55528 réponses à ce sujet

[MaximizedAction]

Eryri wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

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".

By the same token, Throne of Bhaal didn't change the ending of Baldur's gate 2, but it certainly added to the story. Do you think we might be in for a good old fashioned expansion pack? Possibly disc based for the folks with poor internet connections? Maybe I'm getting my hopes up too much, but that would be great!

It would even explain all the quotes suggesting that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. An expansion pack would still be technically part of ME3, rathen than a true sequel.

That I think might be a problem, as it would require payment. Why?

The problem with the ME3 ending are not only the disappoint moral implications from the story or the initial lack of closure, but pre-release statements from devs that explicitly stated things that on a first look are exact opposits of what the ending turned out to be.

So, while being nothing lawsuit-worthy, enough fans accursed them of false advertising and where p*ssed off.

So, if BW decided to play a little game with us, it has to turn out as a joke eventually, and they should give out the 'real' ending for free, thus giving everyone the game they really expected from all those interviews. And that is really only possible with DLC, which is very present in-game (menu entry, initial final written message "built that legend with downloadable content").

TL;DR: Imo, the ME3 twist (if existent) is something that fits in the DLC generation.

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

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...

It's not lazy, if it ain't broke don't fix it. Developers make shortcuts all the time. I doubt many were clambering for the Shadow Broker engines to be removed anyway just because they had been used before. You're implying that they didn't intend to use in the first place, which I don't think is true, for the reasons I have mentioned. It is not strange, unusual

But it IS broken, from a literal standpoint!

Oh I give up...  Someone else take over.

But IT ISN'T BROKEN! It's admissible, negligible

[Turbo_J]

Eryri wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

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".

By the same token, Throne of Bhaal didn't change the ending of Baldur's gate 2, but it certainly added to the story. Do you think we might be in for a good old fashioned expansion pack? Possibly disc based for the folks with poor internet connections? Maybe I'm getting my hopes up too much, but that would be great!

It would even explain all the quotes suggesting that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. An expansion pack would still be technically part of ME3, rathen than a true sequel.

A few times it was mentioned as 'the end of this arc of Shepars story.' but they stopped saying that.

[Dwailing]

I've been thinking about something, and I just had a realization. There's clear evidence that Starbinger (I'm going to revive that.) is in Shepard's mind in some capacity. How do I know this? Because every time Shepard asks Starbinger what's going to happen if he chooses a certain ending, he see a vision of what the outcome will be. This is in addition to the visions of Anderson and TIM. Here's a video:

[jgibson14352]

Xavendithas wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

well heres your quote, but if you check the thread back near the 1350s youll see everybody here told me not to worry about it

I don't think a person that uses Kai-Leng as their avatar should be trusted.

technically, none of them can be trusted, either way its something to be considered

[MegumiAzusa]

insomniak9 wrote...

Another point that the video will help to explain... at 00:01 in the video, you can clearly see Shepard not holding the gun.

Play the level again, and try clicking the mouse. You'll be surprised.

This bug only occurs when you reload. If you play straight from the run you can't fire.

[insomniak9]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

insomniak9 wrote...

Another point that the video will help to explain... at 00:01 in the video, you can clearly see Shepard not holding the gun.

Play the level again, and try clicking the mouse. You'll be surprised.

This bug only occurs when you reload. If you play straight from the run you can't fire.

Dammit, thanks for clearing it up though.

Ignore that then, and discuss the Big Red Destroybinger 

[Andromidius]

SubAstris wrote...

But IT ISN'T BROKEN! It's admissible, negligible

i.e. You can't explain the plotholes, thus you ignore them.

Seriously, if you can't give an explaination for things then you're not doing a good job proving your points.  If you can't explain them without either indoctrination or hallucination, then you can't explain them with literalist viewpoints.

And thus the pointholes are breaks in the game.

End of.

[llbountyhunter]

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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

There is nothing that points toward a mental battle in me1 though. In me3 there are 1000 word documents and hour long videos full of support.

Please stop it with your ridiculous statements sub, you can do better than that.

You're assuming that quantity equals quality. There have been hundreds of books written and hundreds of videos made on creationism or 9/11, don't make it true.

Bounty, you disappoint.

