55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Xavendithas]

SubAstris wrote...

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

I speak only for myself, obviously.

I haven't spent any time looking through sound files, or at assets, etc. Yet the moment I turned off my XBox after finishing the game for the first time, my initial impression was that it was all in Shepards head. I think a lot of people here came to the same conclusion, rather quickly.

I don't recall ever having said that the people that are seeing the ending of the game as a literal thing don't 'get' it. It's a matter of perspective, influenced by any number of outside things.

To quote Legion, "Heretics say, one is less than two. Geth say, two is less than three."

Both is right, neither is wrong. Perspective is the difference.

And given that the outcome of IT would be to trick the players into choosing an outcome to the conflict that benefits the Reapers in some fashion, they are succeeding.

Modifié par Xavendithas, 29 juin 2012 - 07:21 .

[MaximizedAction]

Turbo_J wrote...

"That would be telling." Edi, Normandy; 2186

A reveal now would be spoilers

I think the EC had two purposes;

First, they got the change to bring the ending up to the standard they were after when the requested the 6 month extension and only got 3 months.

Second, it helped reduce the number of people who were too pissed off to bother with DLC.

Once the DLCs start to sell and more hints towards what is going on is revealed, those who had not purchased them; you know, the indoctrinated masses, will wake up themsleves and open their wallets. Not all will, but most.

Is there actually a source for this claim? I've read it hundreds of time here but don't remember a proof by link.

But if it's true, it would explain why, while playing the EC, I had this constant feeling of, why didn't the do it this way in the first place? It now feels like an ending, but still offers speculative material.

On the other hand, they kept saying how proud they were of the ending the way it was released. So I also have this feeling in my gut that it might've been a test...a way to first get the fanbase in heavy speculating and see if it was enough ("We wanted everybody to finish the game first").

[insomniak9]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

O.o This bit makes even more sense, if the noises are gunshots and husk screams. 

Look at the picture. That is blatantly Dreadnought guns pointed at husks! 



The guns are the "hand-rails" up the incline. The husks are the 'shadows' on the far wall, which then come into view as part of the Citadel structure. 

[Lokanaiya]

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

I'll say it again.

BioWare did exactly what they said they were going to do with the EC. They said that if you believed in IT, the EC would not change your opinion and if you believed in the literal interpretation of the ending, it would not change your opinion.

It begs the question why they would do that if IT was their intention. Did they not enough people believe it? If that's the reason, it not only shows bad storytelling but also being unprincipled

I disagree. BioWare is going about it in the only way I think it could feasibly be done. You leave enough evidence in place to keep the people that pick up on the discrepancies looking and questioning, while leaving enough closure to trick the people that haven't yet picked up on the fact that something is horribly amiss in the final 10 minutes of the game.

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

"SO BE IT. "

I think that alone makes it pretty clear that something's wrong. And we STILL have no idea how Synthesis turns everything into cyborgs, why Harbinger lets the Normandy escape, etc.  And this whole theory got started because a bunch of people felt that something was wrong with the original ending and got together to figure out why. Don't tell me that only people who have gone through game files think that something's wrong with the ending.

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...
Saying nothing would suffice. Instead they have said time and time again that they won't. Sorry but the evidence is against you on this matter.

What evidence?

Saying nothing would make people MORE angry.  You know how many people were previously saying they'd never buy any Bioware or EA product ever again?  And how many have now decided all is forgiven?

Its a stalling/misdirection tactic.  And people are falling for it hook and sinker.  Its an incredible display, quite honestly.

[BansheeOwnage]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Nice little video I came across, not supporting IT directly, just shows how destroy is the only logical ending.

It is a good video. In fact, this is basically what happened in my head before EC was released. I lay there trying to get to sleep, but it wasn't working so instead I put together a mental list of who Shepard knows that oppose the reapers, and who supports alnernatives. Maybe I'll post the list later in a kind of QFT sense.

[XanderLav]

SubAstris wrote...

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

Read the codex entry for Indoctrination. If by the end of the game 90% of fans would caught on what was going on it wouldn't be Indoctrination at all.

[SubAstris]

XanderLav wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

And in both cases they're bad at knowing how to reveal a story.

Potentially.  It might just be a new way of trying to tell a story, and thus isn't perfectly ironed out or refined due to its experimental nature.

Personally I consider the 'Bioware is lazy/bad at writing' stance to be in itself very lazy.

When I played the game for the first time I saw how this moving walls resemble part of SB ship's engines and  I thought: hmmmm, strange we are in the Citadel tower why would engineres who biuld the Citadel put those engines in smallest part of Citadel why not put them in Citadel arms? As I remembered from ME2 the engine is huge no way they would fit this engine in a small tower connected to the Citadel with one tiny bridge. I thought it was wierd but didnt see IT coming)) Just another thing for literalls to explain. 

