55528 réponses à ce sujet

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

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.

Strange because you should.

[EpyonX3]

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

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.

Have you seen the breathe scene? His armor ir charred and there are spots were it's ripped and bloody and his leg(s) is under concrete. Not to mention that he got grazed by a reaper beam. I'd say he's in no condition to get up and fight any reapers.

Also notice that the scene is darkened, meaning that if IT is true and Shep woke up in London, the beam to the Citadel is off. So there's no way to board it to open the arms, reapers win.

[Simon_Says]

MetioricTest wrote...

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

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

No, no! You don't get it do you?

Hallucination or no, reject means that attempting to use the Crucible as the key to victory has failed. Crucible abandoned, allied fleet destroyed, alien stargazer.

However, if Shepard is indoctrinated, the reapers can use Shepard to manipulate the council cycle as they wish. They can say that Shepard made it to the Crucible and activated it, and the war is over. And it is. The reapers have won, though the council cycle doesn't realize it. The reapers now have more than enough time and little to no resistance to carry out their agenda. Hence Buzzgazer, who tells the story of how Shepard won the war. But he's wrong.

There is one Buzzgazer scene, but that doesn't mean it has only one subtext despite three methods of getting to it.

Modifié par Simon_Says, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:43 .

[paxxton]

Flog61 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

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?

I have no idea what you are talking about. There aren't even alternate universes where you get the 2000th ppage first post. 

Sure, see ya after the first post on page 2000.

[Dwailing]

MetioricTest wrote...

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?

Well, I know what MY definition of a troll is.  Any idiot who comes in here saying, "You guys SUCK!  You're so wrong about EVERYTHING!  BioWare SUCKS!  And I'm going to tell you all to stop doing something you all enjoy and I'm going to stop you from making the endings seem like a GOOD thing even though we all KNOW that it SUCKS because I know it sucks and I can't POSSIBLY be wrong!!!! (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the general tone of most literalists that come here.  Not all of them, but most of them.)"

[EpyonX3]

paxxton wrote...

Strange because you should.

Lol. I'll clarify.

I agree that by adding refusal, they went against they're original statment about not adding new endings. However, I agree that they stuck to their original statement when they said they're not changing the original endings, only expanding on them.

[MetioricTest]

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.

Not quite. My argument is that Stargazer disproves the end choice was a halluncination. And always has. The new Stargazer is just icing.

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

Don't know if you said it or not but the defense of stargazer being "Bioware planted it as a trick so they didn't have to prove IT! It's actually a completely different scene in a completely different place (that looks the same) that happens as well as the original Stargazer scene!" is blindly dismissing.

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.

Pardon my confusion but I thought the IT dealt with the concept of Shepard being indoctrinated or the Reaper trying to indoctrinate him?

That's why it's called the Indoctrination Theory and not the Choices at the end are halluncinations theory.

I don't believe disproving the end bit is a halluncination really as much of a core part as IT as you seem to.

Would you rather I claimed disproving the end is a halluncination disproves IT? That just seems arrogant and dismissive to me.

[RavenEyry]

Stop calling anyone who disagrees a troll. It just makes them all snarky.

[smokingotter1]

It is time… for the Overlay-Time Hypthesis Part 1 with IT Supplemental for Everyone!

A smokingotter production


“I wish you could see the Mass Effect 3 ending the same why I do… it’s so …perfect.”

(Part 2 will analyze Arrival DLC, and Part 3 will bring it all home with the ME3 Ending, hopefully I’ll have part 2 done tomorrow and part 3 done Monday… because you know I sorta kinda but not really have a life)

What if the ending to Mass Effect 3 was actually in the game? The Overlay-Time hypothesis (OTH) is a variation of the Indoctrination theory that attempts to reconcile comments made by Bioware writing team with content from ME Series and Codex.

I will argue through the three parts that the ending of ME3 is a mixture of hallucination,
inside Shepard’s brain (like how we were inside the Geth consensus), and that there is a significant time lag between
Shepard’s breathe scene and what happens in space. That the ME3 ending
both involves Shepard fighting the reapers on a subconscious and
conscious level; the former being an attempt at indoctrination and when
that fails the latter being an attempt to kill Shepard (Shepard, you
could have been useful).

The evidence I use is not mutually exclusive
(obviously) to my interpretation, not only do I wish to argue my case
but to strengthen IT as a whole. While not totally necessary it is highly suggested that readers play Arrival and Overlord for full comprehension of OTH. It is my belief that DLC Overlord and Arrival do a lot to set up the foundation for the ending of ME3.

Part 1: Project Overlord (Shortest but still important part)

When Shepard accesses the VI Console in Project Overlord he is hit with an energy field that lets him “see” the real world through a digital overlay.





