55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Wolfram Tarant]

Andromidius wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...
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.

That's what bridging DLC is for - aka Arrival.

Yes they could explain it through DLC, but the entire concept of indoctrination theory is so huge... and I think the vast majority of people wouldn't download it. I would, because I love Mass Effect and I've already invested so much in IT. But  it just seems kinda off that people who aren't necessarily aware of IT need to buy a DLC pack to provide an ending to a game they've already finished... and it's already been a few months since the game came out. Not to mention, if it's payed DLC, how many people would actually buy it? And then consider the people who've moved on.

It's a really cool idea but I just don't see it happening, even if I'd like it to.

I suppose it's that the EC was a bit disappointing, for me at least. It was decent, and I certainly don't think it debunked IT at all, in fact it gave us even more evidence... but I don't think it's too much to ask for concrete answers. I really hate to sound negative and or critical, or even that word I hate... entitled, but I just feel like it shouldn't be our responsibilty better if it was actually shown in game. Or even disproved for that matter. Maybe my expectations were too high? 

I don't know... I guess I was just expecting a solid answer, as much as I feared we wouldn't get one. 

[BansheeOwnage]

BleedingUranium 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.

I support this fully, especially when the camera pans away from Shep standing in the Reject ending, it seems very... lonely? Abandoned? Kind just stuck in limbo as it were.

To me Reject is to Destroy what the standard Paragon option is to the Charm option. You're going make the same point, but much less convincing or awesomely, and it doesn't really work.

Which do you think is better? Destroy or Refusal?
Edit: I can't decide myself. Everything about refusal says it's better up until the point the kid says "The cycle continues" in a narrator-like way.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 29 juin 2012 - 02:57 .

[Joedogg9999]

Andromidius wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

And I still say that there is somethign fishy about the EC...even with all the discussion here (and I think that there has been some great finds/speculations), I can't exactly put my finger on why I feel like there is something wrong...wrong may not be the right word, fishy is better. Just fishy.

I really do need a "fish" smiley!

The fact it felt like it was written via a checklist of 'things fans are complaining about'?

And the way they did them was so odd that it highlights the problems with them even more?

Yeah, very fishy.  Even the fact they left in the breath scene and still had the Galaxy-wide explosions start in the wrong place (the Alpha Relay of all places) screams 'wink wink' to me.

i completely agree with that last part.

the first rwlay to blow was the exact relay that shepard already destroyed in Arrival. so not only should the first relay to blow should be in the sol system, the one that does start the rwaction doesent even exist. this was done on purpise.

[Big_Boss9]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Joedogg9999 wrote...



That and its 2nd part is easily the best IT video. It puts absolutely everything together including new things ive never seen including the fact that kaidens and ashleys bodies can be seen in a pile of ME1 characters which only appear after the beam hits shepard.

This might be the utmost genious thing in all of mass effect and the most damning evidwnce of IT imo. The uniforms they are wearing are the exact same ones they wore during the cutscene on virmire when you have to chose which one dies.

This is genious because it shows the deteimental guilt shepard has for all the people he has failes.

I just cant see how the IT is false. How can there possibly be a complete set of genious subtlities and forshadowings all by accident?? Thats impossible.

The IT "Documentary" is, actually, one of my least favorite videos on the matter. It is, first off, not a documentary at all. Secondly, it does not truly approach the issue from a critical and objective fashion. In some cases, the author goes so far as to shrug off arguments without any reasonable explanation as to why.

Even though he seems to have abandoned support for IT, ACAYVOS' vid is the one I liked the most (pre-EC anyway). Succinct and to the point.

[jgibson14352]

D.Sharrah wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

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.

Arian - I'm not so sure about the Reject ending - if anything that one is probably the most open ended.  The only thing that we know for sure is that Shep's cycle fails, but is able to plant Liara's time capsules to give hope to subsequent cycles...

Hellish - Exactly.  As I keep saying, fishy.

Banshee - Don't fall into that trap...I know that the EC did not give us the answer that we wanted (is IT true, but to be faif, they said they wouldn't just come out and say it - and there is some fair evidence that gives IT strength IMHO)...but the writing that was done for the epilogue monologues were spot on.  I think that each was supposed to convey something, and this is at least what I got from each:

Control - downright sinister, as it should be, since this was the choice that most clearly showed that Shep had succumbed to Reaper influence.