Really? I have to say alot of conclusive evidence for you? Thers alot of both quantity and quality. 

I too give up on you.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 29 juin 2012 - 08:01 .

[MaximizedAction]

jgibson14352 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

well heres your quote, but if you check the thread back near the 1350s youll see everybody here told me not to worry about it

I don't think a person that uses Kai-Leng as their avatar should be trusted.

technically, none of them can be trusted, either way its something to be considered

If you analyse those statements forensically, you come to the conclusion that, technically, they aren't lies, just for some reason, stated in a weird way to appear as such.
For example: There aren't just three A, B, C endings, there are (now) way more, but why design that key moment that will make you naturally associate the endings with it 3 RGB endings?

[Dwailing]

Dwailing wrote...

I've been thinking about something, and I just had a realization. There's clear evidence that Starbinger (I'm going to revive that.) is in Shepard's mind in some capacity. How do I know this? Because every time Shepard asks Starbinger what's going to happen if he chooses a certain ending, he see a vision of what the outcome will be. This is in addition to the visions of Anderson and TIM. Here's a video:

Not sure if this is premature, but seriously, any thoughts?

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But IT ISN'T BROKEN! It's admissible, negligible

i.e. You can't explain the plotholes, thus you ignore them.

Seriously, if you can't give an explaination for things then you're not doing a good job proving your points.  If you can't explain them without either indoctrination or hallucination, then you can't explain them with literalist viewpoints.

And thus the pointholes are breaks in the game.

End of.

No, I have made my position perfectly clear as to why it is not strange for the Shadow Broker's engines to be present there without resorting to IT and its derivatives. In fact, as I have said again and again, it doesn't make sense in IT since Shepards who haven't done LotSB are imagining something they have never seen!

[MaximizedAction]

Dwailing wrote...

I've been thinking about something, and I just had a realization. There's clear evidence that Starbinger (I'm going to revive that.) is in Shepard's mind in some capacity. How do I know this? Because every time Shepard asks Starbinger what's going to happen if he chooses a certain ending, he see a vision of what the outcome will be. This is in addition to the visions of Anderson and TIM. Here's a video:

Exactly, and they even added that to the EC for some reason. Shepard now even closes his eyes. I can't really explain that with the endings being legit, i.e. with the Catalyst telling the truth.

[SubAstris]

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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

There is nothing that points toward a mental battle in me1 though. In me3 there are 1000 word documents and hour long videos full of support.

Please stop it with your ridiculous statements sub, you can do better than that.

You're assuming that quantity equals quality. There have been hundreds of books written and hundreds of videos made on creationism or 9/11, don't make it true.

Bounty, you disappoint.

Really? I have to say alot of conclusive evidence for you? Thers alot of both quantity and quality. 

I too give up on you.

We will have to agree to disagree, very simple

[jgibson14352]

MaximizedAction wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

well heres your quote, but if you check the thread back near the 1350s youll see everybody here told me not to worry about it

I don't think a person that uses Kai-Leng as their avatar should be trusted.

technically, none of them can be trusted, either way its something to be considered

If you analyse those statements forensically, you come to the conclusion that, technically, they aren't lies, just for some reason, stated in a weird way to appear as such.
For example: There aren't just three A, B, C endings, there are (now) way more, but why design that key moment that will make you naturally associate the endings with it 3 RGB endings?

yes, id say about 90% of those are about the endings, and theire argument for that held up in the british courts, so id say they get a pass, no matter how POd we are. theres still that 10% though, like the one about the rachni.

[paxxton]

Dwailing wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I've been thinking about something, and I just had a realization. There's clear evidence that Starbinger (I'm going to revive that.) is in Shepard's mind in some capacity. How do I know this? Because every time Shepard asks Starbinger what's going to happen if he chooses a certain ending, he see a vision of what the outcome will be. This is in addition to the visions of Anderson and TIM. Here's a video:

Not sure if this is premature, but seriously, any thoughts?

Sorry, I don't follow.

Modifié par paxxton, 29 juin 2012 - 08:04 .

[insomniak9]

insomniak9 wrote...

Another picture to illustrate another of my points:

The Destroy console has great big curvy circular pipes in it's construction, tell me that doesn't look like a Reaper from this angle. Control is completely lacking these. Why not make it symmetrical?

