446 réponses à ce sujet

[llbountyhunter]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based mostly off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

you dont play many games do you? 

I can think of several games (prince of persia for one) where they didnt put the ending on the disk- not only that, but they sold it for 10$!!

also I think seperating the ending is a good idea, because otherwise there wouldnt of been any specualtion whatsoever, which is what bioware wanted al along.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 18 mai 2012 - 06:51 .

[balance5050]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

So the IT will never be disproven in order to save sales.

Modifié par balance5050, 18 mai 2012 - 06:50 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

poundoffleshaa wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...

Those were different writing teams, though. ME3 has a new lead writer, and so far his performance has been less than stellar. (I'm aware Walters worked on ME2 but that was along with or under Karpyshyn)

I personally don't think IT is likly it just gives far to much credit to the Bioware writing team, but you seem very determined to disprove the theory ( which can be equated to breaking other peoples happiness in this case) why?

I'm not so determined to disprove the theory so much as I'm determined to get people to stop thinking that Bioware planned it. They can choose to roll with it if they like, but I really doubt they had any intention of making the original endings indoctrination.

And then there are those who think the I.T. is fact...

We keep telling you that we don't think it's fact. It's a literary interpretation.

Wasn't talking about you, actually. I'm okay with people thinking it's a literary interpretation so long a they realize there is an alternative.

Yeah, and we're fine with the alternative if Bioware explains it and clarifies it logically, otherwise we'll be back into hate mode again because we wouldn't even be able to apply the I.T. interpretation.

I look at it like this: they can either build off of the current endings and possibly make them capable of withstanding scrutiny (it can be done, surprisingly, and it wouldn't be that hard), they can use the IT but modify it enough so it's their own version of it, which could be horrible or decent, or they could just pluck the IT straight from the forums and say "it was totally our idea" to which my rage would have no end.

And then, they could just crap all over the endings even more. Hopefully it would be morbid and brutal.

[balance5050]

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...


I look at it like this: they can either build off of the current endings and possibly make them capable of withstanding scrutiny (it can be done, surprisingly, and it wouldn't be that hard), they can use the IT but modify it enough so it's their own version of it, which could be horrible or decent, or they could just pluck the IT straight from the forums and say "it was totally our idea" to which my rage would have no end.

And then, they could just crap all over the endings even more. Hopefully it would be morbid and brutal.

Sounds like you don't want the endings to be good.

[BatmanTurian]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

No past example. You're hilarious. ME2, Capcom's Azura game, Prince of Persia 2008, Final Fantasy XIII-2, Arkham City.

It's the industry standard now, so your statement is false.Why do you guys put out so much misinformation?

Edit: even more examples. Every MMO ever made, since they constantly add new content, RPG's like Oblivion and Skyrim ( the DLC wasn't packaged with the game). I could go on and on.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 mai 2012 - 06:56 .

[Candidate 88766]

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

Cable-like things in the 'survive' ending:



Cable-like things in the Catalyst's chamber:



Material seen in the 'survive' ending:



Material with the same pattern (its not burnt, bit it has that same ridge and is of similar proportions) in the Catalyst's chamber:


Proof that the Presidium is still intact after the Crucible has exploded (I'm aware that Shepard is on the underside of the Tower, not on the Presidium, but if the rest of the Citadel survived relatively okay - aside from the Ward arms coming off - its not unreasonable to assume the Tower is still there, although there's still the question of how Shepard survived the Crucible exploding):




There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

[zephyr2025]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

How 90% of anti-IT vs ITer arguments are:

ITer spams images, links and paragraphs of "proof" while anti-ITer calls them dismissive and degrading names then says "clinging" and "grasping at straws" a lot.

It can be argued that IT people tend to dismiss any counterclaims though, even if they don't have anything really solid to back up the dismissal.  It's just a silly argument that shouldn't be taking place.

It's hard to fight thecounters when they only consist of bioware being lazy or bad writers. It's tough becasue we argue the meaning of the story when they refute it by saying the author is dumb.

Agreed.  And when they hate space magic being in the ending we have, but then seem to find it in a much better light as long as it "counters" IT.  Once more, 'tis a silly argument.

I'm not a fan of the writing overall, but I'd rather try to think critically than subscribe to hate-based assumptions.

This is a bit sad. I mean, calling the kettle black much. Most of the "evidence" in IT is that the story is so ridiculously badly written that it can't be real. But you guys are right, there is no point in arguing because you're adamant with your assumption that everything needs to have a meaning, whereas we don't think with those constraints. 

You come into a thread that is about a specific piece of evidence that suggests that IT is not correct and happily go off about how anti-IT people just use "hate-based assumptions" and use space magic. Nice. If you're going to be that delusional at least do it in your own thread.

I also love that these posts are people talking about how they agree with each other and how smart and good they are at critical thinking.