Synthesis - absolute beautiful utopian society, but left that feeling (at least in me) of too good to be true - I just kept wondering what the "skeletons in the closet" would be.

Destroy - Triumph, with all of its faults and consequences...the only odd thing to me was that it felt flat...like it was missing its climax, like I don't know, the Normandy crew finding Shep (which had my spidey senses tingling more is coming).

Reject - Hope.  Hope that by giving the next cycle all of the information that they would be able to prepare better and be able to defeat the Reapers on their terms - not on the terms of the Reapers.

about the reject ending, everybody else seems to forget that the only thing Liara's capsule did was inform of the reapers, and give plans for the crucible. the reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, so that leaves the crucible. a crucible where there will be 4 options waiting for the next person to discover it. it just repeats the patern. the only difference would be that a new species would control the reapers, or benefit from synthesis, or finally triumph over the reapers, or start the cycle all over again

[Auralius Carolus]

HellishFiend wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

While experimentation is possible, I personally subscribe to the notion of Nanite Implantation, which would have occured during the Rho pulse. If further exposure was required, yes, they would certainly have more than enough time.

Also, many of the Indoctrination Victims of Rho experienced visions of the Reapers conquering The Milky Way- a vision Shepard has if you let the timer run out after awakening... a vision that may hold some clues as to what we may expect in the long run.

Shepard implanted with nanides?  That is a markedly unpleasant notion. 

Why hello not-so-Hellish Fiend. And, I know, you don't per se buy into the notion of the nanites. But I do have chinchillas... and chinchillas can be very, very compelling.

[Auralius Carolus]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Joedogg9999 wrote...



That and its 2nd part is easily the best IT video. It puts absolutely everything together including new things ive never seen including the fact that kaidens and ashleys bodies can be seen in a pile of ME1 characters which only appear after the beam hits shepard.

This might be the utmost genious thing in all of mass effect and the most damning evidwnce of IT imo. The uniforms they are wearing are the exact same ones they wore during the cutscene on virmire when you have to chose which one dies.

This is genious because it shows the deteimental guilt shepard has for all the people he has failes.

I just cant see how the IT is false. How can there possibly be a complete set of genious subtlities and forshadowings all by accident?? Thats impossible.

The IT "Documentary" is, actually, one of my least favorite videos on the matter. It is, first off, not a documentary at all. Secondly, it does not truly approach the issue from a critical and objective fashion. In some cases, the author goes so far as to shrug off arguments without any reasonable explanation as to why.

Even though he seems to have abandoned support for IT, ACAYVOS' vid is the one I liked the most (pre-EC anyway). Succinct and to the point.

It is a pretty good production.

The biggest problem with Acayvos's video was that it was released so early on that, now, it would be considered vastly outdated. We've simply discovered so much since then... but most of it is still relavent.

[HellishFiend]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

While experimentation is possible, I personally subscribe to the notion of Nanite Implantation, which would have occured during the Rho pulse. If further exposure was required, yes, they would certainly have more than enough time.

Also, many of the Indoctrination Victims of Rho experienced visions of the Reapers conquering The Milky Way- a vision Shepard has if you let the timer run out after awakening... a vision that may hold some clues as to what we may expect in the long run.

Shepard implanted with nanides?  That is a markedly unpleasant notion. 

Why hello not-so-Hellish Fiend. And, I know, you don't per se buy into the notion of the nanites. But I do have chinchillas... and chinchillas can be very, very compelling.

Chinchillas are good, but Shep + nanides =

[Andromidius]

HellishFiend wrote...

Leviathan vs Harbinger would make Kalros vs Destroyer look like a Nickelodeon special. 

Not to mention it solves the problem of 'how the hell does Shepard survive if Harbinger is standing over his broken body'.  And the fact we have information about the Leviathan in the EC game files suggests that's the next DLC - and its about a rebel Reaper who broke away from the others for some unknown reason.

If that's not foreshadowing, I don't know what is.

[D.Sharrah]

Andromidius wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...
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.

That's what bridging DLC is for - aka Arrival.

And the events of Arrival are fairly literal and straightforward:

Shepard gets hit by a blastwave from a Reaper Device; one that has already indoctrinated EVERYONE else who has come in contact with it.

