55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Big_Boss9]

HellishFiend wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

I don't know if I've ever really called it my "head canon", as I try and stay critical, but the evidence still compels me to say that IT is still viable and it is certainly the most intruiging possibility. As to clarification- if they will, it will be some time and likely not be verbal, but as a DLC or new game. Right now, they seem to be playing the fence and I dislike that, greatly. It's simply gone on for too long...

 i agree with you,and i know ive posted this before, but stuff like this doesnt help

You realize that could easily be a play on words, right?

definitive version of the endings to the Mass Effect trilogy 

"endings to the Mass Effect trilogy" does not imply that there will not be content chronologically before or after the endings that confirms IT

 and the final resolution of Commander Shepard’s journey 

Just because Shepard's journey is considered resolved does not imply that content from another perspective could not confirm IT. 

We have no plans to release further content related to the endings. 

Same as the first one. Releasing no "further content related to the endings" does not imply that there will not be content chronologically before or after the endings that confirms IT.

Really, Hellish? Really? That's quite the feat of mental gymnastics you're doing there. I do not think IT has been discredited as an interpretation of the ending, but your insistence that BW will, at some point, drop this huge reveal after the majority of the gaming community has moved on is just asking for massive disappointment on your part.

[jgibson14352]

HellishFiend wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

..i think youre seeing stuff thats not there. his post seemed rather definite. earlier in this thread i was convinced not to take what he said so seriously, but the fact his he said it, and it does carry weight, him being in the bioware team. 
i DO agree with your point that it can be confirmed or denied from a different perspective, but whose? and how would this benefit/satisfy the player?

And I think you're allowing a clever play on words to cause you to draw conclusions that arent there. I've said it before and I'll say it again. I am quite versed in the art of hiding lies within truths, and I can guarantee you that if I were them and trying to hide the upcoming Indoctrination reveal, I would be saying those exact. same. things. 

alright, looking back on the post, i can see a way out of "difinitive version of the endings". i dont agree with your conclusion. but i can see how you came to it.
"final resolution to Commander Shepard's journey" is pretty set in stone though, there is no way out of that

[Andromidius]

Wolfram Tarant wrote...

Also Bioware know has four endings which means if we have four endings and if they wanted to do more ME games they will have to consider the Choice that Shepard made that will determine the future of the galaxy. And if they don't then that's just very lazy and that proves the endings are to much for Bioware to handle yet alone create one game that involves all the endings that are in ME3 just to bring into ME4.

Really? Accounting for every possible ending after the EC in a post-reaper ME game would be an ENORMOUS challenge. Regarding save game transfers, just look at ME2 and ME3... it didn't make a very profound impact. It's completely illogical to assume that Bioware has had to craft an entirely unique experience for every scenario.

IF there's another Mass Effect, I would like to start from scratch and not have to worry about choices I may or may not have made in a previous game.

To be honest, it wouldn't be as complicated as it seems.

Firstly, the endings are actually all very similar from an IT perspective.  Either Shepard is Indoctrinated (game over, or an alternate storyline) or Shepard breaks free and the war continues.  All you need to do is have the same old checklist on who's alive and does which role in the story (note that past actions in ME1 and ME2 do no effect what Shepard does during the campaign - Shepard still goes to Mars, Palavan, Sur'kesh, Tuchunka, Rannoch, Sanctuary and then Cronos Station and Earth.  Shepard still meets the same characters (or their replacements if they are dead) and they still give Shepard the same information or help with minor variations.

There are no big sweeping changes that effect the rest of the plot, doesn't matter if you saved the Quarians or Geth or cured the Krogan Genophage - you still get your big fleet and army and fight your way to Starbinger.  Cerberus are still (apperently) defeated and the Mass Effect relays are still (apperently) damaged.  Doesn't matter what happened, the same outcome occurs.

The only sweeping changes happen AFTER your final choice, and these would only give two outcomes according to IT - continue the fight, or Game Over (or play an alternate campaign as a Reaper agent).

