plfranke wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
llbountyhunter wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
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.
If alot of people didn't like IT it males perfect sense for them to do what they did.
Why not just confirm the literal endings?
But I hear all the time that people love IT, your good friend Arian was quoted as saying 80% of people support IT.
They have done basically everything barring "IT is not true" to confirm the literal endings anyway (if you want to disagree, that's fine)
That's not true at all. First of all it's unfair to say because the biggest thing they could do to confirm is to say that IT isn't true, but there are other things as well. They made the scene where the normandy evacuates your squadmates ridiculous. They don't show anything about the breath scene. They kept the line from coates that everyone has been wiped out, yet somehow someone gives Hackett the intel that Shepard made it on to the citadel but then Hackett a few seconds later says "someone made it on". They kept the weird scene with Anderson and TIM and didn't do anything to show how they got on to the Citadel. There's a lot that's still very unexplained in the endings.
1) I'm not quite sure what you mean
2) I assume you think the lack of Normandy evacuation scene was ridiculous
before EC? I would agree, and I'm not too keen on the new one either. But I can
see why they did; the original was stupid, and BW did something about it,
although not to everyone's liking. They put time and effort into explaining how
your squadmates explained. This begs the questions of why they did it if IT is
true because its point would be null and void.
I'm not really going to answer the rest because its pretty standard IT fare,
and it's obvious what my position is on those matters. I'm not going to waste
your time.
Modifié par SubAstris, 29 juin 2012 - 08:39 .