And if you survive the following confrontation long enough, Harbinger calls out to Shepard claiming that his mind will be his. This can only be taken two ways: Shepard is intended for processing, or indoctrination.

Pretty much, yep. 

Indoctrination DLC would pick up directly after the breath scene, have Shepard wake up and groggly raise to his feet.  Harbinger would be looming in the distance still, and Husk forces are moving in around Shepard.  Harbinger would begin gloating its victory, and then Shepard interupts and reveals the indoctrination attempts had failed and he/she was still free.

Then before Harbinger can capture Shepard (its obsession with Shepard continuing), reinforcements arrive to fight off the Husks - either Krogan led by Wrex, Rachni led by the Queen, Geth led by the Primes, or Alliance survivors led by Major Coates if none of those were available/alive.  The Husk forces are destroyed, and Harbinger rages as it prepares to destroy its prize...

Then the Leviathan of Dis arrives.  Harbinger shrieks with a mixture of rage and fear at the sight of the ancient betrayer, and after being badly wounded by the Leviathan it flees the battle.

...just some random thoughts.  Take them as you will.

 This I like!

[BansheeOwnage]

Joedogg9999 wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

And I still say that there is somethign fishy about the EC...even with all the discussion here (and I think that there has been some great finds/speculations), I can't exactly put my finger on why I feel like there is something wrong...wrong may not be the right word, fishy is better. Just fishy.

I really do need a "fish" smiley!

The fact it felt like it was written via a checklist of 'things fans are complaining about'?

And the way they did them was so odd that it highlights the problems with them even more?

Yeah, very fishy.  Even the fact they left in the breath scene and still had the Galaxy-wide explosions start in the wrong place (the Alpha Relay of all places) screams 'wink wink' to me.

i completely agree with that last part.

the first rwlay to blow was the exact relay that shepard already destroyed in Arrival. so not only should the first relay to blow should be in the sol system, the one that does start the rwaction doesent even exist. this was done on purpise.

In a game with a galaxy map, yes I think it was on purpose.

[Big_Boss9]

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

I think they have a year, at most, and that's pushing it. Fallout 3's DLC ending modification came at the 7 month mark. A DLC that would fundamentally change the ending of a massively popular gaming franchise two years after the fact would be borderline ridiculous. I really don't think we'll get anything in-game one way or the other. A comment from Hudson et al years later is probably the best we're going to get, if at all.

Implementing the IT would not fundamentally change the ending. The endings are horribly ambiguous and open to interpretation right now when taking into account all of the evidence that is still in-game that supports the IT.

To the casual gamer, which makes up the majority of consumers, it would. People forget spending lots of time on here, but most folks have no idea what IT even is. They don't frequent forums or participate in discourse like we do here. The more time that passes, the less likely it's going to happen.

Just for the sake of saying it again, consider Halo 4. Why people keep saying that a company would never do something like this is beyond me. You could argue that a majority of people who played Halo 3 didn't necessarily play through the game on the Legendary setting, so never new that there was the easter egg showing that Master Chief was alive....after seeing a funeral being held for him. Sound familiar? I doubt that is going to stop people from rushing out and purchasing Halo 4 even though Bungie and Microsoft promised it was the last Halo game.

Well, now we're talking about a sequel, so that's a different matter entirely, and far more likely than DLC-altering content. However, I don't think the Halo comparison is valid. Halo 3 did not end in the same controversial way that Mass Effect 3 did. All that was left unresolved was whether or not MC was alive (and that was shown in the Legendary setting, so there wasn't even any ambiguity). If ME4 were to pick up where ME3 left off, it would have a lot of exposition hoops to jump through to give proper context to what actually happened (while simultaneously attempting to pick up new consumers). It isn't just a matter of whether or not Shepard is alive or dead. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's not even remotely as simplistic as Halo.

[BleedingUranium]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

BleedingUranium 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.

I support this fully, especially when the camera pans away from Shep standing in the Reject ending, it seems very... lonely? Abandoned? Kind just stuck in limbo as it were.

To me Reject is to Destroy what the standard Paragon option is to the Charm option. You're going make the same point, but much less convincing or awesomely, and it doesn't really work.

Which do you think is better? Destroy or Refusal?
Edit: I can't decide myself. Everything about refusal says it's better up until the point the kid says "The cycle continues" in a narrator-like way.