So its only a matter of ticking off who died and who was recruited into the allied fleet, and then a yes/no option for minor plotpoints.  It wouldn't be like a completely different story would need to be crafted for each ending, not at all.

[Big_Boss9]

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

v0rt3x22 wrote...

Double post

It's on the HTL forums. I looked into it after it happened. HTL was having some sort of initiative involving sending BioWare tons of mail. Fan art, fanfic, postcards about the game, you name it, they wanted to send it in. Someone took things a bit too far and sent Priestly some really threatening crap on HTL stationary, and that's when the poll popped up.

So what do you make of it?

Not much, to be honest. An internet-based poll that only a very small percentage of the ME3 gaming community took part in isn't representative of anything.

[HellishFiend]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Really, Hellish? Really? That's quite the feat of mental gymnastics you're doing there. I do not think IT has been discredited as an interpretation of the ending, but your insistence that BW will, at some point, drop this huge reveal after the majority of the gaming community has moved on is just asking for massive disappointment on your part.

You're welcome to your opinion, of course. Please do me the same courtesy. 

[zigamortis]

Here is my theory on why bioware will not confirm nor deny IT and what their plan for it is.
http://social.biowar...1455/1#12852465

[TJBartlemus]

@zigamortis Sorry man. They just aren't going to outright say that IT is right or wrong. For 4 reasons: (I posted my reasons earlier today as well.)

They purposely didn't acnowledge the ending cause:

1- Speculations = hype = money.

2- If they catered to one side, the other would be angry. (This point illustrates that they have yet to prove or disprove)

3- They possibly proved both were right. Explained in WNT: EC (Also still need opinions on thread. It's too silent.)

4- They won't continue after the endings for the point of 1 and 2. Instead they will make before ending dlc that will provide excellent story, gameplay, and hints towards the endings making it a must buy by the Mass Effect fanbase.

[UrgentArchengel]

If there going to confirm IT, it will be with a sequel, which we may never get. Either way...Speculations!!!

[Lokanaiya]

Xavendithas wrote...

Derp88 wrote...

Yeah, I see your point, Hypothetically, if it was expanded upon, Shepard could be just as stubborn. Hell, your canon Shepard may already be pretty stubborn, such as a Renegade Shep.

But my Shepard only moments ago before finding the secret elevator managed to convince TIM that he was being manipulated by the Reapers. This, to me, shows that Shepard's mind is still very well his own and he still possesses that strong willpower that manages to temporarily snap others out of indoctrination. It would be kind of a stretch to say from that point on Shepard's willpower had diminished to a point where he blindly just accepts the Reapers' logic.

That's why I believe he makes a choice based on the Catalyst's logic because he knows there's no other way. It's either that, or do it the conventional way, which we now know is not possible with the EC.

My canon Shepard was very Chaotic Good. He also talked TIM down. That's besides the point.

All of the variations on IT set aside, I think most of us would agree that the whole point behind the decision chamber is whether or not the player loses sight of what we set out to do originally, and that is destroy the reapers.

I would argue that anyone that picks anything but destroy would be playing directly into the Reapers hands(tentacles??). They have lost sight of what the original goal was and willingly picked an option that does not jeopardize the reapers existance. From what I've heard of the 'reject' ending, it sounds like it's Shepard just saying "**** it, I'm to tired to fight anymore..." which also plays right into the reapers hands. S/he probably says it far more eloquently.

Where do people keep getting this from? That's not what s/he says at all. What s/he's saying is that s/he refuses to compromise with the Reapers, refuses to accept the Catalyst's logic and refuses to back down. S/he's remaining true to the themes throughout the series of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. Didn't Dream Anderson say just a few minutes prior "There's always another way?" That's what Shepard is doing, refusing to accept that there's no other option, even if it is stupid and dooms everyone from a non-IT standpoint. Which also fits with IT...  Shepar's saying that no matter what, s/he will always go her own way, and will never compromise with the Reapers, no matter the cost. Incredibly stupid and bull-headed, yes, but also what may be needed to throw off indoc. Plus, s/he gives an epic Shepard speech about free will! How can that be a bad thing?


