55528 réponses à ce sujet

[MaximizedAction]

Iucounou wrote...

My whole feeling regarding the "end" is that it is incomplete. Putting aside all the "it goes against the lore" arguments and such-like the ending just is so non-Biowarey that it just doesn't feel right. It kind of reminds me of the Matrix and the "glitches" that inhabitants there experienced. Something is clearly amiss.

The fact that there isn't an actual FAIL ending in what is supposed to be the last game of this series (Shepard's run, not ME in general) is puzzling. All of the endings are victory endings, though at differing costs to Shepard and the galaxy. I would have thought, for the end of the series, that one horrible ending that gave you a "mission failure" screen would be expected. But no. Just a set of varying degrees of Pyrrhic victories.

I have always thought, right from that first playthrough I did, that Bioware had something up their sleeve. I made the following graphic early on to express my sentiments:

i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/Mr_Hat/New%20Pics/1805388-me3ba_super.jpg

At the time it was mostly anger at Bioware that prompted it. Now I still think it is an accurate description of ME3, though now I simply believe there is more to come. I don't know whether that will be an IT DLC or something else. But it seems to me if this wasn't Bioware's plan all along, then it should be now.

I guess only time will tell.

Couldn't agree more! I had a similar feeling after finishing the game, nothing explicit as lore, Indoctrination or, clearly the ending is missing. It was more of a feel in the gut that something's not right. And after I decided to look at Bioware's silence treatment not with anger, but rational questioning (and with the help of IT) made it rather obvious to me that the ending must be fake.

No other way seems rationally explainable.

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

Priss Blackburne wrote...

But the amount of clues, from no interaction with or any else seeing or hearing the child at the beginning, to the mysterious tree from the dream that shows up after getting hit from harbinger.

But, The kid's behaviour itself is very much... unchild like.

First, he waits for Shepard to see him in the air duct.
Only then, he goes backwards as if to lure Shepard to come for him.
(why not look around and see that this soldier killed all the monsters, go out, hug him and stay close to him?)
When Shepard reaches for him, he says: "You can't help me."
His tone when he says that is very determined, as in stating a fact, and he looks straight at Shepard.
I can't imagine any child saying such a sentence in that tone.

And this is all scripted, not some game bugs.

Because he is scared.
Because he is scared. The kid's had his whole world turned upside down, he doesn't know who to trust. You can understand his reluctance.
What, while in the vent? I'm pretty sure he is looking out for his own safety first.
Because he is scared.
That's not really weird. Remember what the purpose of the scene is, to show a more human side to Shepard and to establish the guilt playing on his mind, "however hard you try, it's too bad knowing you can't save all of them", that's the thing plaguing Shepard's mind throughout ME3 and I would argue that is the reason for the dreams and his intense desire to see the end of conflict.

[SubAstris]

UltimateTobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But the IT relies on more content to come, if no more content is coming then it offers no better conclusion then we have currently.

Even if no DLC/content would come at all, the IT would still be there. It wouldn't be still bunked nor debunked.

The only way IT can die, IS DLC/content which will come which maybe disproves IT, or proves it. Or leaves clues and neither prove nor disprove it.

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

[UltimateTobi]

leonia42 wrote...

Right but without further ending content IT has a hard time justifying its premise. If Shepard never gets a second opportunity to take down the Reapers (and nobody has proposed the "real" method for how this will be accomplished) or we never see a scene where Shepard wakes up and continues to the actual conclusion then it's really hard to accept IT as valid.

There may still be theories and speculations to explain things that didn'd add up but if those things NEVER add up because Bioware doesn't ever address them then how can we ever know one way or another? At some point IT may become only headcanon if there isn't ME3-2 on the horizon. It's a shaky thing to rely so heavily on "possible, future content", if the theory can't stand on its own two legs how can it really stand at all?

And an aside - I know trolls are inevitable with this sort of discussion but there is absolutely no need to be rude to people who do not believe in IT, especially when they haven't been rude themselves. You guys can make yourselves look just as bad as the trolls with that sort of behaviour and I know you're all smarter than that so let's ease up on some of the language in our posts and think about what we say before hitting submit, eh? No need to draw moderator attention to what has been a mostly productive discussion thread.

I wasn't rude, was I? 

