55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Turbo_J]

You know, Garrus missing at the Memorial Wall in destroy is curious. Is he always missing?

This is something I can see Shepard interpreting given her conversation with him at the London FOB. Maybe I'll run through it again and avoid chatting with him to see if that changes.

SubAstris: I have on question for you. Try not to go outside of game lore to answer it. Crappy writing/oversight won't cut it here.

Why does the relay explosion on the galaxy map originate in the Bahak system? Sol does not get the BGR nova until the 7th detonation. This was brought to BWs attention but remains true for both the original and EC.

The Bahak system is home to the long destroyed Alpha relay. So how could this happen unless it was something imagined by Shepard?

[TSA_383]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Okay folks, stop picking on him.
From the context it is often clear what he means.

So let's move on to more important things, like...

...BOOBS AND CATS 

SubAstris wrote...

IMO
lack of evidence in-game (having played the game with IT in mind, I
remain unconvinced, or rather if it was done, it was done very
badly) and the fact that every evidence for IT can be explained away
with relative ease. Plus the fact that if IT is true, then the EC is
pointless dream sections that weren't worth BW's time. I highly doubt
that a profit-making company would throw away money like that.

There are other reasons but those are the main ones

Why do you think the EC adds more to IT?

They were in the middle of a PR nightmare... and I refuse to believe it took an entire dev team 3 months to do those extensions - a month is pushing it, and I know they had a lot of QA time, but still...
I do wonder how much it cost BW - hopefully it hasn't delayed the Leviathan DLC and such too badly...

[SubAstris]

Andromidius wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Imakassafabrication wrote...

I'm sorry I haven't got time to read over 1500 pages. I just want to hear opinions on why people don't subscribe to IT even with the new EC DLC?

It's the only plausible explanation for the endings in my opinion.

IMO lack of evidence in-game (having played the game with IT in mind, I remain unconvinced, or rather if it was done, it was done very badly) and the fact that every evidence for IT can be explained away with relative ease. Plus the fact that if IT is true, then the EC is pointless dream sections that weren't worth BW's time. I highly doubt that a profit-making company would throw away money like that.

There are other reasons but those are the main ones

Why do you think the EC adds more to IT?

I really don't get this whole 'lack of evidence' thing you've got going.  Must be some pretty damn heavy bias going on for you to think that.  The mountains of evidence are clear to everyone else.

Not to mention if the evidence could be explained away with ease, it would have been.  Fact is very few pieces of evidence have been explained away properly - mostly the best thing thrown against it is 'bad writing', and most of the rest is contrived and less plausible then hallucinations.

Honestly, you keep talking as if you've been destroying everyone with your arguments - but honestly half the time you've not even made any points and just stated opinion as if that's all that's required.

/sigh

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Oh SubAstris, yet more negativity.

You say all IT can be dismissed easily, but I fail to believe that.

You can dismiss everything at face value...

Negative? Not in the slightest, realistic more like

Potentially it can be dismissed, however the burden of proof is firmly on those who say IT is real

Wrong.  Burdon of proof is on anyone who's got an interpretation of the story they want to share.  Bioware have stated they wanted speculation - its not a case of one side is right and the other is wrong.

That's ironic

That is simply not true, people will often want to believe what they want to believe. I'm not accusing anyone in particular of that but it is a universal truth, in the same way that some people believe that crop circles are the products of aliens. I simply believe that a lot of the evidence labelled as "solid for IT" can be explained away not only by bad writing, which, let's not kid ourselves, BW has been guilty of before, but other factors including taking into consideration how a game is constructed, BW's history etc. which makes it more likely that they were not aiming for IT.

For my last points I have been trying to "destroy" arguments. I merely try to show that there are other explanations for things outside IT . People can come to their own conclusions based on that.

Let me make this clear, when I say I don't believe in IT, I am really saying I don't think it was BW's original intention. Now that can be proven or disproven. People can have their own interpretations, I merely stating what I think is more likely taking in consideration extra-story factors, which many a time I find ITers neglect to do

[comrade gando]

probably the biggest thing that implies that these endings aren’t what they seem is that my crosshairs are shaking in the last mission, and they shake nowhere else in the game (except after harbinger’s laser). nothing adds up, not even the new catalyst dialogue.