Honestly, the only reason Refusal doesn't look to be the one where you break free of indoctrination is the absence of a breath scene.....

[Derp88]

Xavendithas wrote...

Derp88 wrote...

Yeah, I see your point, Hypothetically, if it was expanded upon, Shepard could be just as stubborn. Hell, your canon Shepard may already be pretty stubborn, such as a Renegade Shep.

But my Shepard only moments ago before finding the secret elevator managed to convince TIM that he was being manipulated by the Reapers. This, to me, shows that Shepard's mind is still very well his own and he still possesses that strong willpower that manages to temporarily snap others out of indoctrination. It would be kind of a stretch to say from that point on Shepard's willpower had diminished to a point where he blindly just accepts the Reapers' logic.

That's why I believe he makes a choice based on the Catalyst's logic because he knows there's no other way. It's either that, or do it the conventional way, which we now know is not possible with the EC.

My canon Shepard was very Chaotic Good. He also talked TIM down. That's besides the point.

All of the variations on IT set aside, I think most of us would agree that the whole point behind the decision chamber is whether or not the player loses sight of what we set out to do originally, and that is destroy the reapers.

I would argue that anyone that picks anything but destroy would be playing directly into the Reapers hands(tentacles??). They have lost sight of what the original goal was and willingly picked an option that does not jeopardize the reapers existance. From what I've heard of the 'reject' ending, it sounds like it's Shepard just saying "**** it, I'm to tired to fight anymore..." which also plays right into the reapers hands. S/he probably says it far more eloquently.

Yeah, I agree. The goal all along was to destroy the Reapers. That's because the galaxy knew very little about them, other than every 50,000 years they continue the cycle and reap advanced races. They were a huge thereat, and destroying them seems like the only option to get rid of this threat.

That is until you reach this Citadel secret chamber, Shepard learns more about the Reapers, and finds out a very advanced AI is behind their creation and came up with "The Cycle" solution. Adding the energy of the crucible to the citiadel adds new variables, and thus changes everything. There are now other ways to end the cycle that arguably cause less collateral damage, but have other issues as well. This is why it is such a hard choice to make. Destroying the reapers will end te imminent threat, but does not necessarily break the cycle. It also destroys the Geth and EDI, but allows this cycle to forge its own path.

But it's the risk that history will repeat itself that makes Destroy questionable as well, Sure, the Reapers are destroyed, but who says a new form of Reapers will not be created again? If we can instead preserve the Reapers and set them to new purpose to help rebuild and strengthen this cycle, and cycles to come, which the EC epilogue slides suggest, then it is a viable option. Again, there's the risk that Overlord Shepard may eventually resort to the Catalyst's "Cycle" logic if organics and synthetics always end up at each other#s throats through the cycles.

So each choice to be made have some positives, but a lot of potential risks as well.

[zigamortis]

TJBartlemus wrote...

@zigamortis Sorry man. They just aren't going to outright say that IT is right or wrong. For 4 reasons: (I posted my reasons earlier today as well.)

They purposely didn't acnowledge the ending cause:

1- Speculations = hype = money.

2- If they catered to one side, the other would be angry. (This point illustrates that they have yet to prove or disprove)

3- They possibly proved both were right. Explained in WNT: EC (Also still need opinions on thread. It's too silent.)

4- They won't continue after the endings for the point of 1 and 2. Instead they will make before ending dlc that will provide excellent story, gameplay, and hints towards the endings making it a must buy by the Mass Effect fanbase.

Im saying that their not saying either way because they intend on capitolising on it for the mean time. they just release multiple SP dlcs that eventualy add up to a new ending. Or an old ending....

[Big_Boss9]

TJBartlemus wrote...