This set’s an important precedent, that Shepard can have modified overlay in his vision. I will argue in part 3 that this happens again in the ending to ME3 when Shepard is in the “decision chamber” which is in reality the conduit run and what Shepard sees in the decision chamber is simply a reaper induced overlay of reality in an attempt to kill Shepard after indoctrination on the subconscious level failed.

End of Part 1

IT Supplemental (evidence presented here is my attempt to strengthen all IT interpretations)

When Shepard comes across David Archer could Shepard possibly be seeing another version of "synthesis". Notice the color and body position of David Archer, look familiar?



The green gives way to blue so we can see clearer



Synthesis is the final evolution of human life, look synthetic and organic intertwined.  Wait... this looks familiar.




Moving on, a close up, wait, tubes in mouth, that also looks familiar!



Like this:

[Dwailing]

EpyonX3 wrote...

Chriz Tah Fah wrote...

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.

Have you seen the breathe scene? His armor ir charred and there are spots were it's ripped and bloody and his leg(s) is under concrete. Not to mention that he got grazed by a reaper beam. I'd say he's in no condition to get up and fight any reapers.

Also notice that the scene is darkened, meaning that if IT is true and Shep woke up in London, the beam to the Citadel is off. So there's no way to board it to open the arms, reapers win.

Huh, you know, I should add something to my hypothesis that I had a few pages ago that explained how the endings could be partially real and partially indoctrination at the same time.  In Rejection, you see the Synthesis beam deactivate.  If we assume that the Synthesis beam is actually the Conduit on Earth, then that means that the beam was deactivated in the real world.  Interesting.

[MetioricTest]

Dwailing wrote...

MetioricTest wrote...

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?

Well, I know what MY definition of a troll is.  Any idiot who comes in here saying, "You guys SUCK!  You're so wrong about EVERYTHING!  BioWare SUCKS!  And I'm going to tell you all to stop doing something you all enjoy and I'm going to stop you from making the endings seem like a GOOD thing even though we all KNOW that it SUCKS because I know it sucks and I can't POSSIBLY be wrong!!!! (I'm paraphrasing, but that's the general tone of most literalists that come here.  Not all of them, but most of them.)"

I would laugh if that was post #1 of page 2000


Anyway I gotta go.  I'll try and catch up on the discussion later.

It's been nice talking to some of you...Not so nice talking to others... But that's life. Try to keep in mind that people discussing things and bringing stuff up doesn't make them trolls. It just makes them people with something to discuss that you might not like/agree with.  (I know most of you already know that but some of you don't)

Have fun all.

[paxxton]

EpyonX3 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Strange because you should.

Lol. I'll clarify.

I agree that by adding refusal, they went against they're original statment about not adding new endings. However, I agree that they stuck to their original statement when they said they're not changing the original endings, only expanding on them.

Fair enough. Still someone could argue that expading is a form of changing.

[paxxton]

smokingotter1 wrote...

 I sorta kinda but not really have a life

[in Shepard's voice] How can you post if you're dead? jk

[Dwailing]

OK, I had an interesting thought yesterday when I was playing the opening sequence of ME3. We've already mentioned that Anderson taps Shepard in the same place that Shepard starts bleeding after the Anderson/TIM confrontation. However, I had another thought about another small detail in the beginning that is echoed during the endings. In the beginning, you see a dreadnought being blasted by a Reaper. In the Rejection ending, you see... well what do you know? you see the same thing! A dreadnought being blasted by a Reaper! And, based on Megumi's research, it would appear that the dreadnought is destroyed no matter what ending you choose, it's just that you only SEE it happen if you choose Rejection. I don't know if this has any significance, but it's an interesting coincidence none the less. Or is it a coincidence?...

[smokingotter1]

paxxton wrote...

smokingotter1 wrote...

 I sorta kinda but not really have a life

[in Shepard's voice] How can you post if you're dead? jk

Doesn't Shepard once joke that he's technically undead

[paxxton]

Flog61 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Flog61 wrote...

paxxton wrote...

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?

I have no idea what you are talking about. There aren't even alternate universes where you get the 2000th ppage first post. 

Sure, see ya after the first post on page 2000.

Can't you see it? You're...you're indoctrinated!

No, I'm in control. No one's taking the first post from me!

[RavenEyry]

Can you lot stop cluttering up the thread by prattling about page 2000? Please?

[CoolioThane]

MetioricTest wrote...

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.

Not quite. My argument is that Stargazer disproves the end choice was a halluncination. And always has. The new Stargazer is just icing.

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

Don't know if you said it or not but the defense of stargazer being "Bioware planted it as a trick so they didn't have to prove IT! It's actually a completely different scene in a completely different place (that looks the same) that happens as well as the original Stargazer scene!" is blindly dismissing.

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.

Pardon my confusion but I thought the IT dealt with the concept of Shepard being indoctrinated or the Reaper trying to indoctrinate him?

