprised if we don't get a payed DLC pack(single player) at the same time as we get the Operation Blah Blah(Earth) multiplayer event and whatever free Earth themed multiplayer DLC they release.

I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop there. BioWare isn't done with this story. If they are, they aren't nearly as smart as I try to give them credit for.

edit: I put this up in the group for discussion a little bit ago, but wanted to throw it up out here to help facilitate some productive conversation. Futile gesture, probably.

They couldn't have te Normandy shot out of the sky. They had to stay within the confines set by their original endings and make it make sense with what they could exploit. Rather than seeing your 2 squaddies on the ship at the end with no explaination, we have one now. It's crude, but effective.

[Tirian Thorn]

[byne]

Lord Goose wrote...

No, IT can be used to defeat the reapers.

Currents ending are:

1. Commander Shepard used Crucible to destroy Reapers.
2. Commander Shepard used Crucible to control Reapers.
3. Commander Shepard used Crucible to synthesise Reapers.
4. Commander Shepard refused to use Crucible. Bad end.

If IT is true, where should be new ending.

1. Commander Shepard defeated Reapers in mind to mind battle, and they all died.

Logic.

You cant just include logic as the last word in your post and expect that to make up for the post's logic quota.

[Xavendithas]

Overdrive1493 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

The EC removed some of the weakest and most circumstantial evidence we were using to back up the IT(my opinion). It added a couple of crucial points which I feel are really big.

1. What exactly was happening to Shepard when s/he is jolted back to awareness upon arriving to the Citadel? That sudden jolt coincides with the exact moment that "Admiral" Anderson starts speaking to Shepard.

2. Why didn't Harbinger take the chance to destroy the Normandy? Having watched that scene a couple times, it seems to me as if he knows Shepard isn't on board and has lost interest. He appears to be entirely interested in Shepard.

For a moment, let's forget about the subtle(and not so subtle) changes the EC made in the final 30 minutes of the game. Granted we won't be able to say with certainty until we play through the game from start to finish with the EC modifications made to the game, but I can't imagine that they have gone back and removed all the evidence that existed throughout the rest of the game pointing to IT.

They have shown that they were paying attention to the criticisms of the fans. While it's frustrating, we just got the ending that we should have had 3 months ago. We haven't taken any steps forward, and we certainly haven't taken any steps backwards. I can live with that.

I encourage everyone to be patient. What Bungie/MS did with the Halo series should not be forgotten, because it applies directly to what we are dealing with here. Bungie stated on multiple occasions that Halo 3 would be the end of the Halo storyline, possibly even Master Chiefs last story. But what we got was an easter egg available under the condition of beating the game on Legendary that showed Master Chief still alive. Years later, we are getting Halo4. Not just a new series featuring Master Chief, but Halo 4. The one thing they promised wasn't going to happen. EA isn't going to let this series fade into obscurity, there is too much money to be made here.

BioWare clearly has something more in store. The progression of the MP DLC is leading directly towards an Earth themed DLC. They are obviously still telling the story in 'real time' through multiplayer, and I will be extremely surprised if we don't get a payed DLC pack(single player) at the same time as we get the Operation Blah Blah(Earth) multiplayer event and whatever free Earth themed multiplayer DLC they release.

I feel like I'm rambling, so I'll stop there. BioWare isn't done with this story. If they are, they aren't nearly as smart as I try to give them credit for.

edit: I put this up in the group for discussion a little bit ago, but wanted to throw it up out here to help facilitate some productive conversation. Futile gesture, probably.

They couldn't have te Normandy shot out of the sky. They had to stay within the confines set by their original endings and make it make sense with what they could exploit. Rather than seeing your 2 squaddies on the ship at the end with no explaination, we have one now. It's crude, but effective.

At the very least, they could have show Harby taking a couple shots at the Normandy to solidify the idea the he wasn't just ignoring them to focus on Shepard. Considering that scene was new, it wouldn't have been difficult to add.