@zigamortis Sorry man. They just aren't going to outright say that IT is right or wrong. For 4 reasons: (I posted my reasons earlier today as well.)

They purposely didn't acnowledge the ending cause:

1- Speculations = hype = money.

2- If they catered to one side, the other would be angry. (This point illustrates that they have yet to prove or disprove)

3- They possibly proved both were right. Explained in WNT: EC (Also still need opinions on thread. It's too silent.)

4- They won't continue after the endings for the point of 1 and 2. Instead they will make before ending dlc that will provide excellent story, gameplay, and hints towards the endings making it a must buy by the Mass Effect fanbase.

I agree with this assessment. It's in their best interests to let people speculate for eons while they keep pushing out DLC that fans will eat up in the desperate hope that it will finally be "the DLC" to prove one side or the other to be true.

Modifié par Big_Boss9, 29 juin 2012 - 02:29 .

[Xavendithas]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Where do people keep getting this from? That's not what s/he says at all. What s/he's saying is that s/he refuses to compromise with the Reapers, refuses to accept the Catalyst's logic and refuses to back down. S/he's remaining true to the themes throughout the series of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. Didn't Dream Anderson say just a few minutes prior "There's always another way?" That's what Shepard is doing, refusing to accept that there's no other option, even if it is stupid and dooms everyone from a non-IT standpoint. Which also fits with IT...  Shepar's saying that no matter what, s/he will always go her own way, and will never compromise with the Reapers, no matter the cost. Incredibly stupid and bull-headed, yes, but also what may be needed to throw off indoc. Plus, s/he gives an epic Shepard speech about free will! How can that be a bad thing?


Honestly, the only reason Refusal doesn't look to be the one where you break free of indoctrination is the absence of a breath scene.....

Key words: From what I have heard...

A page back or so I also stated I had not seen any endings besides destroy.

[TJBartlemus]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

If there going to confirm IT, it will be with a sequel, which we may never get. Either way...Speculations!!!

BioWare if they do a sequel series, they will have to choose a canon ending. So only one of the endings is the right one. Sounds familiar??  There are 2 possibilities. The Destroy or Reject. This is because the endings are vague enough to not know what will happen in the future for sure. Synthesis/ Control have no future in the series because the endings are shown clearly and the endings would not allow for any conflict, which is the base for any story. 

[Arian Dynas]

I'm currently in the camp that says "Destroy is Shepard sticking to his guns and choosing to slog on with what was his original motive from the beginning, since he has the stones to keep fighting, even if he has to sacrifice some things."

Rejection, well that's Shepard trying to play Captain Kirk, choosing not to stick to what he has been going for since the beginning since something unappealing was tacked on, but not completely breaking and going over to Control and remaining canny enough not to be tricked by Synthesis, basically demanding a third option, only to discover there isn't one.

In "Reject" Shepard is canny and wise enough not to fall for indoctrination, but not determined enough to break free, and so Harbinger kills him.

[Wolfram Tarant]

Andromidius wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...

Also Bioware know has four endings which means if we have four endings and if they wanted to do more ME games they will have to consider the Choice that Shepard made that will determine the future of the galaxy. And if they don't then that's just very lazy and that proves the endings are to much for Bioware to handle yet alone create one game that involves all the endings that are in ME3 just to bring into ME4.

Really? Accounting for every possible ending after the EC in a post-reaper ME game would be an ENORMOUS challenge. Regarding save game transfers, just look at ME2 and ME3... it didn't make a very profound impact. It's completely illogical to assume that Bioware has had to craft an entirely unique experience for every scenario.

IF there's another Mass Effect, I would like to start from scratch and not have to worry about choices I may or may not have made in a previous game.

To be honest, it wouldn't be as complicated as it seems.