That's why it's called the Indoctrination Theory and not the Choices at the end are halluncinations theory.

I don't believe disproving the end bit is a halluncination really as much of a core part as IT as you seem to.

Would you rather I claimed disproving the end is a halluncination disproves IT? That just seems arrogant and dismissive to me.

1. So that means the catalyst isn't a hallucination, so it's real. So I am right there.

2. I said and I'm astounded you've quoted me incorrectly considering I've said it 8 times "If it was the same scene, IT would most definitely be real" and that the new gazer scene "could have been at the same time, different place OR OR OR OR OR same place different time" - which I think we can agree upon, yes?

3. Okay, you can choose to ignore all of the clues and stuff, mate. It's all your opinion, as this is my opinion. I'm not being arrogant or dismissive by having a different opinion to you for **** sake. MOST of the ITers think that the catalyst is a hallucination/Indoc induced dream... 

[Dwailing]

CoolioThane wrote...

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

Sub isn't really a TROLL, just a very stubborn Literalist who loves to debate us and who, admittedly, DOES occasionally cross into, "Why are you still here?" territory.  And Epyon is, again, not really a troll, but a Literalist who enjoys these spirited debates.  Honestly, it wouldn't be as much fun without Epyon.  We need at least one person who's a resonable Literalist who doesn't start using ad hominem attacks.  It helps to weed out the BS.

[Cyberfrog81]

TSA_383 wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Also, in the QandA yesterday, they
actually said the Catalyst's voice was partly made from Shep's
memories...which was kind of a big thing to announce considering...it is
a big positive for IT

Isn't that... an admission that what we see isn't really real?

You'd think so.

On the other hand...

Q
In
the new EC Synthesis end there is a reunion between Kei Jo and Kasumi.
AFAIK Keiji is not alive, only the last message is recorded to the grey
box in hologram form. What does the scene mean. Did Synthesis end bring
Kei Ji back?




A
Great question. I honestly didn't know the answer to this one, so I
asked Patrick Weekes, the man who wrote Kasumi in Mass Effect 3 and
this is what he said:

"In Synthesis, the improved communication/relationship between
synthetics and organics is enough for Keiji's greybox memories to be
reconstructed. This would let Kasumi reunite with her lover (at least
mentally and emotionally). Whether it really is Keiji, based on his
memories, or just a very good AI reconstruction of him, is up to the
player to determine -- that type of question is one of the core
questions of Synthesis."

... which supports that synthesis really happened. And it's straight from a writer.

[RavenEyry]

Dwailing wrote...

OK, I had an interesting thought yesterday when I was playing the opening sequence of ME3. We've already mentioned that Anderson taps Shepard in the same place that Shepard starts bleeding after the Anderson/TIM confrontation. However, I had another thought about another small detail in the beginning that is echoed during the endings. In the beginning, you see a dreadnought being blasted by a Reaper. In the Rejection ending, you see... well what do you know? you see the same thing! A dreadnought being blasted by a Reaper! And, based on Megumi's research, it would appear that the dreadnought is destroyed no matter what ending you choose, it's just that you only SEE it happen if you choose Rejection. I don't know if this has any significance, but it's an interesting coincidence none the less. Or is it a coincidence?...

Remember that the only parts directly written by Hudson and Walters was the beginning and end (possibly the citadel invasion in the middle too), it makes sense they'd slip things like that in.

[Dwailing]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Also, in the QandA yesterday, they
actually said the Catalyst's voice was partly made from Shep's
memories...which was kind of a big thing to announce considering...it is
a big positive for IT

Isn't that... an admission that what we see isn't really real?

You'd think so.

On the other hand...

Q
In
the new EC Synthesis end there is a reunion between Kei Jo and Kasumi.
AFAIK Keiji is not alive, only the last message is recorded to the grey
box in hologram form. What does the scene mean. Did Synthesis end bring
Kei Ji back?




A
Great question. I honestly didn't know the answer to this one, so I
asked Patrick Weekes, the man who wrote Kasumi in Mass Effect 3 and
this is what he said:

"In Synthesis, the improved communication/relationship between
synthetics and organics is enough for Keiji's greybox memories to be
reconstructed. This would let Kasumi reunite with her lover (at least
mentally and emotionally). Whether it really is Keiji, based on his
memories, or just a very good AI reconstruction of him, is up to the
player to determine -- that type of question is one of the core
questions of Synthesis."

... which supports that synthesis really happened. And it's straight from a writer.

That explanation works off of the assumption that Synthesis really happened.  You can explain the consequences of an action all you want, but that doesn't mean that the action itself really happened.

You could explain the consequences of, say, going back in time an killing Hitler, but that doesn't mean that you actually went back in time and killed Hitler or that going back in time and killing Hitler is even possible.

Modifié par Dwailing, 19 juillet 2012 - 03:59 .