You have a good point, and I accept people's opinions. If they don't believe in IT, so be it. It's their right and opinion. I, for myself, believe in IT. One might say I am an IT-hard liner. But I don't let that come through in this thread here.
Example: IT is the only way for me to accept ME3's current endings. And if IT derails to head canon, so be it for me.

So a side note from me too: stay civil, don't be rude. Accept people's opinion and if you're tempted to respond, rather ignore than start a hot discussion about opinions which can't be changed. It's just wasted effort and time, and rises moderator's attention of offtopicness to this thread.

So long: IT all the way.  (Hehe.)

[Leonia]

You're fine, Tobi, my comment was more directed at Andromidous and a generic reminder because this is one of my favourite threads to read and I'd hate for it to get shut down because we can't always play nice with others.

SubAstris wrote...

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

A very good question that I'm not sure how to answer. Even if they added onto the already "literal" ending (though they have said they will not add anything else to the definitive ending) there would still be sceptics that would try to say otherwise. It's probably in their best interest to keep some sort of ambiguity and mystery regarding the endings, so nobody can be completely right or wrong and speculations can continue well into the future, up until the very last DLC and beyond. If anything, they could reinforce the current, literal endings by not making Destroy "special" and extending the story from all four choices (very unlikely) but a new form of IT would inevitably spring up to make room for such changes, it can never be truly disproven. If they truly do leave the endings alone for now on then its anybody's guess on IT.

Modifié par leonia42, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:03 .

[UltimateTobi]

SubAstris wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But the IT relies on more content to come, if no more content is coming then it offers no better conclusion then we have currently.

Even if no DLC/content would come at all, the IT would still be there. It wouldn't be still bunked nor debunked.

The only way IT can die, IS DLC/content which will come which maybe disproves IT, or proves it. Or leaves clues and neither prove nor disprove it.

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

I am not sure how that could turn out/made be possible. I am just stating.

Edit: @leonia: IT can only be disproven by an BW employee saying "IT is not true, the literal endings are.". And as you said, they won't confirm either way, just to keep the attention at a high level.

Modifié par UltimateTobi, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:06 .

[MaximizedAction]

UltimateTobi wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But the IT relies on more content to come, if no more content is coming then it offers no better conclusion then we have currently.

Even if no DLC/content would come at all, the IT would still be there. It wouldn't be still bunked nor debunked.

The only way IT can die, IS DLC/content which will come which maybe disproves IT, or proves it. Or leaves clues and neither prove nor disprove it.

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

I am not sure how that could turn out/made be possible. I am just stating.

Seconded.

For a DLC that has a chance of disproving IT (without being a Datapad saying: IT's false) it would have to, first of all, remove all the oddities of the whole ME3 game, especially the ending...which the EC did not do, it removed a few, but emphasized others and even added new oddities.

So, the EC did definitely not go in the right direction.

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

One thing which also bothered me about the ending is actaully the fact that Shepard stands alone before the catalyst.

While I have always liked the trope of the Hero facing the final Evil on his own, Shepard has never been alone before when facing the great evil in the past.

As he fought his way up the presidium tower and faced down Saren and Sovereign Shepard had two people at his back the entire time. When he stood before the Proto Reaper two of his companions were right there by his side, fighting the evil.

So by the end of ME3 having Shepard stand before the catalyst alone just feels...wrong.

To put this in another way, what is Shepards greatest strength, his greatest power and accomplishment in Mass Effect?

Is it his strength and skill on the battlefield? No, while he is without doubt incredibly skilled, that is not his true strength.

His true strength is his ability to make people come together no matter their past and work together towards a single goal. He shows it in ME1 as the Normandy and its crew happily disobeys orders to follow Saren, it only becomes stronger by ME2 where he gathers a team of very different people and makes them follow him on suicide mission without question and by ME3 he unites a galaxy.

To make a quote here:
Anderson: "To bad it took the Reapers to bring them together."
Squadmate: "Shepard brought them together."

And yet by the end Shepard stands alone after his squadmates abandoned him, yeah I saw abandoned despite EC. The squadmates I went to Ilos with, who I led on a suicide mission and who has fought beside me would not abandon Shepard at that moment, orders he give be damned.

Seriusly can you imagine anything short of dismemberment keeping Garrus Vakarian from staying with Shepard after all they have been trough? Would Kaidan/Ashley? Would Tali after everything Shepard has done for her? Would Liara? EDI in her body dont even have anything to fear since the Normandy is where she truly is, not taht body.

