55528 réponses à ce sujet

[UltimateTobi]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Well if you consider the choices, destroy is the only one that fits that bill.

I think refuse fits the bill. Our billions of lifes fight and pass along the plans, so the other billions (or trillions) in the next cycle are allowed to live on.

[Chriz Tah Fah]

masster blaster wrote...

Well all I amgoing to say is.

PREPARE YOURSELFS FOR THE NON ITERS ARRIVAL.

But still support my other theory too.

So don't take this the wrong way guys. And ladys.

Maybe Bioware saw you trying to unite the BSN so they stickied the thread to make it easier. [/sarcasm]

[paxxton]

The pin is definately NOT a sign of disdain or hatred.

Modifié par paxxton, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:29 .

[byne]

Anyhow, I gotta go. I may or may not be back later tonight. You guys behave!

[Iconoclaste]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

 "billions will die here to allow billions to live elsewhere".

Well if you consider the choices, destroy is the only one that fits that bill.

This is only Garrus, far before the end of the game, not knowing the options to be offered to Shepard in the future.

[masster blaster]

Um by any chance did anyone read my insain plain a few pages back.

1873 I think and up to 1875.

[iiNOMADii]

paxxton wrote...

iiNOMADii wrote...

paxxton wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

D.Sharrah wrote...

The thread got stickied?! Awesome!

@ Hellish: Very true. But still awesome.

Edit:  Go away for a couple of days to play Skyrim and try to do my part for the weekend OP and this happens...

So what is the significance of the thread being stickied?

Maybe IT's gotten a semi-official status.

Stuff like this is a constant inner struggle for me.  Is it because it's official or because they are just respecting our opinion and don't want to dash it down?

If they really didn't planned for IT, the middle ground is that BioWare is increasingly appreciative about our theory. If they planned for IT, the pin is a wink.

Hopefully, yes.  The question is, then, is how much would it benefit them due to the amount of people for or against IT as a fanbase.  At this point (after the EC), I would say there are more people that are okay with the current endings as they are and would be pretty pissed if they were basically retconned for the most part.

[BansheeOwnage]

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

You dont even have to poke holes in that by pointing out all the contradictions, such as killing the Proto-Reaper. The mere concept that a Reaper bears any semblance to the civilization that bore it is not even believable. 

Do people really think that the Human Reaper, or any of the Reapers for that matter, would want to participate in the "cycle" just because they've been successfully reaped? 

"Whatever race you came from - they're dead now. And now they can rest in peace."
And that was the paragon option...

Exactly. Believing in the literal interpretation of the Synth/Control endings is essentially believing that Shep has simply been misguided throughout the entire trilogy up until the final 10 minutes. You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that doesnt just trivialize the entire story. 

Glad you brought this up. Basically if the literal endings are true (regardless of breaking themes and lore) it means Shepard and all of Shepard's friends and allies are just stubborn idiots. They should have listened to the antagonists (Saren, TIM, Reapers) the whole time. Instead they're just soldiers only able to look at the world down the barrel of a gun. That would not only make no sense at all from a writing perspective, but it would be totally, totally lame.

[UltimateTobi]

byne wrote...

Anyhow, I gotta go. I may or may not be back later tonight. You guys behave!

Aye aye sir.

[RavenEyry]

Iconoclaste wrote...

No. Your topic ask a question, I discuss the validity of it, simple as that.

What has the reapers morals got to do with whether or not the ending was a hallucination? (Honest question)

[BansheeOwnage]

Riot86 wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

byne wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...


Uhhh... The main point of antagonists in any story is that they are wrong. The reapers do kill people. They do not ascend them. Just because a reaper says that you go ahead and believe it?
"You're... indoctrinated!" [/Anderson]
Seriously though, that scares me. A lot.

Not exactly true. Lets take the Darkspawn Chronicles DLC as an example. In it, the protagonist is the Hurlock Vanguard, and the main antagonists are your DA:O companions. They're clearly the good guys, but they're still the antagonists.