I'll tell you why; because when you shoot Destroy, you're actually shooting Harbinger. 

We don't need to argue the validity of IT here; this is to discuss Indoctrination Hallucination theory. So, discuss this ^ 

[MaximizedAction]

jgibson14352 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

Xavendithas wrote...

jgibson14352 wrote...

well heres your quote, but if you check the thread back near the 1350s youll see everybody here told me not to worry about it

I don't think a person that uses Kai-Leng as their avatar should be trusted.

technically, none of them can be trusted, either way its something to be considered

If you analyse those statements forensically, you come to the conclusion that, technically, they aren't lies, just for some reason, stated in a weird way to appear as such.
For example: There aren't just three A, B, C endings, there are (now) way more, but why design that key moment that will make you naturally associate the endings with it 3 RGB endings?

yes, id say about 90% of those are about the endings, and theire argument for that held up in the british courts, so id say they get a pass, no matter how POd we are. theres still that 10% though, like the one about the rachni.

Yes, it's interesting that they STILL haven't showed the Rachni. Where, if not in the EC...HMMM

[Dwailing]

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But IT ISN'T BROKEN! It's admissible, negligible

i.e. You can't explain the plotholes, thus you ignore them.

Seriously, if you can't give an explaination for things then you're not doing a good job proving your points.  If you can't explain them without either indoctrination or hallucination, then you can't explain them with literalist viewpoints.

And thus the pointholes are breaks in the game.

End of.

No, I have made my position perfectly clear as to why it is not strange for the Shadow Broker's engines to be present there without resorting to IT and its derivatives. In fact, as I have said again and again, it doesn't make sense in IT since Shepards who haven't done LotSB are imagining something they have never seen!

I should point out that technically, those are NOT the same models as the ones on the Shadow Broker Ship.  They made a whole new asset.  However, they seem designed to REMIND the player of the panels on the Shadow Broker Ship.  They didn't just reuse an asset, they designed a whole new one.  And they could have designed that asset ANY WAY THEY WANTED TO.  And yet, they decided to go with a model that would remind people of the panels on the Shadow Broker Ship.  Why?

Edit: Actually, could someone who's dug into the game files tell me whether it's the same asset just retextured or a whole new asset?

Modifié par Dwailing, 29 juin 2012 - 08:08 .

[Eryri]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Eryri wrote...

By the same token, Throne of Bhaal didn't change the ending of Baldur's gate 2, but it certainly added to the story. Do you think we might be in for a good old fashioned expansion pack? Possibly disc based for the folks with poor internet connections? Maybe I'm getting my hopes up too much, but that would be great!

It would even explain all the quotes suggesting that ME3 is the end of Shepard's story. An expansion pack would still be technically part of ME3, rathen than a true sequel.

That I think might be a problem, as it would require payment. Why?

The problem with the ME3 ending are not only the disappoint moral implications from the story or the initial lack of closure, but pre-release statements from devs that explicitly stated things that on a first look are exact opposits of what the ending turned out to be.

So, while being nothing lawsuit-worthy, enough fans accursed them of false advertising and where p*ssed off.

So, if BW decided to play a little game with us, it has to turn out as a joke eventually, and they should give out the 'real' ending for free, thus giving everyone the game they really expected from all those interviews. And that is really only possible with DLC, which is very present in-game (menu entry, initial final written message "built that legend with downloadable content").

TL;DR: Imo, the ME3 twist (if existent) is something that fits in the DLC generation.

Hmm - this is a bit morally tricky. On the one hand, I would feel a bit a bit taken advantage of if developers start a habit of holding game story content hostage, a la the "True Ending" to Asura's Wrath.

On the other, had I been entirely satisfied with ME3's ending as it was, I would have gladly bought dlc anyway. If this new Leviathan pack for example gives us a good mission, and feeds new consequences into the ending that make it great - i.e a successful Refuse option, or a post wake up sequence - then I'm in the same place, (and would have spent the same amount of money) that I would have been had the ending been great to begin with, and then gone on to buy mid-game dlc.

TL DR - Is it OK for Bioware to charge for an IT expansion pack, as long as it's good quality and provides a decent amount of gameplay for the money?