Firstly, the endings are actually all very similar from an IT perspective.  Either Shepard is Indoctrinated (game over, or an alternate storyline) or Shepard breaks free and the war continues.  All you need to do is have the same old checklist on who's alive and does which role in the story (note that past actions in ME1 and ME2 do no effect what Shepard does during the campaign - Shepard still goes to Mars, Palavan, Sur'kesh, Tuchunka, Rannoch, Sanctuary and then Cronos Station and Earth.  Shepard still meets the same characters (or their replacements if they are dead) and they still give Shepard the same information or help with minor variations.

There are no big sweeping changes that effect the rest of the plot, doesn't matter if you saved the Quarians or Geth or cured the Krogan Genophage - you still get your big fleet and army and fight your way to Starbinger.  Cerberus are still (apperently) defeated and the Mass Effect relays are still (apperently) damaged.  Doesn't matter what happened, the same outcome occurs.

The only sweeping changes happen AFTER your final choice, and these would only give two outcomes according to IT - continue the fight, or Game Over (or play an alternate campaign as a Reaper agent).

So its only a matter of ticking off who died and who was recruited into the allied fleet, and then a yes/no option for minor plotpoints.  It wouldn't be like a completely different story would need to be crafted for each ending, not at all.

True, from the perspective of IT. But I mean from the literalist perspective... it seems unlikely they could pull it off. Plus they would have to explain in game that the ending of ME3 was an indoctrination attempt. I just don't see how it would work. It would be pretty amazing though, for IT'ers at least.

[Arian Dynas]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

@zigamortis Sorry man. They just aren't going to outright say that IT is right or wrong. For 4 reasons: (I posted my reasons earlier today as well.)

They purposely didn't acnowledge the ending cause:

1- Speculations = hype = money.

2- If they catered to one side, the other would be angry. (This point illustrates that they have yet to prove or disprove)

3- They possibly proved both were right. Explained in WNT: EC (Also still need opinions on thread. It's too silent.)

4- They won't continue after the endings for the point of 1 and 2. Instead they will make before ending dlc that will provide excellent story, gameplay, and hints towards the endings making it a must buy by the Mass Effect fanbase.

I agree with this assessment. It's in their best interests to let people speculate for eons while they keep pushing out DLC that fans will eat up in the desperate hope that it will finally be "the DLC" to prove one side or the other to be true.

In other words, they can drag this out for two years or more!

[BansheeOwnage]

TJBartlemus wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

If there going to confirm IT, it will be with a sequel, which we may never get. Either way...Speculations!!!

BioWare if they do a sequel series, they will have to choose a canon ending. So only one of the endings is the right one. Sounds familiar??  There are 2 possibilities. The Destroy or Reject. This is because the endings are vague enough to not know what will happen in the future for sure. Synthesis/ Control have no future in the series because the endings are shown clearly and the endings would not allow for any conflict, which is the base for any story. 

I don't know about control. I think they set up a great new antagonist

[D.Sharrah]

Diid someone from Bioware post something tonight? How did I miss that?

[HellishFiend]

Arian Dynas wrote...

I'm currently in the camp that says "Destroy is Shepard sticking to his guns and choosing to slog on with what was his original motive from the beginning, since he has the stones to keep fighting, even if he has to sacrifice some things."

Rejection, well that's Shepard trying to play Captain Kirk, choosing not to stick to what he has been going for since the beginning since something unappealing was tacked on, but not completely breaking and going over to Control and remaining canny enough not to be tricked by Synthesis, basically demanding a third option, only to discover there isn't one.

In "Reject" Shepard is canny and wise enough not to fall for indoctrination, but not determined enough to break free, and so Harbinger kills him.

Perhaps, but there is one thing that gives me hope for the Reject ending. Starbinger gets visibly upset, even if he's only offering you one choice. 

Seriously, it's possible for him to offer you only Control (which is weird in and of itself), declare that he is unhappy about being replaced, and then becomes pissed when you refuse to replace him. Really? There has to be something there. 

