55528 réponses à ce sujet

[UltimateTobi]

Alright guys 'n gals, I am playing a little ME3 MP. Don't speculate too much. Except you want me to read through 20 pages again. xD

[niravital]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Auralius Carolus wrote...

demersel wrote...

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.

+1/ i'm on the PC

Yep, PC here.

me too!

I keep saying that we should get on Skype.

Can you skype with 2+ people? Anyway that might be a little awkward when no one has anything to say. But maybe we should make a sign-up sheet for a weekly MP get-together or a bi-weekly one for those N7 weekends!
Edit: Hey, guess who on top?

THIS IS SPACE MAGIC!

as to skype, you can't, you'd have to pay for the Skype Plus or whatever it's called...
But I believe there are other softwares... there is Xfire and it's basically for playing online in groups.

EDIT: oops, you can... just not videocalls, so... oops 

Modifié par niravital, 05 juillet 2012 - 12:50 .

[niravital]

Auralius Carolus wrote...

estebanus wrote...
I'm not a big fan of guns. I'm more of a swordsman, myself, and I'm part of a group that organizes renessaince fairs in Denmark and northern Germany, so no thank you. I'd rather have a claymore than a shotgun!!

I prefer long swords myself. But... have you ever shot one? Hmmmm?

You haven't lived until you've felt the blast wave off of magnum big-bore.

Assault rifles are fun... from experience 

[ThisOneIsPunny]

 I don't always wake up at eight in the morning, but when I do I... catch up on IT?

Really interested in everything that's been said thus far about glyph.

[niravital]

[quote]I_eat_unicorns wrote...

[quote]lex0r11 wrote...

[quote]De1ta G wrote...

[quote]I_eat_unicorns wrote...

[quote]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. [/quote]

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? 
[/quote]

Hi there,

Listen... maybe the IT is not true. Most likely it isn't. And BioWare probably won't use the idea either. The Extended Cut does indeed make it even less probable that the IT and almost proves that BioWare won't take the idea and make it true. And yes, maybe these people are in denial. But, I don't see any reason a need for this discussion to stop until BioWare officially states that the IT was never their intention and they will not be adding it to the game. Ever since the idea was formed, more and more points that favored the IT were made. It is very interesting to see what kinds of things people can come up with. Whether they are true or not is irrelevent. People are coming together, dicussing a game the love, and having fun doing it. Why should they stop?

[/quote]

The IT theory at face value imo, was an idea that built upon the loopholes presented in the original endings. It also gives Bioware too much credit for the endings, and that fans were able to come up with a more unique ending than Bioware. 

Again, it's easy to become immersed in the IT theory when looking at it in detail, but Bioware wouldn't have given us an extended cut dlc if people didn't complain about the endings. Now that it's out and the fact that it's free shows that they want to make up for it. I feel that people hoarding around the IT theory is insulting to Bioware since this dlc gave me a satisfying closure we were all promised. Appreciating their own work is what a fan should do, not cling on to a debunked "theory" that is improbable through the dlc they have provided us. That's insulting as the fans want their own endings in their own way and don't appreciate the work Bioware has done through money/time since it is a FREE dlc. 


I think its time that fans "wake up" and realize that shepard never had to "wake up" in the first place.


[/quote]

I don't get it... do people who say that IT was debunked have anything major to support their claim other then SAY it was debunked?

[Tirian Thorn]

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...

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.

A child's world is being consumed by giant monsters.
A scared kid will be CRYING AS HELL and panicking like crazy, doesn't know what to do.
He wouldn't have cold philosophical conclusions to share.
He would search for his parents, asking ANY PERSON where they are, let alone a soldier.
and he wouldn't dissapear from the air duct.

then, bioware has a very odd perception of scared children.

[MaximizedAction]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Ok, that's it, this is now in my sig.

[Rifneno]

lex0r11 wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

LEX0R!!! YOU!!

One of these days I'm going to burst into a dust of gazillion tiny hearts with all the love I'm receiving here.

Okay. The parrot lover in me has to ask: what is that species I don't recognize?

TJBartlemus wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

That "one guy" was an avid IT supporter, but after the ec dlc, he came to appreciate the work bioware has done. And you know what? I think you can't accept that the IT theory is wrong and can't appreciate the work Bioware has done.

Who is the one guy?? If you are talking about me then I can just say that I can believe in multiple things. I still believe in IT. I also believe in my Waking Nightmare Theory. I can also believe that the literalists could be right. I appreciate all the work BioWare has done. They worked hard and gave us an amazing game. I have been a fan of the series for a long time and I am absolutly satisfied on how they ended it.

If I had to guess, I'd say he's talking about Earthborn Shepard. Long time IT poster, came in after EC was released and called us fanatics for thinking about it for more than 2 seconds instead of immediately going "the Normandy picked them up? well that explains EVERYTHING!" in wonderous awe like she did.

niravital wrote...

I think Bioware did whatever they could to imply that the kid is not real.
It started with the disappearing garden and ended with nobody noticing him.
There's this Reaper sound when Anderson interupts and the kid vanishes to thin air.

Definitely. Back when we first got a demo of the game and all we had was Vancouver, people were still saying that the kid isn't real. Even back when it was obvious to a lot of people. And what did BW do? Not a damn thing. Even after EC fixed such minor issues as the Mars breach. That says to me either there's nothing to correct because he isn't real, or they just don't care about their own story. The former seems far more likely to me.

