587 réponses à ce sujet

[Ieldra]

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

IT is a conspiracy theory based on invalidating two of the presented choices, for most of the IT supporters anyway. Implementing that would ruin the game for a significant number of players, namely those who like the ideas behind Control and Synthesis.

So, no, you're NOT lobbying for Bioware to make it right for "the players". You are lobbying to make your opinion canonically right at the expense of other fans. That's what I find despicable. Shouldn't there be some solidarity among fans? Aren't we all disappointed?

As far as I'm concerned, IT drives a bigger wedge between groups of fans than the endings as such ever managed. I am extremely disappointed by the current endings, but I take them unmodified any day before I accept IT. IT is offensive, hypocritical and destroys choices and roleplaying much more than the existing endings ever could.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 17 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

I'm beginning to understand your view, even if I disagree with it. Arguably, all of the endings have outstanding issues that would have to be solved in a sequel and so they could be imported into a sequel. If you want me to respect your choice, then I'll respect it even if, like I said, I disagree with it and we can go on our merry way. Neither of us can know what our choices will do to the ME universe until the EC so admittedly I could be wrong and you could be right or we could both be right.

EDIT: By the way, there is no reason to make this personal when it is only a debate about opinons. I haven't called you names or intentionally insulted you, if I remember correctly.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[kookie28]

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

Don't insult me.  I donated to Child's Play for the sake of donating to Child's Play.   Not to support your crackpot conspiracy theory.

Modifié par kookie28, 17 mai 2012 - 08:11 .

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

[Ieldra]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

I'm beginning to understand your view, even if I disagree with it. Arguably, all of the endings have outstanding issues that would have to be solved in a sequel and so they could be imported into a sequel. If you want me to respect your choice, then I'll respect it even if, like I said, I disagree with it and we can go on our merry way. Neither of us can know what our choices will do to the ME universe until the EC so admittedly I could be wrong and you could be right or we could both be right.

That's true, but IT supporters are lobbying for Bioware to make their vision true and my vision wrong. As long as they are doing that, I cannot respect them and it's pretty damn personal because they want Bioware to ruin my game on their behalf. What would you say if I lobbied to make Destroy canonically wrong? Even worse, what would you say if Bioware implemented a change that told those who chose Destroy that they were thinking wrong?

[balance5050]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

Don't insult me.  I donated to Child's Play for the sake of donating to Child's Play.   Not to support your crackpot conspiracy theory.

You rejected the endings because they felt "wrong", make no mistake, that is how Bioware will spin this.

[BatmanTurian]

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

I'm beginning to understand your view, even if I disagree with it. Arguably, all of the endings have outstanding issues that would have to be solved in a sequel and so they could be imported into a sequel. If you want me to respect your choice, then I'll respect it even if, like I said, I disagree with it and we can go on our merry way. Neither of us can know what our choices will do to the ME universe until the EC so admittedly I could be wrong and you could be right or we could both be right.

That's true, but IT supporters are lobbying for Bioware to make their vision true and my vision wrong. As long as they are doing that, I cannot respect them and it's pretty damn personal because they want Bioware to ruin my game on their behalf. What would you say if I lobbied to make Destroy canonically wrong? Even worse, what would you say if Bioware implemented a change that told those who chose Destroy that they were thinking wrong?

What do you want me to say? I already admitted I could be wrong and said that I respect your opinion on which ending is right now even if I don't agree with it. Again, there's no reason to make this an aggressive debate anymore.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 17 mai 2012 - 08:23 .

[balance5050]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Modifié par balance5050, 17 mai 2012 - 08:25 .

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

You I find it funny that your think I'm arguing based on IT... I'm not. This video shows the base of my arguement...

....
You guys are missing allot a things for your arguement. All I can say is if you have any proof the starchild can be trusted. I have the entire lore to point to as proof that he can't. That what your missing, a reason of trust of the starchild.
To say control and synthesis is not working with the reapers is to trust the starchild, who is in charge of the reapers.
I will never do that. And anyone using logic would not ether.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 mai 2012 - 08:26 .

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

Don't insult me.  I donated to Child's Play for the sake of donating to Child's Play.   Not to support your crackpot conspiracy theory.

Yet, they are not changing the ending, just adding on. IT is the only way to fix the ending with out changing it completly.

[kookie28]

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Modifié par kookie28, 17 mai 2012 - 08:31 .

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...


Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

So you're saying that you are the only one who thought it through? that no one other than the pro-IT thought about the ending in a moral way? 

That is condescending to say the least. I thought about the ending. No, I did not come up with a huge theory that dismiss others while making my points, but I thought and made my peace, which you are trying to destroy.

Juat becasue you thought about it more and searched for every detail to make your points, does not mean you are right.  

Modifié par HagarIshay, 17 mai 2012 - 08:34 .

[NoSpin]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Occam's Razor does not apply to fiction. Thanks, try again.

No IT theorists are not being egoists, we believe IT was Bioware's intention the whole time. We are searching the game for clues and having fun doing it. 

[kookie28]

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

Don't insult me.  I donated to Child's Play for the sake of donating to Child's Play.   Not to support your crackpot conspiracy theory.

