55528 réponses à ce sujet

[SubAstris]

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

But the changes were largely cosmetic. If the endings were scrapped, the Catalyst removed etc, then you might have a point, but they weren't. The EC just added a few new additions, that's all. The fundamentals of the ending were exactly the same before and after

You're changing things to suit you. They did go back on what they say. "Mostly cosmetic" is bull****

They retconned the destruction of relays - pretty major

THEY ADDED A NEW ****ING ENDING

Again, the fundamentals of the ending haven't changed. Or, do you think they have? The Catalyst is still there, the standoff with TIM and Anderson, the going up to the beam, Normandy crash landing etc. Improvements were made (which I might add would be totally unnecessary if it were IT) yes, but they didn't scrap the endings entirely obviously

[MetioricTest]

[quote]Well it is a different scene...it's different, so...hmmm[/quote]

Different scene in the same place saying the same thing in the same way.

[quote]"Catalyst bit being a hallucination disproven" - kinda what IT is about...[/quote]

Nope. You need to open your horizons more to interpretation.

[quote]Techincally the Synthesis and Control and Destroy would all be different futures as well. Unless they all lead to the same future...but how? If IT was true it is likely?[/quote]

Regardless of control/synthesis and destroy it's likely that a lot of the new generations of life would be roughly the same.

But in Reject they would not exist and it would be a whole different cycle.

That's why Reject has a different one.

But if we accept IT then either the Stargazer scene is part of the halluncination (which makes no sense as it happens after Shepard wakes up) or  is the actual future. In which case whether or not Shepard was indoctrinated becomes irrelevant because things worked out well enough for organics anyway.

Also if we accept IT then the choices aren't what they appear and Reject wouldn't result in the death of this cycles organics... Since it does it destroys the notion of Reject not being what it appears.

[quote]as Simon said...reject could mean this cycle loses by trying to battle conventionally, that's another view.[/quote]

Exactly. Which would mean it wasn't a hallunciation.

[quote]Excuse me, AGAIN, if they had have shown the same scene IT is instantly true.[/quote]

Actually it wouldn't. But for arguments sake we'll say yes.

[quote]I don't get how saying that is embarrassing.[/quote]

It's embarrasing to say that Bioware purposely added a new scene just to avoid saying IT is true. That's a really bad explanation for it.

[quote]We don't know synth + destroy (indoc + wake up) lead to the exact same future. Same scene, but outside that scene things could be vastly different.[/quote]

Yes but it shows whether or not humanity lives on. Since it doesn't in Reject that displays that the choices aren't just a hallunciation. Shepard really actually did reject the Catalyst and it got everybody killed.

[quote]"nu uh you are" Is pretty lame. I'm not blindly ignoring anything.[/quote]

More blindly dismissing...

[quote]I'm listening, weighing up and having an opinion. **** sake.

I'd prefer to say things once but you don't want to ****ing listen when I say it for **** sake. Jesus christ.[/quote]

No need to be so immature.

[quote]You're calling IT wrong?[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]Okay, why here then? 
[/quote]

To talk about the IT.

Modifié par MetioricTest, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:26 .

[CoolioThane]

Flog61 wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

UltimateTobi wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Yes, he shouldn't have said that. He overreacted and offended a lot of people. Besides, this is simply not true.

Well yes, maybe. But beside that, he's just human, like we. And we often get tempered too. Just look at Coolio.

His documentary will be blowing, I bet my ass.

Hey!  I have had to repeat things many times. It gets frustrating xD

Coolio, why isn't your profile pic of thane with hiss shades on?

The Dragon Age character creator ting won't work for me 

What character creator thing?

So you can get your own custom avatars!

[MetioricTest]

Lokanaiya wrote...

Can we stop feeding the trolls? It's obvious that MetioricTest isn't going to listen, and we all know how things end up when we argue with Subastris.

*Points out a huge glaring hole in the theory*

*Is called a troll who won't listen*


Uhuh....