[Lokanaiya]

Xavendithas wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Where do people keep getting this from? That's not what s/he says at all. What s/he's saying is that s/he refuses to compromise with the Reapers, refuses to accept the Catalyst's logic and refuses to back down. S/he's remaining true to the themes throughout the series of free will, self-determination, and doing the impossible. Didn't Dream Anderson say just a few minutes prior "There's always another way?" That's what Shepard is doing, refusing to accept that there's no other option, even if it is stupid and dooms everyone from a non-IT standpoint. Which also fits with IT...  Shepar's saying that no matter what, s/he will always go her own way, and will never compromise with the Reapers, no matter the cost. Incredibly stupid and bull-headed, yes, but also what may be needed to throw off indoc. Plus, s/he gives an epic Shepard speech about free will! How can that be a bad thing?


Honestly, the only reason Refusal doesn't look to be the one where you break free of indoctrination is the absence of a breath scene.....

Key words: From what I have heard...

A page back or so I also stated I had not seen any endings besides destroy.

Oh, sorry. Guess I should stop skimming so much...

[Dwailing]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I'm currently in the camp that says "Destroy is Shepard sticking to his guns and choosing to slog on with what was his original motive from the beginning, since he has the stones to keep fighting, even if he has to sacrifice some things."

Rejection, well that's Shepard trying to play Captain Kirk, choosing not to stick to what he has been going for since the beginning since something unappealing was tacked on, but not completely breaking and going over to Control and remaining canny enough not to be tricked by Synthesis, basically demanding a third option, only to discover there isn't one.

In "Reject" Shepard is canny and wise enough not to fall for indoctrination, but not determined enough to break free, and so Harbinger kills him.

Perhaps, but there is one thing that gives me hope for the Reject ending. Starbinger gets visibly upset, even if he's only offering you one choice. 

Seriously, it's possible for him to offer you only Control (which is weird in and of itself), declare that he is unhappy about being replaced, and then becomes pissed when you refuse to replace him. Really? There has to be something there. 

Yeah, that's why I'm of the opinion that, in Rejection, Shepard ALSO breaks free from indoctrination.

[jgibson14352]

Derp88 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Derp88 wrote...

Yeah, I see your point, Hypothetically, if it was expanded upon, Shepard could be just as stubborn. Hell, your canon Shepard may already be pretty stubborn, such as a Renegade Shep.

But my Shepard only moments ago before finding the secret elevator managed to convince TIM that he was being manipulated by the Reapers. This, to me, shows that Shepard's mind is still very well his own and he still possesses that strong willpower that manages to temporarily snap others out of indoctrination. It would be kind of a stretch to say from that point on Shepard's willpower had diminished to a point where he blindly just accepts the Reapers' logic.

That's why I believe he makes a choice based on the Catalyst's logic because he knows there's no other way. It's either that, or do it the conventional way, which we now know is not possible with the EC.

My canon Shepard was very Chaotic Good. He also talked TIM down. That's besides the point.

All of the variations on IT set aside, I think most of us would agree that the whole point behind the decision chamber is whether or not the player loses sight of what we set out to do originally, and that is destroy the reapers.

I would argue that anyone that picks anything but destroy would be playing directly into the Reapers hands(tentacles??). They have lost sight of what the original goal was and willingly picked an option that does not jeopardize the reapers existance. From what I've heard of the 'reject' ending, it sounds like it's Shepard just saying "**** it, I'm to tired to fight anymore..." which also plays right into the reapers hands. S/he probably says it far more eloquently.

Yeah, I agree. The goal all along was to destroy the Reapers. That's because the galaxy knew very little about them, other than every 50,000 years they continue the cycle and reap advanced races. They were a huge thereat, and destroying them seems like the only option to get rid of this threat.

That is until you reach this Citadel secret chamber, Shepard learns more about the Reapers, and finds out a very advanced AI is behind their creation and came up with "The Cycle" solution. Adding the energy of the crucible to the citiadel adds new variables, and thus changes everything. There are now other ways to end the cycle that arguably cause less collateral damage, but have other issues as well. This is why it is such a hard choice to make. Destroying the reapers will end te imminent threat, but does not necessarily break the cycle. It also destroys the Geth and EDI, but allows this cycle to forge its own path.