Even James and Javik who have not been on for the entire ride I cant imagine running even if Shepard gave that order. James has wanted to return to earth and fight and now as the battle is on he is gonna retreat? And Javik...he should punch Shepard for even suggesting him retreating. He is there to kill the Reapers.

A more realistic scenario would have been every single squadmate leaping out of the Normandy to charge alongside Shepard while Joker turned the ship around to fire upon Harbinger.

It is just...wrong, so very wrong.

[TSA_383]

SubAstris wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But the IT relies on more content to come, if no more content is coming then it offers no better conclusion then we have currently.

Even if no DLC/content would come at all, the IT would still be there. It wouldn't be still bunked nor debunked.

The only way IT can die, IS DLC/content which will come which maybe disproves IT, or proves it. Or leaves clues and neither prove nor disprove it.

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

If you had something that clarified the breath scene in a way that didn't seem to hint "oh by the way, you never left earth" that'd be a pretty big hole to punch in it...

[Iucounou]

There are lots of things in the IT theory that have merit and make sense. But the points that make it for me are:

In two of the endings, Shep's eyes change to resemble the Illusive Man's. i.e. indoctrinated eyes. That suggests a very deliberate decision on the part of the writers. It would have been easier to leave the eyes as they were. Hence, it must be for some purpose.

Shep's bullet wound in his/her side. This is deliberately shown. An extra scene that, if its purpose was merely to show you Shep bleeding to death, should have been related to the shoulder hit Shep takes before getting to the beam. But instead, it's where Shep shoots Anderson.

Now in the EC we have the starchild's voice changing in the Refusal ending to that of a Reaper. Why? No reason for it to change, unless it is to show the starchild isn't, in fact, just an AI, but something else.

There are plenty of other things, of course, both in the ending and along the way during the game, that others have noticed. It's like Bioware was doing its best all along to make us sit up, lean forward, point at the screen and say "Hang on! That bit is wrong for a start."

[UltimateTobi]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

One thing which also bothered me about the ending is actaully the fact that Shepard stands alone before the catalyst.

While I have always liked the trope of the Hero facing the final Evil on his own, Shepard has never been alone before when facing the great evil in the past.

As he fought his way up the presidium tower and faced down Saren and Sovereign Shepard had two people at his back the entire time. When he stood before the Proto Reaper two of his companions were right there by his side, fighting the evil.

So by the end of ME3 having Shepard stand before the catalyst alone just feels...wrong.

To put this in another way, what is Shepards greatest strength, his greatest power and accomplishment in Mass Effect?

Is it his strength and skill on the battlefield? No, while he is without doubt incredibly skilled, that is not his true strength.

His true strength is his ability to make people come together no matter their past and work together towards a single goal. He shows it in ME1 as the Normandy and its crew happily disobeys orders to follow Saren, it only becomes stronger by ME2 where he gathers a team of very different people and makes them follow him on suicide mission without question and by ME3 he unites a galaxy.

To make a quote here:
Anderson: "To bad it took the Reapers to bring them together."
Squadmate: "Shepard brought them together."

And yet by the end Shepard stands alone after his squadmates abandoned him, yeah I saw abandoned despite EC. The squadmates I went to Ilos with, who I led on a suicide mission and who has fought beside me would not abandon Shepard at that moment, orders he give be damned.

Seriusly can you imagine anything short of dismemberment keeping Garrus Vakarian from staying with Shepard after all they have been trough? Would Kaidan/Ashley? Would Tali after everything Shepard has done for her? Would Liara? EDI in her body dont even have anything to fear since the Normandy is where she truly is, not taht body.

Even James and Javik who have not been on for the entire ride I cant imagine running even if Shepard gave that order. James has wanted to return to earth and fight and now as the battle is on he is gonna retreat? And Javik...he should punch Shepard for even suggesting him retreating. He is there to kill the Reapers.

A more realistic scenario would have been every single squadmate leaping out of the Normandy to charge alongside Shepard while Joker turned the ship around to fire upon Harbinger.

It is just...wrong, so very wrong.

Yeah, Javik would rather die than staying behind. He would give a damn on Shep's order of retreating.