Destroy, because like I said, Reject feels like picking standard Paragon over the Charm option, it just feels weak. Or a similar word, something like weak, I dunno. Also, the breath scene is still only in Destory, which fits with it being the non Charm option.

[dreamgazer]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

It is a pretty good production.

The biggest problem with Acayvos's video was that it was released so early on that, now, it would be considered vastly outdated. We've simply discovered so much since then... but most of it is still relavent.

That video is the most top-level explanation, which, to me, makes it easily the most relevant from a narrative interpretation point of view. Here's the basis, here's the codex, here are a few details, and here's how they apply to some of the devices in the game.  What's best: with a few tweaks and ignoring a point or two, it covers both the interpretation and the "theory". 

[Wolfram Tarant]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Well, now we're talking about a sequel, so that's a different matter entirely, and far more likely than DLC-altering content. However, I don't think the Halo comparison is valid. Halo 3 did not end in the same controversial way that Mass Effect 3 did. All that was left unresolved was whether or not MC was alive (and that was shown in the Legendary setting, so there wasn't even any ambiguity). If ME4 were to pick up where ME3 left off, it would have a lot of exposition hoops to jump through to give proper context to what actually happened (while simultaneously attempting to pick up new consumers). It isn't just a matter of whether or not Shepard is alive or dead. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's not even remotely as simplistic as Halo.

And if I recall they never said there wouldn't be a Halo 4. It was just a lot of, "Halo 3 will end the current story arc." 
Nothing about it being MC's last appearance. I could be wrong though, it was a while ago and I haven't really followed Halo much since 2008

[Auralius Carolus]

HellishFiend wrote...

Leviathan vs Harbinger would make Kalros vs Destroyer look like a Nickelodeon special. 

"I do not understand! Now der are twooo Gardzirras!" *gasp* "Da one is a robot! It's a ReapaGardzirra!"

But in all seriousness, even though the Leviathan is apparently anything but a good guy, I would love to see that fight.

[D.Sharrah]

Wolfram Tarant wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...
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.

That's what bridging DLC is for - aka Arrival.

Yes they could explain it through DLC, but the entire concept of indoctrination theory is so huge... and I think the vast majority of people wouldn't download it. I would, because I love Mass Effect and I've already invested so much in IT. But  it just seems kinda off that people who aren't necessarily aware of IT need to buy a DLC pack to provide an ending to a game they've already finished... and it's already been a few months since the game came out. Not to mention, if it's payed DLC, how many people would actually buy it? And then consider the people who've moved on.

It's a really cool idea but I just don't see it happening, even if I'd like it to.

I suppose it's that the EC was a bit disappointing, for me at least. It was decent, and I certainly don't think it debunked IT at all, in fact it gave us even more evidence... but I don't think it's too much to ask for concrete answers. I really hate to sound negative and or critical, or even that word I hate... entitled, but I just feel like it shouldn't be our responsibilty better if it was actually shown in game. Or even disproved for that matter. Maybe my expectations were too high? 

I don't know... I guess I was just expecting a solid answer, as much as I feared we wouldn't get one. 

Getting back to the fishiness...I am starting to think that there is something hidden there that we haven't found quite yet - the "true" ening if you will, that will only unlock once all the DLC has been released.  That's right its already there - you don't have to download something else...for example what if for the Crucible to be complete and be able to only target the Reapers you need both the brain and the heart...one you get from the ME 2 choice, the other you get from Leviathan?

[plfranke]

Andromidius wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

Leviathan vs Harbinger would make Kalros vs Destroyer look like a Nickelodeon special. 

Not to mention it solves the problem of 'how the hell does Shepard survive if Harbinger is standing over his broken body'.  And the fact we have information about the Leviathan in the EC game files suggests that's the next DLC - and its about a rebel Reaper who broke away from the others for some unknown reason.

If that's not foreshadowing, I don't know what is.

or at least have something like leviathan show up at the last minute and start tearing up the other reapers that left the battle and harbinger says something like I will direct this personally and leaves to deal with leviathan. now that I would pay for

[BleedingUranium]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

I think they have a year, at most, and that's pushing it. Fallout 3's DLC ending modification came at the 7 month mark. A DLC that would fundamentally change the ending of a massively popular gaming franchise two years after the fact would be borderline ridiculous. I really don't think we'll get anything in-game one way or the other. A comment from Hudson et al years later is probably the best we're going to get, if at all.