But it's the risk that history will repeat itself that makes Destroy questionable as well, Sure, the Reapers are destroyed, but who says a new form of Reapers will not be created again? If we can instead preserve the Reapers and set them to new purpose to help rebuild and strengthen this cycle, and cycles to come, which the EC epilogue slides suggest, then it is a viable option. Again, there's the risk that Overlord Shepard may eventually resort to the Catalyst's "Cycle" logic if organics and synthetics always end up at each other#s throats through the cycles.

So each choice to be made have some positives, but a lot of potential risks as well.

one thing that IT covered pretty well, but bares repeating, is that many of the choices, just seem like...traps.
the illusive man was controlled by the reapers, IT being real or not, that was confirmed in Evolution. the illusive man wanted to control the reapers. if that was a viable way of ending the reaper threat, why did the reapers allow the illusive man to pursue this route? it was shown on sanctuary that the illusive man DID in fact control reapers. just ground troops, but its something. they saw this as a threat, and attacked. why would they indoctrinate the illusive man and have him pursue a course they saw as threatening? why would starchild allow shepard this option as well?
synthesis is another trap, because in doing so, shepard conforms to what the reapers want him to do all along. the reapers see them selves as ascending the galaxy by combining organic and synthetic races, this was shown in the novels, "a union of flesh and steel" "the strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither". of course they would want shepard to choose this, the child clearly paints this as being the most utopian of all endings.
destroy is what all the main protagonist characters have wanted throuhout the series, and notice, the child paints this as the most evil, with the red lighting and the requirement of killing EDI and the geth.
i dont know what to think about reject, its still to new for me to have put alot of thought into.

[Dwailing]

Arian Dynas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

@zigamortis Sorry man. They just aren't going to outright say that IT is right or wrong. For 4 reasons: (I posted my reasons earlier today as well.)

They purposely didn't acnowledge the ending cause:

1- Speculations = hype = money.

2- If they catered to one side, the other would be angry. (This point illustrates that they have yet to prove or disprove)

3- They possibly proved both were right. Explained in WNT: EC (Also still need opinions on thread. It's too silent.)

4- They won't continue after the endings for the point of 1 and 2. Instead they will make before ending dlc that will provide excellent story, gameplay, and hints towards the endings making it a must buy by the Mass Effect fanbase.

I agree with this assessment. It's in their best interests to let people speculate for eons while they keep pushing out DLC that fans will eat up in the desperate hope that it will finally be "the DLC" to prove one side or the other to be true.

In other words, they can drag this out for two years or more!

At this point, I don't give a flying fart in space if IT is confirmed with DLC in ME3 or is confirmed by ME4, I just want it to be confirmed!  Is it too much to ask for a straight answer?! 

[BansheeOwnage]

HellishFiend wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

I'm currently in the camp that says "Destroy is Shepard sticking to his guns and choosing to slog on with what was his original motive from the beginning, since he has the stones to keep fighting, even if he has to sacrifice some things."

Rejection, well that's Shepard trying to play Captain Kirk, choosing not to stick to what he has been going for since the beginning since something unappealing was tacked on, but not completely breaking and going over to Control and remaining canny enough not to be tricked by Synthesis, basically demanding a third option, only to discover there isn't one.

In "Reject" Shepard is canny and wise enough not to fall for indoctrination, but not determined enough to break free, and so Harbinger kills him.

Perhaps, but there is one thing that gives me hope for the Reject ending. Starbinger gets visibly upset, even if he's only offering you one choice. 

Seriously, it's possible for him to offer you only Control (which is weird in and of itself), declare that he is unhappy about being replaced, and then becomes pissed when you refuse to replace him. Really? There has to be something there. 

I'm not giving up yet, but maybe bad writing? I'm just not sure anymore. But I'm also not sure how they could possibly screw up so badly.