Same goes for all your other squadmates. They truly follow Shepard, but would ignore the order to leave him.

@above poster: Right. Why would Starbinger even be angry about NOT choosing Reaper's destiny? I'd think it's easy play for Reapers that Shep doesn't make any choice. (Literally seen no sense at all.)

Modifié par UltimateTobi, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:15 .

[SubAstris]

leonia42 wrote...

You're fine, Tobi, my comment was more directed at Andromidous and a generic reminder because this is one of my favourite threads to read and I'd hate for it to get shut down because we can't always play nice with others.

SubAstris wrote...

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

A very good question that I'm not sure how to answer. Even if they added onto the already "literal" ending (though they have said they will not add anything else to the definitive ending) there would still be sceptics that would try to say otherwise. It's probably in their best interest to keep some sort of ambiguity and mystery regarding the endings, so nobody can be completely right or wrong and speculations can continue well into the future, up until the very last DLC and beyond. If anything, they could reinforce the current, literal endings by not making Destroy "special" and extending the story from all four choices (very unlikely) but a new form of IT would inevitably spring up to make room for such changes, it can never be truly disproven. If they truly do leave the endings alone for now on then its anybody's guess on IT.

Ok. I'm pretty much with you that DLC content couldn't disprove IT. As long as there are plot holes there will be IT

[SubAstris]

TSA_383 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

leonia42 wrote...

But the IT relies on more content to come, if no more content is coming then it offers no better conclusion then we have currently.

Even if no DLC/content would come at all, the IT would still be there. It wouldn't be still bunked nor debunked.

The only way IT can die, IS DLC/content which will come which maybe disproves IT, or proves it. Or leaves clues and neither prove nor disprove it.

How exactly could you have DLC content that disproves IT?

If you had something that clarified the breath scene in a way that didn't seem to hint "oh by the way, you never left earth" that'd be a pretty big hole to punch in it...

And you would do that how? The breath scene is practically 50:50, although I lean towards it being on the Citadel.

[Leonia]

As Garrus says "We're in this together."

You make a compelling point, Raistlin, it feels very strange indeed to be alone at the end.

[MaximizedAction]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

One thing which also bothered me about the ending is actaully the fact that Shepard stands alone before the catalyst.

While I have always liked the trope of the Hero facing the final Evil on his own, Shepard has never been alone before when facing the great evil in the past.

As he fought his way up the presidium tower and faced down Saren and Sovereign Shepard had two people at his back the entire time. When he stood before the Proto Reaper two of his companions were right there by his side, fighting the evil.

So by the end of ME3 having Shepard stand before the catalyst alone just feels...wrong.

To put this in another way, what is Shepards greatest strength, his greatest power and accomplishment in Mass Effect?

Is it his strength and skill on the battlefield? No, while he is without doubt incredibly skilled, that is not his true strength.

His true strength is his ability to make people come together no matter their past and work together towards a single goal. He shows it in ME1 as the Normandy and its crew happily disobeys orders to follow Saren, it only becomes stronger by ME2 where he gathers a team of very different people and makes them follow him on suicide mission without question and by ME3 he unites a galaxy.

To make a quote here:
Anderson: "To bad it took the Reapers to bring them together."
Squadmate: "Shepard brought them together."

And yet by the end Shepard stands alone after his squadmates abandoned him, yeah I saw abandoned despite EC. The squadmates I went to Ilos with, who I led on a suicide mission and who has fought beside me would not abandon Shepard at that moment, orders he give be damned.

Seriusly can you imagine anything short of dismemberment keeping Garrus Vakarian from staying with Shepard after all they have been trough? Would Kaidan/Ashley? Would Tali after everything Shepard has done for her? Would Liara? EDI in her body dont even have anything to fear since the Normandy is where she truly is, not taht body.

Even James and Javik who have not been on for the entire ride I cant imagine running even if Shepard gave that order. James has wanted to return to earth and fight and now as the battle is on he is gonna retreat? And Javik...he should punch Shepard for even suggesting him retreating. He is there to kill the Reapers.

A more realistic scenario would have been every single squadmate leaping out of the Normandy to charge alongside Shepard while Joker turned the ship around to fire upon Harbinger.

It is just...wrong, so very wrong.

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

[UltimateTobi]

leonia42 wrote...

As Garrus says "We're in this together."