[Simon_Says]

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

But the changes were largely cosmetic. If the endings were scrapped, the Catalyst removed etc, then you might have a point, but they weren't. The EC just added a few new additions, that's all. The fundamentals of the ending were exactly the same before and after

Except the 'small' additions and changes, and importantly what didn't change, are significant in my opinion. The fridge horror elements was removed. The beam run was was completely redone to include the Normandy evac and Harbinger's "lines" as it were.* The additonal Catalyst dialogue introduced even more incoherencies and internal inconsistencies. The control and synthesis epilogues are highly suspect. And they still didn't fix the Control Panel scene plotholes.

And oh, Reject. That's 'larely cosmetic'? What about "S҉̤̱̭̱ͅO̹͚̼ ͉̭B̦E̷̩͖ ̺̥̩̳̭͙̖I̭̬̫̮͍̹̰T̰?"

[RavenEyry]

SubAstris wrote...
Again, the fundamentals of the ending haven't changed. Or, do you think they have?

The relays no longer explode, which is a pretty major change.

[SubAstris]

RavenEyry wrote...

SubAstris wrote...
Again, the fundamentals of the ending haven't changed. Or, do you think they have?

The relays no longer explode, which is a pretty major change.

The fundamentals are the same, just additions here and there

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

They added an ending where the reapers win this cycle only to cater to vocal portion of the fan base that don't like or trust the Catalyst.

Other than that, they kept their word. The endings didn't change, they still have the same effects they did before. It's just clearer what the aftermath was based on your choice.

But still they've changed the ending as a whole.

How? Destroy/Control/Synthesis still behave the same way. The expanded on their effects and what happens to people afterwards using the slideshow. That's expanding on the endings, not changing them. Changing the endings would have meant that Destroy, Control or Synthesis was replaced by another choice or that the Catalyst was replaced by Harbinger or some random reaper. None of that happened.

[paxxton]

Flog61 wrote...
What character creator thing?

This one:
http://social.biowar...aracter-creator

Can I create a custom avatar with Dragon Age II DEMO?

Modifié par paxxton, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:36 .

[SubAstris]

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

But the changes were largely cosmetic. If the endings were scrapped, the Catalyst removed etc, then you might have a point, but they weren't. The EC just added a few new additions, that's all. The fundamentals of the ending were exactly the same before and after

Except the 'small' additions and changes, and importantly what didn't change, are significant in my opinion. The fridge horror elements was removed. The beam run was was completely redone to include the Normandy evac and Harbinger's "lines" as it were.* The additonal Catalyst dialogue introduced even more incoherencies and internal inconsistencies. The control and synthesis epilogues are highly suspect. And they still didn't fix the Control Panel scene plotholes.

And oh, Reject. That's 'larely cosmetic'? What about "S҉̤̱̭̱ͅO̹͚̼ ͉̭B̦E̷̩͖ ̺̥̩̳̭͙̖I̭̬̫̮͍̹̰T̰?"

The outcome and effect was exactly the same.

[Lokanaiya]

Paxxton, maybe I'm weird but I'd prefer a troll-less page 2000, to be honest.

[L0NEWOLF25]

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

But the changes were largely cosmetic. If the endings were scrapped, the Catalyst removed etc, then you might have a point, but they weren't. The EC just added a few new additions, that's all. The fundamentals of the ending were exactly the same before and after

You're changing things to suit you. They did go back on what they say. "Mostly cosmetic" is bull****

They retconned the destruction of relays - pretty major

THEY ADDED A NEW ****ING ENDING

Again, the fundamentals of the ending haven't changed. Or, do you think they have? The Catalyst is still there, the standoff with TIM and Anderson, the going up to the beam, Normandy crash landing etc. Improvements were made (which I might add would be totally unnecessary if it were IT) yes, but they didn't scrap the endings entirely obviously

So Bioware adding a new ending means nothing to you. even after they said that there wasn't going to be new endings.

[RavenEyry]

SubAstris wrote...