Implementing the IT would not fundamentally change the ending. The endings are horribly ambiguous and open to interpretation right now when taking into account all of the evidence that is still in-game that supports the IT.

To the casual gamer, which makes up the majority of consumers, it would. People forget spending lots of time on here, but most folks have no idea what IT even is. They don't frequent forums or participate in discourse like we do here. The more time that passes, the less likely it's going to happen.

Just for the sake of saying it again, consider Halo 4. Why people keep saying that a company would never do something like this is beyond me. You could argue that a majority of people who played Halo 3 didn't necessarily play through the game on the Legendary setting, so never new that there was the easter egg showing that Master Chief was alive....after seeing a funeral being held for him. Sound familiar? I doubt that is going to stop people from rushing out and purchasing Halo 4 even though Bungie and Microsoft promised it was the last Halo game.

Well, now we're talking about a sequel, so that's a different matter entirely, and far more likely than DLC-altering content. However, I don't think the Halo comparison is valid. Halo 3 did not end in the same controversial way that Mass Effect 3 did. All that was left unresolved was whether or not MC was alive (and that was shown in the Legendary setting, so there wasn't even any ambiguity). If ME4 were to pick up where ME3 left off, it would have a lot of exposition hoops to jump through to give proper context to what actually happened (while simultaneously attempting to pick up new consumers). It isn't just a matter of whether or not Shepard is alive or dead. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's not even remotely as simplistic as Halo.

Actually you get the MC and Cortana scene on all difficulties in Halo 3, you just have to wait for the end of the credits. The Legendary part was a 10 second clip of the ship floating toward a then-mysterious planet.

The only thing is has in common with the breath scene is it's one of those after-the-credits scenes, but otherwise they're not comparable.

[plfranke]

D.Sharrah wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

Wolfram Tarant wrote...
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.

That's what bridging DLC is for - aka Arrival.

Yes they could explain it through DLC, but the entire concept of indoctrination theory is so huge... and I think the vast majority of people wouldn't download it. I would, because I love Mass Effect and I've already invested so much in IT. But  it just seems kinda off that people who aren't necessarily aware of IT need to buy a DLC pack to provide an ending to a game they've already finished... and it's already been a few months since the game came out. Not to mention, if it's payed DLC, how many people would actually buy it? And then consider the people who've moved on.

It's a really cool idea but I just don't see it happening, even if I'd like it to.

I suppose it's that the EC was a bit disappointing, for me at least. It was decent, and I certainly don't think it debunked IT at all, in fact it gave us even more evidence... but I don't think it's too much to ask for concrete answers. I really hate to sound negative and or critical, or even that word I hate... entitled, but I just feel like it shouldn't be our responsibilty better if it was actually shown in game. Or even disproved for that matter. Maybe my expectations were too high? 

I don't know... I guess I was just expecting a solid answer, as much as I feared we wouldn't get one. 

Getting back to the fishiness...I am starting to think that there is something hidden there that we haven't found quite yet - the "true" ening if you will, that will only unlock once all the DLC has been released.  That's right its already there - you don't have to download something else...for example what if for the Crucible to be complete and be able to only target the Reapers you need both the brain and the heart...one you get from the ME 2 choice, the other you get from Leviathan?

I don't think the leviathan dlc alone is going to fix the ending though I do think it's going to add something to the ending as a sign that the ending isn't finished yet. I really like the proposal that leviathan is the organics from the first cycle and harbinger is the synthetics

[Andromidius]

jgibson14352 wrote...
about the reject ending, everybody else seems to forget that the only thing Liara's capsule did was inform of the reapers, and give plans for the crucible. the reapers cannot be defeated conventionally, so that leaves the crucible. a crucible where there will be 4 options waiting for the next person to discover it. it just repeats the patern. the only difference would be that a new species would control the reapers, or benefit from synthesis, or finally triumph over the reapers, or start the cycle all over again

Not to mention the female Stargazer talks about the sacrifices of the last Cycle to prevent the war in theirs. 



That suggests a few things.  Either:

1/ The next cycle finds the plans early, takes them seriously, builds the Crucible before the Reapers show up and defeats them before the war even starts.  Problem with this is the Reapers would undoubtably now know of the potential for the Crucible being built again, and would have searched very hard for the plans or left a new Sovereign behind to make sure it doesn't happen again.