Good point. But I think you know what I mean. Most antagonists are bad guys. The reapers fall into that category.

This is a two-sided argument : Shepard is, by definition, an "antagonist' and from the "Reaper collective", wether Shepard believes the Catalyst's arguments or not is irrelevant. Garrus told Shepard, at some point in the game, that the end will come as a decision implying "billions will die here to allow billions to live elsewhere". That points towards the heavy implications, and the decision at the end really hinges upon any player's beliefs.

Well if you consider the choices, destroy is the only one that fits that bill.

+ Refuse

Well you don't sacrifice people directly in refuse. You just keep fighting. (Or apparently you just stand there and "the cycle continues" but w/e.)

[masster blaster]

Chriz what if that's why they pinned this thread, as is the other. I went to the other thread, and I said the same things that I said. That we could combin our theorys the IT and Literaly endings and create a theory like no other. That Bioware would wonder about for ages, about how we could pull this off.

[HellishFiend]

Iconoclaste wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...


Your defense of the Reapers' logic, reasons, and motivations is so profound that I think you should go make your own topic for it.

No. Your topic ask a question, I discuss the validity of it, simple as that. You have no right to control the BSN, sir, or even to restrain respectful discussion about IT and its related topics. If you do not wish to discuss because I show an opposing argument, then feel free to stay out of it.

If the topic is pinned, then you are in the spotlight. Make good use of it instead of trying to shove out your visitors.

You want my opinion? Watch my Choose Wisely video in my sig. In fact, that isnt even just my opinion, it's BW's opinion as the storytellers. You cant defend the Reapers' logic, reasonings, or motivations without looking, well, indoctrinated. 

[BansheeOwnage]

Iconoclaste wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

 "billions will die here to allow billions to live elsewhere".

Well if you consider the choices, destroy is the only one that fits that bill.

This is only Garrus, far before the end of the game, not knowing the options to be offered to Shepard in the future.

No, Garrus doesn't see the future or anything, but it is foreshadowing. They do that a lot in stories you know. And it doesn't matter, because it doesn't change what I said at all.

[UltimateTobi]

And as for the EC discussion got stickied before. Well, it's a neutral discussion about the EC, so BioWare wouldn't have to have made a thread on their own.

But our thread is a (fan created) theory. That's what got me wondered why, and that it got at all, stickied.

[Riot86]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

You dont even have to poke holes in that by pointing out all the contradictions, such as killing the Proto-Reaper. The mere concept that a Reaper bears any semblance to the civilization that bore it is not even believable. 

Do people really think that the Human Reaper, or any of the Reapers for that matter, would want to participate in the "cycle" just because they've been successfully reaped? 

"Whatever race you came from - they're dead now. And now they can rest in peace."
And that was the paragon option...

Exactly. Believing in the literal interpretation of the Synth/Control endings is essentially believing that Shep has simply been misguided throughout the entire trilogy up until the final 10 minutes. You'd have to be pretty shallow to think that doesnt just trivialize the entire story. 

Glad you brought this up. Basically if the literal endings are true (regardless of breaking themes and lore) it means Shepard and all of Shepard's friends and allies are just stubborn idiots. They should have listened to the antagonists (Saren, TIM, Reapers) the whole time. Instead they're just soldiers only able to look at the world down the barrel of a gun. That would not only make no sense at all from a writing perspective, but it would be totally, totally lame.

QFT

Seriously, a "plot twist" like that would just be horrible. It would make everything we did thoughout the series kinda pointless.

Just dying on Eden Prime in ME 1 and having a "Critical Mission Failure" right there would basically mean that this is as good as beating all 3 games - because the whole time we fought for the wrong cause and Saren/TIM were right all along.

Modifié par Riot86, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:33 .

[RavenEyry]

Some more flycam footage from the guy who noticed the gun thing. It may have been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it and its another major hint hidden away.