[MegumiAzusa]

alittlewren wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Just checked what they changed in the dream: Shepard now looks totally confused and freaked out when she sees herself. Before she was just standing there pretty emotionless.

Pardon me, I don't normally post on the forums, but I've been somewhat following this discussion since ME3 came out (you guys are great!), and I've also been wondering if they changed anything about the last dream sequence. With my paragon, Kaidan-romanced femshep, with EC installed, I was able to produce two versions of the dream, seemingly depending on my answer to Kaidan's question, "Shepard, you know that you've done everything you could, right?" 

If I answer with the top option, "Everything?" I get the dream sequence where Shepard's facial animations remain calm and relaxed.  

If I answer with the bottom option, "Absolutely." I get the dream sequence where Shepard's facial animations become confused and distressed. 

I'm not sure if it's only linked to conversation answers, but so far I've only been able to replicate those results reliably with those two options. I also don't know if these two versions may have already been there before the EC; all I'm sure of is that I've never noticed it before EC. Does anyone know how to verify this? It's been bugging me since I saw this topic pop up here, and I noticed the difference myself.  If anyone's interested and I have time later, I can upload the two versions to youtube.

Hmm for me it's the other way around, when I select the top one her face gets distressed, when I select the bottom it remains calm. Will do a video of it and upload it on YT.

[Dwailing]

paxxton wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

I've been thinking about something, and I just had a realization. There's clear evidence that Starbinger (I'm going to revive that.) is in Shepard's mind in some capacity. How do I know this? Because every time Shepard asks Starbinger what's going to happen if he chooses a certain ending, he see a vision of what the outcome will be. This is in addition to the visions of Anderson and TIM. Here's a video:

Not sure if this is premature, but seriously, any thoughts?

Sorry, I don't follow.

It's clear that SOMETHING is placing images in Shepard's mind.  How else could he SEE what was going to happen in each choice?  And it seems as if the only thing that could do that would be Starbinger.  And since Starbinger is probably Harbinger, that just suggests to me that the Reapers are in Shepard's mind.

[Peytl]

Tbh, we just need to prove that Shep was on Citadel in the breathing scene, which can be proven by simple comparison of the cabels. This definitely destroys the IT premise that Shep is on the Earth. It's like card house, you remove one card and everything will just break down.

Can someone from IT believers explain me, why the hell would BW expand the "hallucinations"?

[SubAstris]

Dwailing wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

But IT ISN'T BROKEN! It's admissible, negligible

i.e. You can't explain the plotholes, thus you ignore them.

Seriously, if you can't give an explaination for things then you're not doing a good job proving your points.  If you can't explain them without either indoctrination or hallucination, then you can't explain them with literalist viewpoints.

And thus the pointholes are breaks in the game.

End of.

No, I have made my position perfectly clear as to why it is not strange for the Shadow Broker's engines to be present there without resorting to IT and its derivatives. In fact, as I have said again and again, it doesn't make sense in IT since Shepards who haven't done LotSB are imagining something they have never seen!

I should point out that technically, those are NOT the same models as the ones on the Shadow Broker Ship.  They made a whole new asset.  However, they seem designed to REMIND the player of the panels on the Shadow Broker Ship.  They didn't just reuse an asset, they designed a whole new one.  And they could have designed that asset ANY WAY THEY WANTED TO.  And yet, they decided to go with a model that would remind people of the panels on the Shadow Broker Ship.  Why?

Fair enough. They look pretty similar, I was merely pointing out a connection others ITers have made. Nor am I completely sure that they had the Shadow Broker's ship in mind (remember this is from the same people who didn't think people would link the destruction of the mass relay in Arrival with that in the ending of ME3). And my last point still stands

[SubAstris]

Peytl wrote...

Tbh, we just need to prove that Shep was on Citadel in the breathing scene, which can be proven by simple comparison of the cabels. This definitely destroys the IT premise that Shep is on the Earth. It's like card house, you remove one card and everything will just break down.

Can someone from IT believers explain me, why the hell would BW expand the "hallucinations"?

Best answer is that they wanted to please everyone, which still makes no sense if IT was their true plan. Unless BW are deeply unprincipled in this respect.