Developers repeat and reuse old bits all the time, it is nothing new. I think you have highlighted one of the biggest flaws in some ITers' thinking; many look over the practicalities of game development.

In fact the evidence you bring up goes against IT because not every Shepard has seen the engines before. Unless he is dreaming things he has never seen before

[Turbo_J]

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

They are not ready to do that. This was the second Indoctrination attempt; to quell the player and Shepard with some roses and sunshine and try again.

First attempt from in game. TIM/Anderson
Second Attempt in game: Starbinger the death brat.

First attempt out of game: Original ending
Second attempt out of game: EC.

I'd like to think BW is smarter and more creative than I am.

You would be wrong

Just from the statements put out by BW their decision not to conclusively show IT to be true if that was their true intention doesn't make sound financial or story sense

"That would be telling." Edi, Normandy; 2186

A reveal now would be spoilers

I think the EC had two purposes;

First, they got the change to bring the ending up to the standard they were after when the requested the 6 month extension and only got 3 months.

Second, it helped reduce the number of people who were too pissed off to bother with DLC.

Once the DLCs start to sell and more hints towards what is going on is revealed, those who had not purchased them; you know, the indoctrinated masses, will wake up themsleves and open their wallets. Not all will, but most.

Saying nothing would suffice. Instead they have said time and time again that they won't. Sorry but the evidence is against you on this matter.

You sure?

"We are not changing the ending."

For the most part they didn't. But they added an option and altered several aspects of the endings.

I'm not saying there will be a new ending. Did the ending of ME 2 change when Arrival was released?

[Eryri]

MaximizedAction wrote...

XanderLav wrote...

I played the EC with IT in my mind and here is something interesting I've noticed.
When I first time heard about IT I thought why would Shepard use his memories of collector's base and Shadow broker ship to create the place he teleported to.
Quick offtopic. Have you ever experienced a dream that changes immensely because there is something going on around you outside of your dream? For example you're dreaming and somebody is knocking on your door so your brain incorporate those noises into your dream, happened to me, definitely interesting experience.
Back to my case. We know from IT that Anderson represents part of Shepard that is still fighting indoctrination. First he calls your name and wake's you up. Then when you approach door leading to second room Anderson mentions moving walls and next thing we see part of Shadow broker ship, closest thing from Shepard's memories that has some kind of moving structures. Otherwise parts of SB ship have nothing to do in this part of Citadel. After that he mentions control panel and nothing else so wee empty room with control panel.
It doesn't make sense outside of IT but with IT in the back of your head it does make some sense. What I'm trying to deliver her is that Anderson builds Shepard's surroundings for him.
Totally crazy or not?
Sorry for bad grammar English is my second language.

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

But you found the timing: 'Anderson' mentiones these things moments before Shepard sees them properly -- accept for the console maybe, which we can see a bit from before the chasm, BUT for some reason BW increased this light beam coming from the console so that it's harder to make out the console from far away.

So, to go on with your theory, why would Anderson (or someone else) tell Shepard all these things?

Along these lines, has anyone theorised that the weird sound when Shepard jumps wakes up on the citadel, might be someone using a defibrillator on him in the real world?

[llbountyhunter]

XanderLav wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

Read the codex entry for Indoctrination. If by the end of the game 90% of fans would caught on what was going on it wouldn't be Indoctrination at all.

The entire theme and lore of mass effect supports IT.

The literal endings go against everything weve been shown.

[llbountyhunter]

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

They are not ready to do that. This was the second Indoctrination attempt; to quell the player and Shepard with some roses and sunshine and try again.

First attempt from in game. TIM/Anderson
Second Attempt in game: Starbinger the death brat.

First attempt out of game: Original ending
Second attempt out of game: EC.

I'd like to think BW is smarter and more creative than I am.

You would be wrong

Just from the statements put out by BW their decision not to conclusively show IT to be true if that was their true intention doesn't make sound financial or story sense

"That would be telling." Edi, Normandy; 2186

A reveal now would be spoilers

I think the EC had two purposes;

First, they got the change to bring the ending up to the standard they were after when the requested the 6 month extension and only got 3 months.

Second, it helped reduce the number of people who were too pissed off to bother with DLC.

Once the DLCs start to sell and more hints towards what is going on is revealed, those who had not purchased them; you know, the indoctrinated masses, will wake up themsleves and open their wallets. Not all will, but most.

Saying nothing would suffice. Instead they have said time and time again that they won't. Sorry but the evidence is against you on this matter.

You sure?

"We are not changing the ending."

For the most part they didn't. But they added an option and altered several aspects of the endings.