[Iconoclaste]

RavenEyry wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

No. Your topic ask a question, I discuss the validity of it, simple as that.

What has the reapers morals got to do with whether or not the ending was a hallucination? (Honest question)

If IT proposes that the Catalyst is lying, then all his explanation about the Reaper's motives is bogus. Or some parts, or none, or any mixture we can think of. The Reapers "morale" from IT's perspective also relies on the "need for Shepard's mind to belong to them", so they could have him "influence" the resistance. If they really wish for Shepard to fall in their trap, then their trap better be good. If they don't really care, then Harby just has to kill Shepard at his feet in London. If their "morale" makes no sense at all, then it's easy fodder for ranting around any option given in the end. Clarification was brought to attenuate this.

In short, the better all the "options" will stand by themselves, the "better" the trap. But they still need to be "compared" after the fact to make sense for IT. For a single playthrough, that would not be possible.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:41 .

[BansheeOwnage]

RavenEyry wrote...


Some more flycam footage from the guy who noticed the gun thing. It may have been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it and its another major hint hidden away.

This was here a while ago. But it hasn't been discussed lately. It is major evidence though, and deliberate. Like the gun switch.

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 15 juillet 2012 - 05:40 .

[Chriz Tah Fah]

RavenEyry wrote...


Some more flycam footage from the guy who noticed the gun thing. It may have been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it and its another major hint hidden away.

Why Coats? They could have used any random Alliance soldier (maybe they were lazy and didn't have another face to use?). This is really odd because Coats "called off the attack." How could this be done if he was dead?

[RavenEyry]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Why Coats? They could have used any random Alliance soldier (maybe they were lazy and didn't have another face to use?). This is really odd because Coats "called off the attack." How could this be done if he was dead?

It wouldn't be weird to see a generic soldier dead. It is weird for someone you know to be alive to be seen dead, in fact he shows up in the extended cut scenes AFTER this part were we see him dead.

[Lord Goose]

They should have listened to the
antagonists (Saren, TIM, Reapers) the whole time. Instead they're just soldiers only able to look at the world down
the barrel of a gun.

Illusive Man and Saren actions are more important than their philosophy. They did nothing to actually stop the Reapers, they were helping them.

And, by the way, Saren didn't wanted Synthesis. He wanted to prove yourself useful for Reapers and survive the harvest. Not to eliminate difference between synthetic and organics to establish forever peace.

[Iconoclaste]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...


Some more flycam footage from the guy who noticed the gun thing. It may have been mentioned before, but I hadn't seen it and its another major hint hidden away.

Why Coats? They could have used any random Alliance soldier (maybe they were lazy and didn't have another face to use?). This is really odd because Coats "called off the attack." How could this be done if he was dead?

This was answered by a guy "working in the gaming industry" a few days ago, but I don't remember if it was here or another thread. Mainly, by the way, players don't see Maj. Coates, they only see the helmet. The use of flycam involves modding the Coalesced.bin file, which is doubtly allowed by the EULA, and all players on consoles are denied that option, so the "discovery" of evidence by flycam is only for pc. I do not believe Bioware intended this.

[Chriz Tah Fah]

RavenEyry wrote...

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

Why Coats? They could have used any random Alliance soldier (maybe they were lazy and didn't have another face to use?). This is really odd because Coats "called off the attack." How could this be done if he was dead?

It wouldn't be weird to see a generic soldier dead. It is weird for someone you know to be alive to be seen dead, in fact he shows up in the extended cut scenes AFTER this part were we see him dead.

Yeah, exactly. If anything this is weirder than seeing all the 2D models of ME1 Ash and Kaiden. Something is amiss here.

[masster blaster]

The gun change could imply that Shepard is waking up back to reality.

Oh and guys I don't think Bioware will say Control and Synthesis are wrong because we are the ones that say this is a just an hallusion. In which case Shepard is trapped forever living in a fanticy that you can not wake up. But only in Destroy.