You make a compelling point, Raistlin, it feels very strange indeed to be alone at the end.

Garrus would rather make the "don't know how to duck" instead of "I'm going with Joker, give a **** on Shep!".

[SubAstris]

Iucounou wrote...

There are lots of things in the IT theory that have merit and make sense. But the points that make it for me are:

In two of the endings, Shep's eyes change to resemble the Illusive Man's. i.e. indoctrinated eyes. That suggests a very deliberate decision on the part of the writers. It would have been easier to leave the eyes as they were. Hence, it must be for some purpose.

Shep's bullet wound in his/her side. This is deliberately shown. An extra scene that, if its purpose was merely to show you Shep bleeding to death, should have been related to the shoulder hit Shep takes before getting to the beam. But instead, it's where Shep shoots Anderson.

Now in the EC we have the starchild's voice changing in the Refusal ending to that of a Reaper. Why? No reason for it to change, unless it is to show the starchild isn't, in fact, just an AI, but something else.

There are plenty of other things, of course, both in the ending and along the way during the game, that others have noticed. It's like Bioware was doing its best all along to make us sit up, lean forward, point at the screen and say "Hang on! That bit is wrong for a start."

1) They are not necessarily indoctrination eyes, they are indicative of Reaper tech. As Shepard has been in physical contact with such technology in Control and Synthesis, he has the eyes. Doesn't mean he is indoctrinated.

2) Is it though? Having looked at that scene many a time, Anderson falls down on the opposite side to where Shepard's wound was (his weakest side is his right hence why he collapses there). But anyway, it is 50:50 regardless.

3) Saying "So be it" doesn't make it not an AI. The Catalyst is the collective consciousness of the Reapers and can adopt whatever voice it wants. It is merely an audible clue that the Reaper threat will remain since you have not chosen any of the Catalyst's options (which seems odd anyway since the Catalyst should say it after destroy as well if IT)

[Leonia]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

Javik especially woudln't let anyone stop him, hell none of the crew would.

A bit off topic but in that evac sequence I notice the person who tells Joker to leave can vary, are Garrus and Liara the only ones that do that? For me it was Liara but I might want to see Garrus giving orders.. for science..

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

leonia42 wrote...

As Garrus says "We're in this together."

You make a compelling point, Raistlin, it feels very strange indeed to be alone at the end.

Or simply Andersons "There can be no retreat, no stepping back."

It is hammered in time after time that it is a one way trip, it is either do or die, there is no alternatives. Yet your squad retreats in the critical moment?

[niravital]

Priss Blackburne wrote...

Synthesis is what the reapers used to control and make Saren obedient and do what they wanted.

Control is what they used to make Illusive Man do what they wanted.

Destroy is what they would use to trick Shepard with, which makes me wonder can we really trust the destroy option. Is it going to do what it's supposed to. Ie break free of indoctrination or destroy the reapers.

Which drives me more nuts thinking I'm missing some option :/

For me, destroy is only present to convince Shepard that it's not a good choice.
It doesn't solve the problem (of the catalyst), it only brings destruction and keeps the conflicts.
But, this is what Shepard wants - let's tell him that he can, but it's a stupid solution.
There is no way any person would choose destroy. It doesn't make sense out of IT context.

Given that somebody had to build the solution-devices, and it's probably the catalyst, then he has no reason to put destroy there.

unless the starchild is really a Geine, and Shep stumbled on the lamp when he fell...

[UltimateTobi]

leonia42 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

Javik especially woudln't let anyone stop him, hell none of the crew would.

A bit off topic but in that evac sequence I notice the person who tells Joker to leave can vary, are Garrus and Liara the only ones that do that? For me it was Liara but I might want to see Garrus giving orders.. for science..

For me, it was Garrus telling Joker that they need to go. Garrus giving order? Hell he can. ;D

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

One thing which also bothered me about the ending is actaully the fact that Shepard stands alone before the catalyst.

While I have always liked the trope of the Hero facing the final Evil on his own, Shepard has never been alone before when facing the great evil in the past.

As he fought his way up the presidium tower and faced down Saren and Sovereign Shepard had two people at his back the entire time. When he stood before the Proto Reaper two of his companions were right there by his side, fighting the evil.

So by the end of ME3 having Shepard stand before the catalyst alone just feels...wrong.