I'm not saying there will be a new ending. Did the ending of ME 2 change when Arrival was released?

Actually they even said, "were not adding new endings..."

[insomniak9]

So many nested quotes but nothing about husks and guns

[Xavendithas]

Eryri wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

XanderLav wrote...

I played the EC with IT in my mind and here is something interesting I've noticed.
When I first time heard about IT I thought why would Shepard use his memories of collector's base and Shadow broker ship to create the place he teleported to.
Quick offtopic. Have you ever experienced a dream that changes immensely because there is something going on around you outside of your dream? For example you're dreaming and somebody is knocking on your door so your brain incorporate those noises into your dream, happened to me, definitely interesting experience.
Back to my case. We know from IT that Anderson represents part of Shepard that is still fighting indoctrination. First he calls your name and wake's you up. Then when you approach door leading to second room Anderson mentions moving walls and next thing we see part of Shadow broker ship, closest thing from Shepard's memories that has some kind of moving structures. Otherwise parts of SB ship have nothing to do in this part of Citadel. After that he mentions control panel and nothing else so wee empty room with control panel.
It doesn't make sense outside of IT but with IT in the back of your head it does make some sense. What I'm trying to deliver her is that Anderson builds Shepard's surroundings for him.
Totally crazy or not?
Sorry for bad grammar English is my second language.

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

But you found the timing: 'Anderson' mentiones these things moments before Shepard sees them properly -- accept for the console maybe, which we can see a bit from before the chasm, BUT for some reason BW increased this light beam coming from the console so that it's harder to make out the console from far away.

So, to go on with your theory, why would Anderson (or someone else) tell Shepard all these things?

Along these lines, has anyone theorised that the weird sound when Shepard jumps wakes up on the citadel, might be someone using a defibrillator on him in the real world?

Yeah, we were discussing that a few pages ago.

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...
Developers repeat and reuse old bits all the time, it is nothing new. I think you have highlighted one of the biggest flaws in some ITers' thinking; many look over the practicalities of game development.

In fact the evidence you bring up goes against IT because not every Shepard has seen the engines before. Unless he is dreaming things he has never seen before

Considering Bioware stated they spent extra time and effort on the endings to make it 'exactly as they intended it to be', the whole 'reusing assets' argument feels weak as it goes along the 'Bioware is lazy' route.  Not to mention they 'reuse assets' which are inappropriate for the situation.

If anyone is ignoring evidence...

[XanderLav]

Lokanaiya wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Ya but come on Subart. Bioware has said a lot of things but the EC was only an expassion of the endings not add a new end and fix a lot of the endgame when you are about to charge to the Conduit.

I'm referring to all potential future DLC. EC was the one chance to say," guys, it was IT", and they blew it

I'll say it again.

BioWare did exactly what they said they were going to do with the EC. They said that if you believed in IT, the EC would not change your opinion and if you believed in the literal interpretation of the ending, it would not change your opinion.

It begs the question why they would do that if IT was their intention. Did they not enough people believe it? If that's the reason, it not only shows bad storytelling but also being unprincipled

I disagree. BioWare is going about it in the only way I think it could feasibly be done. You leave enough evidence in place to keep the people that pick up on the discrepancies looking and questioning, while leaving enough closure to trick the people that haven't yet picked up on the fact that something is horribly amiss in the final 10 minutes of the game.

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

"SO BE IT. "

I think that alone makes it pretty clear that something's wrong. And we STILL have no idea how Synthesis turns everything into cyborgs, why Harbinger lets the Normandy escape, etc.  And this whole theory got started because a bunch of people felt that something was wrong with the original ending and got together to figure out why. Don't tell me that only people who have gone through game files think that something's wrong with the ending.

Modifié par XanderLav, 29 juin 2012 - 07:31 .

[XanderLav]

insomniak9 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

O.o This bit makes even more sense, if the noises are gunshots and husk screams. 

Look at the picture. That is blatantly Dreadnought guns pointed at husks! 



The guns are the "hand-rails" up the incline. The husks are the 'shadows' on the far wall, which then come into view as part of the Citadel structure. 

WOW it took me a minute to see husks but this looks awesome. Dont know if its intended or not but nice find. 

[MaximizedAction]

insomniak9 wrote...

So many nested quotes but nothing about husks and guns

I haven't seen it from that perspective yet, literally! That is actually a good spot. Haven't thought about those black shades resembling husks while the 1M1 standing for weapons. Cool!

We have talked here about those omnipresent 1M1, A LOT, but not in this context. Your interpretation gives a good reason for them being there.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 29 juin 2012 - 07:33 .

[dreamgazer]

Turbo_J wrote...

"We are not changing the ending."

For the most part they didn't. But they added an option and altered several aspects of the endings.