Shepard: Who created the citadel?

Catalyst: You wouldn’t know them, there’s not much time anyway.

in other words: stfu and pick a color or I’ll ASSUME CONT-- I mean uh… SO BE IT… yeah.

[SubAstris]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

IMO
lack of evidence in-game (having played the game with IT in mind, I
remain unconvinced, or rather if it was done, it was done very
badly) and the fact that every evidence for IT can be explained away
with relative ease. Plus the fact that if IT is true, then the EC is
pointless dream sections that weren't worth BW's time. I highly doubt
that a profit-making company would throw away money like that.

There are other reasons but those are the main ones

Why do you think the EC adds more to IT?

They were in the middle of a PR nightmare... and I refuse to believe it took an entire dev team 3 months to do those extensions - a month is pushing it, and I know they had a lot of QA time, but still...
I do wonder how much it cost BW - hopefully it hasn't delayed the Leviathan DLC and such too badly...

It might not have, at least in terms of game development, although having to also receive feedback on what people want could take a little bit of time. Nonetheless it is still wasted time that they could have put towards an IT EC

[SubAstris]

comrade gando wrote...

probably the biggest thing that implies that these endings aren’t what they seem is that my crosshairs are shaking in the last mission, and they shake nowhere else in the game (except after harbinger’s laser). nothing adds up, not even the new catalyst dialogue.

Shepard: Who created the citadel?

Catalyst: You wouldn’t know them, there’s not much time anyway.

in other words: stfu and pick a color or I’ll ASSUME CONT-- I mean uh… SO BE IT… yeah.

This is true, but it could be a sign of Shepard's fatigue and stress at the mission.

[Turbo_J]

Oh, I forgot. Liara's dialog when asking about casualties in the FOB changes depending on how your relationships are with your squad. If she says 'some people aren't going to make it' squadies will be missing from the memorial scene/will be up on the wall. If she says 'only a few more wounded have been brought in', nobody but Garrus is missing (in destroy at least.)

Foreshadowing or crystal ball? Everyone can potentially be alive still at this point. Steve is the only exception.

[SubAstris]

Turbo_J wrote...

You know, Garrus missing at the Memorial Wall in destroy is curious. Is he always missing?

This is something I can see Shepard interpreting given her conversation with him at the London FOB. Maybe I'll run through it again and avoid chatting with him to see if that changes.

SubAstris: I have on question for you. Try not to go outside of game lore to answer it. Crappy writing/oversight won't cut it here.

Why does the relay explosion on the galaxy map originate in the Bahak system? Sol does not get the BGR nova until the 7th detonation. This was brought to BWs attention but remains true for both the original and EC.

The Bahak system is home to the long destroyed Alpha relay. So how could this happen unless it was something imagined by Shepard?

First how do you know it was brought to their attention.

[CoolioThane]

Oh God, you're again trying to explain it all away from outside-the-lore.

It's much more likely IT than anything you say...

[prettz]

Turbo_J wrote...

You know, Garrus missing at the Memorial Wall in destroy is curious. Is he always missing?

This is something I can see Shepard interpreting given her conversation with him at the London FOB. Maybe I'll run through it again and avoid chatting with him to see if that changes.

only if Shepard lives dose Garrus not show up.... at first. keep waching and he just pops in their when no one is looking.

Modifié par prettz, 04 juillet 2012 - 07:21 .

[comrade gando]

SubAstris wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

probably the biggest thing that implies that these endings aren’t what they seem is that my crosshairs are shaking in the last mission, and they shake nowhere else in the game (except after harbinger’s laser). nothing adds up, not even the new catalyst dialogue.

Shepard: Who created the citadel?

Catalyst: You wouldn’t know them, there’s not much time anyway.

in other words: stfu and pick a color or I’ll ASSUME CONT-- I mean uh… SO BE IT… yeah.