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.

That's what worries me. I have very little doubt that we're intended to think indoctrination, the clues are too numerous and too convincing to be coincidence. Where my doubt lies now is what their intentions with the story is. They may have a big reveal coming but they may also have simply wanted to write a story that fans would continue to arg--"speculate" about for years. I'm seriously worried about that time one of the writers replied to an IT question saying it took 20 years before Bladerunner's writer told us that Deckard really was a replicant.

I sure as hell hope not though. Simply leaving loose strings does not make a timeless story. There was a moral lesson behind leaving Deckard questionable and nothing depended upon the answer. The fate of everything depends on the answer to IT and there's no grand moral lesson about equality to withholding it.

[niravital]

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.

It does feel wrong, the whole experience in ME is gather your squad and fight togather.


One epic all squad-mates from all games battle (could all be NPCs) was at the top of my wishlist for ME3.


EDIT: I think I'll make a video of it... stay tuned (though it might take a while) 

Modifié par niravital, 05 juillet 2012 - 01:34 .

[Rosewind]

Rif why do you insist on quoting things that was like over 8 hours a ago.

[Rifneno]

Rosewind wrote...

Rif why do you insist on quoting things that was like over 8 hours a ago.

If you've got a problem with it, don't read my posts.

[Leonia]

The bird looks like a rather unsual lovebird btw, I want one!

[Tirian Thorn]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Ok, that's it, this is now in my sig.

It doesn’t mean IT is true, but we now know for a fact that BW still wants the discussion on the endings. 

Currently, I’m leaning towards the idea is that all will be made clear in a DLC. Maybe it’s Leviathan…

I think all along Bioware has had a “vision” and they didn’t want to deviate from that. But because there was such a backlash and heated discussion they “improved” & expanded on the endings without giving away the true ending to their epic space adventure. 

That still doesn’t mean IT is true. It just means that Bioware isn’t done yet and their vision – if you will – will be revealed at a time and manner of their choosing. 

[Rosewind]

Rifneno wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

Rif why do you insist on quoting things that was like over 8 hours a ago.

If you've got a problem with it, don't read my posts.

I don't honestly lol. I just know the first post was from a while ago.

[Lakeshow1986]

Let's look at the opening line after we make our choices;

Control: Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.
Synthesis: I am alive.
Destroy:The war is over. The Reapers have been defeated.

also

Control: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Synthesis: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Destroy: Shepard alive. Reapers dead.


Yeah...I only pick destroy.

[Tirian Thorn]

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.

*THUMBS UP*   

[TSA_383]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Okay, just for the sake of argument:

Can anyone think of anything outside the end sequence / child weirdness that could have a non-literal interpretation?

[Tirian Thorn]

Lakeshow1986 wrote...

Let's look at the opening line after we make our choices;

Control: Eternal. Infinite. Immortal.
Synthesis: I am alive.
Destroy:The war is over. The Reapers have been defeated.

also

Control: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Synthesis: Reapers live. Shepard dead.
Destroy: Shepard alive. Reapers dead.


Yeah...I only pick destroy.

I only pick Control, Synthesis or Refuse if it's from a Roleplaying perspective. 

Scratch that - I pick every ending from a roleplaying perspective.  From a meta-gaming & personal perspective I believe Destroy breaks the Indoctrination. 

[niravital]

Another weird thing about the kid in Vancouver.
When he goes aboard the ship, he STARES at Shepard.
Really, it's creepy.
No one else does that.

[SubAstris]

niravital wrote...

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.

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?

It doesn't disprove any of IT, it just begs the question of why it was done.

[niravital]

TSA_383 wrote...

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

Okay, just for the sake of argument:

Can anyone think of anything outside the end sequence / child weirdness that could have a non-literal interpretation?

Dream sequences?

[Leonia]

Ah, was going to suggest dream sequences but that's an obvious non-literal situation. Maybe the video logs at the Cerberus Base? But those seem relatively straightforward even if they don't go into too much depth.

[niravital]

SubAstris wrote...

niravital wrote...

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.

Why in destroy they didn't lose hope?

It doesn't disprove any of IT, it just begs the question of why it was done.

I don't really know what you are referring to, since it's parts of the complete post... but, "why it was done" is often answered with IT, or could be at least, as opposed to a question mark if IT is incorrect.

[SubAstris]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

I've just been pointing literalists to this thread where Tully Ackland had an interesting comment. 

My point in doing so its even to say literalists are wrong and IT is right.  My point is that IT is alive and a valid interpretation of the endings. 


http://social.biowar...6857/1#12919766
"There are elements of Mass Effect 3 that are meant to have non-literal interpretations. The hope is that these things provide thought-provoking discussion about the themes of the story and the motivations of characters. As such, we would prefer not to comment on players’ interpretations of these elements, since it would ruin the enjoyment of such discussion by suggesting there is a single, concrete way of viewing them."

This is where the description of "literalists" for people who take the endings at face-value isn't truly correct. For example there are very few "literalists "who believe that the dreams with the boy literally happened. Of course some elements are meant to be non-literal interpretations, that's obvious to everyone. This has no bearing on people who say that IT was not BW's original intention