I'm not saying there will be a new ending. Did the ending of ME 2 change when Arrival was released?

That's actually a really good point, under any point-of-view. 

[Xavendithas]

XanderLav wrote...

insomniak9 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Yes, it makes total sense. Another example for something like that is something that DJBare noticed: those discharges in the console room resemble gunshot sounds and husks screams; that would too make sense if there's some battle going on while Shepard's unconcious in London.

O.o This bit makes even more sense, if the noises are gunshots and husk screams. 

Look at the picture. That is blatantly Dreadnought guns pointed at husks! 



The guns are the "hand-rails" up the incline. The husks are the 'shadows' on the far wall, which then come into view as part of the Citadel structure. 

WOW it took me a minute to see husks but this looks awesome. Dont know if its intended or not but nice find. 

Now stand in that hallway and just listen to the sounds of the electricity arcing. If that doesn't sound like a fierce gun battle and dying husks...then I dunno.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
If an author fails to accurately and clearly impart his true intention for the story then it has failed. That's is pretty basic stuff and what has clearly happened, if IT is true, here

I would argue that the foreshadowing isn't actually that, but just poor storytelling coupled with people stretching the truth and misinterpreting the meaning of what BW intended.

So we're back to the same two basic interpretations?

1/ Bioware is bad at writing, and too stubborn to fix it.

2/ Bioware is amazing at writing, and its going over most people's heads.



Yeah.

That's a vast over-simplification.

Clarify then.  But from what I can see the argument is that Bioware isn't smart enough to have a hidden plot, and all the inconsistancies and dead-end foreshadowing is just bad writing.

I'm not saying BW has bad writers necessarily. However, we have evidence of them being bad when it comes even to relatively simple plots, such as ME2. And given other plot twists done by BW, such as in KOTOR, the amount of foreshadowing is so much greater (having recently re-played it, in the first hour alone there must have been half a dozen very clear foreshadowing attempts) than this game if IT is true.

Nor do I think all the "foreshadowing" is bad writing, just ITers are mistaken

[insomniak9]

I thought it looked weird on my EC playthru, couldn't decide if they were Husks or Banshees, but someone mentioned the sparks sounding like gunshots and shreiks, and I grabbed this from a vid on YT.
It makes more sense when you play or watch a vid, but it leaves you running around in the Control Panel room looking for them (pro-tip: they're shadows on the ceiling)

If that doesn't sound like dream / hallucination state, then I'll eat all of our hats. 

Modifié par insomniak9, 29 juin 2012 - 07:36 .

[MaximizedAction]

dreamgazer wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

"We are not changing the ending."

For the most part they didn't. But they added an option and altered several aspects of the endings.

I'm not saying there will be a new ending. Did the ending of ME 2 change when Arrival was released?

That's actually a really good point, under any point-of-view. 

That point itself should be a debate starter on what an ending is actually when there are DLCs. An ending to ME3, sure, that's it.

But the better fitting quote for the sake of the argument would be "No further ending DLC is planned".

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...

I'm not saying BW has bad writers necessarily. However, we have evidence of them being bad when it comes even to relatively simple plots, such as ME2. And given other plot twists done by BW, such as in KOTOR, the amount of foreshadowing is so much greater (having recently re-played it, in the first hour alone there must have been half a dozen very clear foreshadowing attempts) than this game if IT is true.

Nor do I think all the "foreshadowing" is bad writing, just ITers are mistaken

What does the 'foreshadowing' mean then?

What do the plot-holes mean, literally speaking?

What do the dreams mean, literally speaking?

[SubAstris]

Xavendithas wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

You are kinda of implying I have questioned enough. Trust me, I have.

And yet if you don't show that something is horribly amiss, make it clear so that not just a very small percentage of your audience who trail through dozens of sound files hidden in the depths of the game and the like "get it", you have really failed.

I speak only for myself, obviously.

I haven't spent any time looking through sound files, or at assets, etc. Yet the moment I turned off my XBox after finishing the game for the first time, my initial impression was that it was all in Shepards head. I think a lot of people here came to the same conclusion, rather quickly.

I don't recall ever having said that the people that are seeing the ending of the game as a literal thing don't 'get' it. It's a matter of perspective, influenced by any number of outside things.

To quote Legion, "Heretics say, one is less than two. Geth say, two is less than three."

Both is right, neither is wrong. Perspective is the difference.

And given that the outcome of IT would be to trick the players into choosing an outcome to the conflict that benefits the Reapers in some fashion, they are succeeding.

Interesting. Although of course you would be in the minority coming to that conclusion, at least initially.

Both perspectives could be right. Shepard dreaming the whole time since the Eden Prime in ME1 is also a valid perspective. The question is not really that but instead what was BW's actual intention for the ending