The fundamentals are the same, just additions here and there

Pre-ec the galaxy was completely screwed, knocked into a dark aga and quite possible just suffered trillions of deaths. This has been changed in EC. I'd call that pretty fundamental.

But I'm guessing you're referring to the choices being the same. In that case this is more an argument about what counts as 'fundamental' and what we each consider to be major changes, and I don't see that discussion getting far.

[EpyonX3]

RavenEyry wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...
Techincally the Synthesis and Control and Destroy would all be different futures as well. Unless they all lead to the same future...but how? If IT was true it is likely?

Three different choices lead to the same scene at face value? Fine. Three different choices lead to the same scene in IT? Madness!

Assuming IT, two of the three endings lead to shepard being indoctrinated, meaning reapers win. The third one allowed Shepard to wake up but he's in no condition to fight. So reapers win.

[MetioricTest]

Flog61 wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Paxxton, maybe I'm weird but I'd prefer a troll-less page 2000, to be honest.

I can 100% guarantee that the top post on the 2000th page will be a troll

Can you please tell me your defintion of a troll?

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
  
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
  
• Endings are changed.
  
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

They added an ending where the reapers win this cycle only to cater to vocal portion of the fan base that don't like or trust the Catalyst.

Other than that, they kept their word. The endings didn't change, they still have the same effects they did before. It's just clearer what the aftermath was based on your choice.

But still they've changed the ending as a whole.

How? Destroy/Control/Synthesis still behave the same way. The expanded on their effects and what happens to people afterwards using the slideshow. That's expanding on the endings, not changing them. Changing the endings would have meant that Destroy, Control or Synthesis was replaced by another choice or that the Catalyst was replaced by Harbinger or some random reaper. None of that happened.

If you consider the whole ending as a single package, adding the Refusal ending changes it as a whole. But if you "zoom in on" it, it looks like expansion. You get the idea? Perspective.

[Chriz Tah Fah]

EpyonX3 wrote...

RavenEyry wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...
Techincally the Synthesis and Control and Destroy would all be different futures as well. Unless they all lead to the same future...but how? If IT was true it is likely?

Three different choices lead to the same scene at face value? Fine. Three different choices lead to the same scene in IT? Madness!

Assuming IT, two of the three endings lead to shepard being indoctrinated, meaning reapers win. The third one allowed Shepard to wake up but he's in no condition to fight. So reapers win.

Says who? Shepard's armor is intact and there is no visible injury that hasn't been fixed with medi-gel in the past.

[paxxton]

Flog61 wrote...

Lokanaiya wrote...

Paxxton, maybe I'm weird but I'd prefer a troll-less page 2000, to be honest.

I can 100% guarantee that the top post on the 2000th page will be a troll

So I have a status of a troll now?

[CoolioThane]

[quote]MetioricTest wrote...

[quote]Well it is a different scene...it's different, so...hmmm[/quote]

Different scene in the same place saying the same thing in the same way.

[quote]"Catalyst bit being a hallucination disproven" - kinda what IT is about...[/quote]

Nope. You need to open your horizons more to interpretation.

[quote]Techincally the Synthesis and Control and Destroy would all be different futures as well. Unless they all lead to the same future...but how? If IT was true it is likely?[/quote]

Regardless of control/synthesis and destroy it's likely that a lot of the new generations of life would be roughly the same.

But in Reject they would not exist and it would be a whole different cycle.

That's why Reject has a different one.

But if we accept IT then either the Stargazer scene is part of the halluncination (which makes no sense as it happens after Shepard wakes up) or  is the actual future. In which case whether or not Shepard was indoctrinated becomes irrelevant because things worked out well enough for organics anyway.

Also if we accept IT then the choices aren't what they appear and Reject wouldn't result in the death of this cycles organics... Since it does it destroys the notion of Reject not being what it appears.

[quote]as Simon said...reject could mean this cycle loses by trying to battle conventionally, that's another view.[/quote]

Exactly. Which would mean it wasn't a hallunciation.