To put this in another way, what is Shepards greatest strength, his greatest power and accomplishment in Mass Effect?

Is it his strength and skill on the battlefield? No, while he is without doubt incredibly skilled, that is not his true strength.

His true strength is his ability to make people come together no matter their past and work together towards a single goal. He shows it in ME1 as the Normandy and its crew happily disobeys orders to follow Saren, it only becomes stronger by ME2 where he gathers a team of very different people and makes them follow him on suicide mission without question and by ME3 he unites a galaxy.

To make a quote here:
Anderson: "To bad it took the Reapers to bring them together."
Squadmate: "Shepard brought them together."

And yet by the end Shepard stands alone after his squadmates abandoned him, yeah I saw abandoned despite EC. The squadmates I went to Ilos with, who I led on a suicide mission and who has fought beside me would not abandon Shepard at that moment, orders he give be damned.

Seriusly can you imagine anything short of dismemberment keeping Garrus Vakarian from staying with Shepard after all they have been trough? Would Kaidan/Ashley? Would Tali after everything Shepard has done for her? Would Liara? EDI in her body dont even have anything to fear since the Normandy is where she truly is, not taht body.

Even James and Javik who have not been on for the entire ride I cant imagine running even if Shepard gave that order. James has wanted to return to earth and fight and now as the battle is on he is gonna retreat? And Javik...he should punch Shepard for even suggesting him retreating. He is there to kill the Reapers.

A more realistic scenario would have been every single squadmate leaping out of the Normandy to charge alongside Shepard while Joker turned the ship around to fire upon Harbinger.

It is just...wrong, so very wrong.

This is the ending...to Shepard's journey, why wouldn't he be alone? It adds to the drama, the tension. Imagine the endings as they are with two squadmates; the force of the Anderson v TIM which is very personal would be lost and the scene with the Catalyst would inevitably have to feature comments from the two, supporting or disregarding different options. But that's not the point of the scene, it is for Shepard, and Shepard alone, to make the decision, and no one can tell him otherwise.

Furthermore, if you take something like the Proto-Reaper, it is a boss fight so you need more people to make it epic

They might not want to run, but they respect Shepard's orders because he is their commanding officer.

[Lokanaiya]

leonia42 wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

Good argumentation is good. Especially, in the playthrough where I had Javik and Liara during the beamrun, the Normandy retreat cutscene showed Garrus convincing Joker to follow the order. Wtf? As far as I'm concerned, if not for Shepard, there wouldn't even be a SR2. So what was the point of following Hackett's order.

Sure, the squad isn't suicidal, but where did they get the idea from that the Crucible's beam would destroy every ship? I thought we didn't know what it actually does? I thought their loyality to Shepard was stronger than fear.

Javik especially woudln't let anyone stop him, hell none of the crew would.

A bit off topic but in that evac sequence I notice the person who tells Joker to leave can vary, are Garrus and Liara the only ones that do that? For me it was Liara but I might want to see Garrus giving orders.. for science..

My LI was Garrus, and so Kaidan gave the order instead.

[niravital]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Big_Boss9 wrote...

I think we should have an IT thread MP weekend gathering at some point. I'm sure there are enough folks for each platform to make this happen.

Just thought I'd bump this because it's a good idea.

If this happens, count me in

[niravital]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

kenudigit wrote...

Let it go it did not happen. I know you all want it to be an indoc but it did not happen live with it.

This. People are in denial in this thread that it's so upsetting to see.

If anything, the dlc makes the IT theory improbable as hell. The IT theory makes it easy to address the plot holes that were created in the original ending. Bioware filled those in with new conversations, and gave joker a reason to leave the sol relay. How does the IT theory tie in with that? Or synthesis/control endings where the reapers actually HELP organics as synthetics/organics work together? 

We've already discussed these issues.

Joker and his reason to exit sol system is not very relevant to if IT is correct or not. It's was just one more plothole, and now it's gone. But it doesn't change anything of importance.

About synth/control and Reapers helping - from IT POV, then it's imagining Reapers as a good thing.
Isn't it what indoctrination is about?
And by quotes of TIM and Saren, visions of the future is part of the "reward" that the Reapers give to indoctrinated people.

Now explain this - why is your LI lose hope in control and put your name on the wall, if they didn't even found Shep's body? (cause there was none)

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?