This is true, but it could be a sign of Shepard's fatigue and stress at the mission.

shepard's been in plenty of battles and stuff and his crosshairs never shook. only now so close to so many reapers and harbinger does his crosshairs start to shake. It just doesn't make sense why would they put in all these indicators that something is wrong, then throw all that out the window and finish with a nonsensical ending just doesn't add up. 

what if there's a DLC way down the road that offers a new final mission aboard harbinger or something. like a final secret mission, and it offers proper character closure and a final boss battle against harbinger and..oh idk something better than what we got... cuz it looks like bull****. and smells like bull****.

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

There's being realistic and then there's being "realistic" to the extent of seeming to dissuade us all from believing in the IT.

It strikes me as odd, and I've said this countless times, why people would come on the IT thread with the frame of mind to dismiss it and then try to convince us we're all wrong. Fine if you're going to discuss it, but your "discussion" seems to be:

'This point dismisses IT'
Someone argues points something out
'NO NO NO NO NO, etc.'
Someone disagrees
'Ignore and say, oooh look, this is obvious that IT is not real'

That was exaggerated obviously, but it's what it comes across as to me.

Also, if you don't believe in the IT, there's no point trying to dissuade us. You say you played through with 'IT' in mind, but you know you're anti-IT and so you would always be cynical.

Genuine question: Do you like the endings?

If not, why try your hardest to shoot down the theory which makes more sense than the current endings and stay unhappy?

You say "how does the EC help the IT?" - We've been discussing that for pages and pages, and you know that!

You want your views to be as correct and as valid as possible, yes? Then having them open to criticism is the best way to make sure that your theory can be as strong as possible. If it can withstand that, you have yourself a decent theory


I don't particularly the endings, but that doesn't mean I think IT was BW's intention.

I was specifically asking you.

[SubAstris]

comrade gando wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

probably the biggest thing that implies that these endings aren’t what they seem is that my crosshairs are shaking in the last mission, and they shake nowhere else in the game (except after harbinger’s laser). nothing adds up, not even the new catalyst dialogue.

Shepard: Who created the citadel?

Catalyst: You wouldn’t know them, there’s not much time anyway.

in other words: stfu and pick a color or I’ll ASSUME CONT-- I mean uh… SO BE IT… yeah.

This is true, but it could be a sign of Shepard's fatigue and stress at the mission.

shepard's been in plenty of battles and stuff and his crosshairs never shook. only now so close to so many reapers and harbinger does his crosshairs start to shake. It just doesn't make sense why would they put in all these indicators that something is wrong, then throw all that out the window and finish with a nonsensical ending just doesn't add up. 

what if there's a DLC way down the road that offers a new final mission aboard harbinger or something. like a final secret mission, and it offers proper character closure and a final boss battle against harbinger and..oh idk something better than what we got... cuz it looks like bull****. and smells like bull****.

Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

Oh God, you're again trying to explain it all away from outside-the-lore.

It's much more likely IT than anything you say...

No, put it is daft to think that outside-the-line don't play a factor at all in the game

[CoolioThane]

SubAstris wrote...


You want your views to be as correct and as valid as possible, yes? Then having them open to criticism is the best way to make sure that your theory can be as strong as possible. If it can withstand that, you have yourself a decent theory


I don't particularly the endings, but that doesn't mean I think IT was BW's intention.

I was specifically asking you.

They are open to criticism, but your main arguments are outside of the game. We are using examples from in-game, which the designers put in there! You saying "poor writing" or "oversights" just show you're not willing to accept there's something up.

Do you accept then that, if Bioware did not intend IT from the start, which I think they did, that they may now "jump on the wagon"? 

Arguments "They want to keep speculation" up might stand, but if all this speculation, including clues left in all of the DLC, leads to nothing there are gonna be a helluva lot more angry people than if they release IT DLC at the end of it all. In fact, they should be praised.

[masster blaster]

Garrus was in the memorial secen as was my whole squad/ with the exception of EDI and no I don't know about Garrus goes missing because I trited all of my crew and squad with the up most respect and I made damm sure that they never commited any crims that they will regret later so ya.

[CoolioThane]

SubAstris wrote...



Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

NOONE KNOWS WHAT BIOWARE ARE GOING TO DO! 

YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT, SONNY

[Anthropophobic]

The purpose of the EC was to provide closure. The EC's existence has no bearing on the validity of the indoctrination theory other than the new evidence it provides for and against it. If you were hoping for a confirmation or a denial of the indoctrination theory in the EC, then you were wrong.

If the endings were intended to have multiple interpretations, then the main purpose of the EC was probably to satisfy the fans who accepted the literal interpretation--you know, the ones who were destroying ME3's scores on Amazon and Metacritic.

Bioware would have achieved nothing by confirming IT in the EC. We have to wait for new content.

[comrade gando]

SubAstris wrote...

Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

bioware said lots of things. they said they wouldn't change the endings but they changed them anyway, and even added a 4th one for ****s and giggles. truth is I can't trust anything bioware says anymore, all I can do is wait for more DLC, and that's just sad how you can't even experience a full game anymore without paying 70 80 90 100 110 DOLLAHS until you get the complete experience... for shame.

[Priss Blackburne]

I would be overjoyed if all the DLC left more and more clues about Indoctrination and the effects on Shepard from prolonged exposure to reaper tech, including his implants.

And Garrus was probably off you know...actually looking for Shepard if he/she was still alive. He's the one person I think is stubborn enough to do that.

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


You want your views to be as correct and as valid as possible, yes? Then having them open to criticism is the best way to make sure that your theory can be as strong as possible. If it can withstand that, you have yourself a decent theory


I don't particularly the endings, but that doesn't mean I think IT was BW's intention.

I was specifically asking you.

They are open to criticism, but your main arguments are outside of the game. We are using examples from in-game, which the designers put in there! You saying "poor writing" or "oversights" just show you're not willing to accept there's something up.

Do you accept then that, if Bioware did not intend IT from the start, which I think they did, that they may now "jump on the wagon"? 

Arguments "They want to keep speculation" up might stand, but if all this speculation, including clues left in all of the DLC, leads to nothing there are gonna be a helluva lot more angry people than if they release IT DLC at the end of it all. In fact, they should be praised.

I do use evidence from in-game but I am not blind to the fact that mistakes in games happen, especially when you look in such minute detail as many members of this forum do.

They could, but that would be unprincipled and IMO even worse because it was not their true artistic vision, even if you happen to disagree with the original one.

Depends on how many angry people there are...

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

NOONE KNOWS WHAT BIOWARE ARE GOING TO DO! 

YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT, SONNY

I am repeating what BW have said many many times. It is not opinion

[Anthropophobic]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

I would be overjoyed if all the DLC left more and more clues about Indoctrination and the effects on Shepard from prolonged exposure to reaper tech, including his implants.

I think that's what's going to happen; supposedly, from what little we know about the leaked Leviathan DLC we can already find a few contradictions against what the Star Child says. That could just be Bioware failing at writing again, but I think it's a sign that more evidence for IT is on the way.

[SubAstris]

comrade gando wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

bioware said lots of things. they said they wouldn't change the endings but they changed them anyway, and even added a 4th one for ****s and giggles. truth is I can't trust anything bioware says anymore, all I can do is wait for more DLC, and that's just sad how you can't even experience a full game anymore without paying 70 80 90 100 110 DOLLAHS until you get the complete experience... for shame.

There's a difference between doing away with the endings, which is what I think you mean by "changing the endings", and expanding on them, which they did in the EC

[Anthropophobic]

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



Admittedly he was very close to many Reapers on many places, including Earth in the first mission, but we don't see the shaking there.

But you realise BW are never going to do another ending DLC for ME3? The EC was their last attempt and they kept the endings as they were.

NOONE KNOWS WHAT BIOWARE ARE GOING TO DO! 

YOUR OPINION IS NOT FACT, SONNY

I am repeating what BW have said many many times. It is not opinion

Bioware also said that the endings wouldn't just be A, B, C (which it originally obviously was). Bioware also said that there wouldn't just be a switch to kill all the Reapers (which there is).

The truth is that Bioware lies.