[quote]Excuse me, AGAIN, if they had have shown the same scene IT is instantly true.[/quote]

Actually it wouldn't. But for arguments sake we'll say yes.

[quote]I don't get how saying that is embarrassing.[/quote]

It's embarrasing to say that Bioware purposely added a new scene just to avoid saying IT is true. That's a really bad explanation for it.

[quote]We don't know synth + destroy (indoc + wake up) lead to the exact same future. Same scene, but outside that scene things could be vastly different.[/quote]

Yes but it shows whether or not humanity lives on. Since it doesn't in Reject that displays that the choices aren't just a hallunciation. Shepard really actually did reject the Catalyst and it got everybody killed.

[quote]"nu uh you are" Is pretty lame. I'm not blindly ignoring anything.[/quote]

More blindly dismissing...

[quote]I'm listening, weighing up and having an opinion. **** sake.

I'd prefer to say things once but you don't want to ****ing listen when I say it for **** sake. Jesus christ.[/quote]

No need to be so immature.

[quote]You're calling IT wrong?[/quote]

Nope.

[quote]Okay, why here then? 
[/quote]

To talk about the IT.

[/quote]

You assume the catalyst is real in all of your arguments. A lot of us don't think this is the case. This is going nowhere.

Exactly what am I blindly dismissing? Pretty sure I read and take in everything said.

You're not talking about the IT, you're saying it's all wrong. You said the hallucinations are all wrong, but that is one of the main tenets of the It, so you're speaking crap by saying you're not saying it's false.

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
  
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
  
• Endings are changed.
  
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

They added an ending where the reapers win this cycle only to cater to vocal portion of the fan base that don't like or trust the Catalyst.

Other than that, they kept their word. The endings didn't change, they still have the same effects they did before. It's just clearer what the aftermath was based on your choice.

But still they've changed the ending as a whole.

How? Destroy/Control/Synthesis still behave the same way. The expanded on their effects and what happens to people afterwards using the slideshow. That's expanding on the endings, not changing them. Changing the endings would have meant that Destroy, Control or Synthesis was replaced by another choice or that the Catalyst was replaced by Harbinger or some random reaper. None of that happened.

If you consider the whole ending as a single package, adding the Refusal ending changes it as a whole. But if you "zoom in on" it, it looks like expansion. You get the idea? Perspective.

Yeah I get that but I don't agree completely.

[SubAstris]

L0NEWOLF25 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Simon_Says wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

No, ice cold fact. Have you been listening to anything BW have said regarding the endings in the past few months?

• "We will not be changing the endings."
• "We will not be adding any new endings."
• Endings are changed.
  
• Reject was added.

Seems legit.

But the changes were largely cosmetic. If the endings were scrapped, the Catalyst removed etc, then you might have a point, but they weren't. The EC just added a few new additions, that's all. The fundamentals of the ending were exactly the same before and after

You're changing things to suit you. They did go back on what they say. "Mostly cosmetic" is bull****

They retconned the destruction of relays - pretty major

THEY ADDED A NEW ****ING ENDING

Again, the fundamentals of the ending haven't changed. Or, do you think they have? The Catalyst is still there, the standoff with TIM and Anderson, the going up to the beam, Normandy crash landing etc. Improvements were made (which I might add would be totally unnecessary if it were IT) yes, but they didn't scrap the endings entirely obviously

So Bioware adding a new ending means nothing to you. even after they said that there wasn't going to be new endings.

I'm not saying I didn't welcome, but if you look at it in the grand scheme of things, the ending just improved stuff here and there rather than completely changing or scrapping the endings like if the Catalyst character was completely removed, Shepard didn't go to the Citadel and instead had a fight with Harbinger etc.
             Imagine the endings like a tree. Bits like the reject ending were new branches of the old existing tree, the trunk was exactly the same

Modifié par SubAstris, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:38 .

[CoolioThane]

Say what you want about trolls they do get the thread going