Yet, they are not changing the ending, just adding on. IT is the only way to fix the ending with out changing it completly.

Or they could better portray events in the ending to help clear up misunderstandings.

But no, your right, they should just complicate the story even more by making the Indoctrination Theory canon.  Because I'm sure they wanted to compete with MGS for most complicated video game story.

[BatmanTurian]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Applying Occam's Razor to literary analysis is a fallacy because often there are themes, characters, and actions that are metaphors and are more complex in meaning than they appear.

Occam's razor should be applied to the physical sciences not literary analysis where the only law is Conservation of Detail.

[NoSpin]

IT doesn't complicate the story, it effectively erases 99% of plot holes using an already established plot point in the series.

[Ieldra]

dreman9999 wrote...
Yet, they are not changing the ending, just adding on. IT is the only way to fix the ending with out changing it completly.

IT would change the ending completely because it would retcon a significant part to meaninglessness.

More exposition, changed descriptions, even an additional option based on, say, rejecting the Catalyst, would change the ending much less than IT because it would leave the existing options intact as a viable way to end the Reaper threat.

[kookie28]

NoSpin wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Occam's Razor does not apply to fiction. Thanks, try again.

No IT theorists are not being egoists, we believe IT was Bioware's intention the whole time. We are searching the game for clues and having fun doing it. 

It applies to Bioware's intentions and creation of the ending.

[BatmanTurian]

kookie28 wrote...

NoSpin wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Occam's Razor does not apply to fiction. Thanks, try again.

No IT theorists are not being egoists, we believe IT was Bioware's intention the whole time. We are searching the game for clues and having fun doing it. 

It applies to Bioware's intentions and creation of the ending.

Make a metaphorical ending that makes the player have to think about their choices so that they can speculate vs. shi**y writing that they haven't done in most of their games.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...
If all three endings are happy, then none of the ending choices matter. At least 1-2 of the endings are bad endings. Admittedly, even Destroy (though logic says otherwise since the Reapers are finally gone in that choice and the cycle is broken)

The choices are *different*, that's what matters, but they all end the Reaper threat. Say Destroy is best for you, Synthesis is best for me. Both achieve the main goal, so in an objective sense, none is better than the other. But both shape the galaxy in different ways, that's what makes them preferable to each of us in different ways.

But both achieve the main goal. If you're lobbying for one option not to achieve the main goal, then you're lobbying for Bioware to ruin my game. And then it gets personal between you and me.

But that's the problem. The other two choices are one made working with the reapers.

And here is the problem with IT.  You're making the assumption that choosing anything that doesn't obliterate the Reapers is "siding" with them.  

That's all IT is based on.  Assumptions.

Well, everything after you make your choice is "assumed", what does Shepard do with the reapers he now controls? How does synthesis actually work? Your guess on how it plays out is as good as ours, but yours is based on what one single character tells you (catalyst) while our assumptions are based on morals, themes, and foreshadowing that takes place throught the entire series.

Try applying this to the ending of ME 3.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor

Bad writing/lazyness vs. Indoctrination Theory.

Occam's razor is not bad writing. And it's called forshadowing.

[dreman9999]

kookie28 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

kookie28 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ieldra2 wrote...

ZackG312 wrote...
LOL at OP , god forbid bioware gives what the fans asked.

So, players lobbying Bioware for ruining other players' games doesn't bother you?

They already ruined the players games, we're lobbying for Bioware to make it right. It's why we raised $100,000. I.T. is the most unified theory on how they could fix the ending.

Don't insult me.  I donated to Child's Play for the sake of donating to Child's Play.   Not to support your crackpot conspiracy theory.

Yet, they are not changing the ending, just adding on. IT is the only way to fix the ending with out changing it completly.

Or they could better portray events in the ending to help clear up misunderstandings.

But no, your right, they should just complicate the story even more by making the Indoctrination Theory canon.  Because I'm sure they wanted to compete with MGS for most complicated video game story.

IT would still be the same thing...
So no one sees that indoctrination is happening to Shepard even if we take the plot as it is? 

Fun fact...There 3 theories for IT. 

[NoSpin]

kookie28 wrote...


It applies to Bioware's intentions and creation of the ending.

You are trying to ask which is more likely, Bioware wove an intricate plot throughout ME3 that is not as it appears on the surface (as it has done in SEVERAL other games), or Bioware decided to be lazy and publish horrible writing in the last 10min only?

You don't know Bioware's intentions. You don't. And you can't apply Occam's razor to fiction, as you can always pull "it was a dream" out of your hat as a writer and it would still fall within the logical rules of your said fictional universe.

[dreman9999]

Ieldra2 wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...
Yet, they are not changing the ending, just adding on. IT is the only way to fix the ending with out changing it completly.

IT would change the ending completely because it would retcon a significant part to meaninglessness.

More exposition, changed descriptions, even an additional option based on, say, rejecting the Catalyst, would change the ending much less than IT because it would leave the existing options intact as a viable way to end the Reaper threat.

No it would not.  
First...
Fun fact...There 3 theories for IT. 
.....Pick a version of the theory first.
Then we can see how we can apply it as an add on.

[dreman9999]

I like to ask that is there any reason to trust the star child with his vague explanation of synthesis and control?