[balance5050]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

Cable-like things in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Cable-like things in the Catalyst's chamber:

snip

Material seen in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Material with the same pattern (its not burnt, bit it has that same ridge and is of similar proportions) in the Catalyst's chamber:
snip

Proof that the Presidium is still intact after the Crucible has exploded (I'm aware that Shepard is on the underside of the Tower, not on the Presidium, but if the rest of the Citadel survived relatively okay - aside from the Ward arms coming off - its not unreasonable to assume the Tower is still there, although there's still the question of how Shepard survived the Crucible exploding):
snip



There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

Yep, it's not conclusive either way, but the citadel is made of an "unknown" resilient material that can withstand the wake of a super nova, so if the blast was strong enough to break that material, logically, Shepard should be vaporized. 

Modifié par balance5050, 18 mai 2012 - 06:59 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

Its way more than just minor in-game hiccups backing up the theory. The entire premise of the series strongly suggests Shepard would likely be indoctrinated.

You're not the first  guy to suggest the theory is absolute garbage while refusing to share your reasoning.

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

balance5050 wrote...

Leonardo the Magnificent wrote...


I look at it like this: they can either build off of the current endings and possibly make them capable of withstanding scrutiny (it can be done, surprisingly, and it wouldn't be that hard), they can use the IT but modify it enough so it's their own version of it, which could be horrible or decent, or they could just pluck the IT straight from the forums and say "it was totally our idea" to which my rage would have no end.

And then, they could just crap all over the endings even more. Hopefully it would be morbid and brutal.

Sounds like you don't want the endings to be good.

If they're going to be bad, I want them to be so incredibly godawful it's comical. I want the epitome of awful if I'm going to get awful. I want people dying in droves in those endings simply because it would ****** everyone off. So, go big or go home. They can make it great and I'll love it, or they can make it impossibly bad and I'll love it.

[BatmanTurian]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

No, it's physically impossible for Shepard to have survived that blast on the Citadel. To believe so is to completely ignore Basic Physics and the effects of force and heat on the body and materials.

[Candidate 88766]

balance5050 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

Cable-like things in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Cable-like things in the Catalyst's chamber:

snip

Material seen in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Material with the same pattern (its not burnt, bit it has that same ridge and is of similar proportions) in the Catalyst's chamber:
snip

Proof that the Presidium is still intact after the Crucible has exploded (I'm aware that Shepard is on the underside of the Tower, not on the Presidium, but if the rest of the Citadel survived relatively okay - aside from the Ward arms coming off - its not unreasonable to assume the Tower is still there, although there's still the question of how Shepard survived the Crucible exploding):
snip



There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

Yep, it's not conclusive either way, but the citadel is amde of an "unknown" resilient material that can withstand the wake of a super nova, so if the blast was strong enough to break that material, logically, Shepard should be vaporized. 

But most of the Citadel is still intact, as I just showed.

And it was my understanding that its the armour on the outside of the Ward arms that are nigh indestructible - the stuff on the inside isn't actually that strong given the immense damage done by Sovereign's wreckage.

[mauro2222]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Which comic are you refering to? I'd like to have a look for myself.

Sorry, was playing Shogun 2... emm, I think I made a mistake it was novel not comic, anyway. Retribution is the name.

[Tom Lehrer]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based mostly off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

you dont play many games do you? 

I can think of several games (prince of persia for one) where they didnt put the ending on the disk- not only that, but they sold it for 10$!!

also I think seperating the ending is a good idea, because otherwise there wouldnt of been any specualtion whatsoever, which is what bioware wanted al along.

Prince of Persia had an ending. What they gave the players in DLC was an epilouge.

And seperating an ending from the game is an all around flawed plan and the heads at EA know this. MEs sales have been hurt greatly over the ending because word of mouth has spread mostly in the form of speculation from disipointed fans so unless BioWares goal was to prevent ME3 from hitting market expectations they failed. 

[Candidate 88766]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

No, it's physically impossible for Shepard to have survived that blast on the Citadel. To believe so is to completely ignore Basic Physics and the effects of force and heat on the body and materials.

Its also impossible for him to have survived being within a couple of feet of a Reaper death beam on Earth, Tuchunka, Rannoch, and then on Earth again. These beams are jets of ridiculously hot metal fired at close to the speed of light. The heat and kinetic energy would vapourise anything even vaguely near it, and even if the shockwave didn't disintegrate Shepard the air would vapourise around him and he'd suffocate.

Basic physics is ignored quite a lot. You can't claim that this example of physics being ignored is somehow proof that it didn't occur.

[Acturas]

I have dismissed all claims of both pro and anti IT as this platform is indoctrinated

[balance5050]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

Cable-like things in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Cable-like things in the Catalyst's chamber:

snip

Material seen in the 'survive' ending:

snip

Material with the same pattern (its not burnt, bit it has that same ridge and is of similar proportions) in the Catalyst's chamber:
snip

Proof that the Presidium is still intact after the Crucible has exploded (I'm aware that Shepard is on the underside of the Tower, not on the Presidium, but if the rest of the Citadel survived relatively okay - aside from the Ward arms coming off - its not unreasonable to assume the Tower is still there, although there's still the question of how Shepard survived the Crucible exploding):
snip



There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

Yep, it's not conclusive either way, but the citadel is amde of an "unknown" resilient material that can withstand the wake of a super nova, so if the blast was strong enough to break that material, logically, Shepard should be vaporized. 