2/ The Reapers were defeated, and the time capsule was never updated or recovered - leaving the legend of the last cycle.  Problem being it wouldn't explain how the war was won or that the Reaper Cycle was actually ended, because if Crucible didn't work and the capsule says they failed...

3/ Its a dream by Shepard to ease his mind and never happens.

The main problem is how the Crucible failed, yet the next cycle's war was averted.  The two concepts don't gel together.

[jgibson14352]

BleedingUranium wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

I think they have a year, at most, and that's pushing it. Fallout 3's DLC ending modification came at the 7 month mark. A DLC that would fundamentally change the ending of a massively popular gaming franchise two years after the fact would be borderline ridiculous. I really don't think we'll get anything in-game one way or the other. A comment from Hudson et al years later is probably the best we're going to get, if at all.

Implementing the IT would not fundamentally change the ending. The endings are horribly ambiguous and open to interpretation right now when taking into account all of the evidence that is still in-game that supports the IT.

To the casual gamer, which makes up the majority of consumers, it would. People forget spending lots of time on here, but most folks have no idea what IT even is. They don't frequent forums or participate in discourse like we do here. The more time that passes, the less likely it's going to happen.

Just for the sake of saying it again, consider Halo 4. Why people keep saying that a company would never do something like this is beyond me. You could argue that a majority of people who played Halo 3 didn't necessarily play through the game on the Legendary setting, so never new that there was the easter egg showing that Master Chief was alive....after seeing a funeral being held for him. Sound familiar? I doubt that is going to stop people from rushing out and purchasing Halo 4 even though Bungie and Microsoft promised it was the last Halo game.

Well, now we're talking about a sequel, so that's a different matter entirely, and far more likely than DLC-altering content. However, I don't think the Halo comparison is valid. Halo 3 did not end in the same controversial way that Mass Effect 3 did. All that was left unresolved was whether or not MC was alive (and that was shown in the Legendary setting, so there wasn't even any ambiguity). If ME4 were to pick up where ME3 left off, it would have a lot of exposition hoops to jump through to give proper context to what actually happened (while simultaneously attempting to pick up new consumers). It isn't just a matter of whether or not Shepard is alive or dead. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's not even remotely as simplistic as Halo.

Actually you get the MC and Cortana scene on all difficulties in Halo 3, you just have to wait for the end of the credits. The Legendary part was a 10 second clip of the ship floating toward a then-mysterious planet.

The only thing is has in common with the breath scene is it's one of those after-the-credits scenes, but otherwise they're not comparable.

this is a great discussion, but i just want to post a warning of what can happen when a forum goes off topic and stops covering Mass Effect specifically.

[Andromidius]

D.Sharrah wrote...

 This I like!

Thank you :happy:  Like I said, just some brainstorming on how I'd go about continuing the story.

[Xavendithas]

Big_Boss9 wrote...

Well, now we're talking about a sequel, so that's a different matter entirely, and far more likely than DLC-altering content. However, I don't think the Halo comparison is valid. Halo 3 did not end in the same controversial way that Mass Effect 3 did. All that was left unresolved was whether or not MC was alive (and that was shown in the Legendary setting, so there wasn't even any ambiguity). If ME4 were to pick up where ME3 left off, it would have a lot of exposition hoops to jump through to give proper context to what actually happened (while simultaneously attempting to pick up new consumers). It isn't just a matter of whether or not Shepard is alive or dead. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it's not even remotely as simplistic as Halo.

Agreed, the point I'm trying to make is that BioWare's promises that Shepards story is over don't necessarily mean anything. I'm not trying to say that because Halo 4 is being released it's proof that we will see a Mass Effect 4, or even just Indoctrination themed DLC. I'm just trying to point out that people can't hide behind BioWare's promises of no more Shepard and no more 'post-ending DLC' or however Gamble phrased it.

I'm tired, have been taking a lot of NyQuil due to a cold, and so if my posts aren't conveying what I'm thinking properly...my apologies.

[Xavendithas]

jgibson14352 wrote...

this is a great discussion, but i just want to post a warning of what can happen when a forum goes off topic and stops covering Mass Effect specifically.

Aye, I just thought it was pertinent to potential IT related content in the future. Sorry!