But most of the Citadel is still intact, as I just showed.

And it was my understanding that its the armour on the outside of the Ward arms that are nigh indestructible - the stuff on the inside isn't actually that strong given the immense damage done by Sovereign's wreckage.

Right but Shepard was on a part that "no organic has been" so it would need that same material to withstand space. Shepard was on the outside where that material is.

So that rubble came from someplace that was not on the hull where he previously was.

 

[llbountyhunter]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based mostly off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

you dont play many games do you? 

I can think of several games (prince of persia for one) where they didnt put the ending on the disk- not only that, but they sold it for 10$!!

also I think seperating the ending is a good idea, because otherwise there wouldnt of been any specualtion whatsoever, which is what bioware wanted al along.

Prince of Persia had an ending. What they gave the players in DLC was an epilouge.

And seperating an ending from the game is an all around flawed plan and the heads at EA know this. MEs sales have been hurt greatly over the ending because word of mouth has spread mostly in the form of speculation from disipointed fans so unless BioWares goal was to prevent ME3 from hitting market expectations they failed. 

no, it was another ending (prince is not the only example either)


me3 is actually the best selling game at the moment. and bioware wanted speculation, they didnt expect everyone to go bat **** crazy because they didnt bother to pay attention and do what bioware said.

[ArkkAngel007]

zephyr2025 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Orange Tee wrote...

How 90% of anti-IT vs ITer arguments are:

ITer spams images, links and paragraphs of "proof" while anti-ITer calls them dismissive and degrading names then says "clinging" and "grasping at straws" a lot.

It can be argued that IT people tend to dismiss any counterclaims though, even if they don't have anything really solid to back up the dismissal.  It's just a silly argument that shouldn't be taking place.

It's hard to fight thecounters when they only consist of bioware being lazy or bad writers. It's tough becasue we argue the meaning of the story when they refute it by saying the author is dumb.

Agreed.  And when they hate space magic being in the ending we have, but then seem to find it in a much better light as long as it "counters" IT.  Once more, 'tis a silly argument.

I'm not a fan of the writing overall, but I'd rather try to think critically than subscribe to hate-based assumptions.

This is a bit sad. I mean, calling the kettle black much. Most of the "evidence" in IT is that the story is so ridiculously badly written that it can't be real. But you guys are right, there is no point in arguing because you're adamant with your assumption that everything needs to have a meaning, whereas we don't think with those constraints. 

You come into a thread that is about a specific piece of evidence that suggests that IT is not correct and happily go off about how anti-IT people just use "hate-based assumptions" and use space magic. Nice. If you're going to be that delusional at least do it in your own thread.

I also love that these posts are people talking about how they agree with each other and how smart and good they are at critical thinking.

Why is it bad writing?  Poor business decision, yet, but the writing is in line with what is established previously in the series.

And I'm not putting everyone in the same pot.  I'm just talking about those who jump on every opportunity to slam BioWare because they can't get over a simple videogame.  Maybe you don't do that, which kudos to you.  IsaacShep and I have had nice discussions over this in the past, and while we disagreed, we left it at more than just simple ball dropping at the last minute to **** off the fan base.

Grow up and don't get so offended over something that is not important in the first place.  It's only a discussion over a play thing.  Both sides with these "Har har I have proof" threads are just pathetic, and I feel this was really below my expectations of the OP.

[Tom Lehrer]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

Its way more than just minor in-game hiccups backing up the theory. The entire premise of the series strongly suggests Shepard would likely be indoctrinated.

You're not the first  guy to suggest the theory is absolute garbage while refusing to share your reasoning.

It is also based around recyled image assests. Nor did I say the theory was garbage so dont put words in my mouth.

Indoctaination Theory is ingenous no matter how we slice it but it is lightyears beyond the abelities of the ME writing team at least with Mac as the lead.

[Candidate 88766]

balance5050 wrote...

Right but Shepard was on a part that "no organic has been" so it would need that same material to withstand space. Shepard was on the outside where that material is.

So that rubble came from someplace that was not on the hull where he previously was.

 

What do you mean "withstand space"? 

The entire Citadel 'withstands space'. Some of it is strong - the Ward arms - and some of it is less strong - the Citadel Tower was heavily damaged by a bit of Sovereign's arm.

A lot of the rubble is, as I showed earlier, incredibly similar to things we see in the Catalyst's chamber. Just because its in space doesn't suddenly mean that it can't be turned to rubble. That doesn't make sense.


Edit: I think I see what you mean. You're saying the underside of the Tower would need to be armoured like the Ward arms?

It doesn't - sections of the Ward arms extaned to cover the base of the Citadel, as can be seen in ME3 everytime you visit the Citade.

Modifié par Candidate 88766, 18 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[llbountyhunter]

Candidate 88766 wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Candidate 88766 wrote...

jijeebo wrote...

Isn't it possible that Shepard is on the Citadel and that any out of place materials are just components of the Crucible that got thrown about due to the blast?

*I am GENUINELY asking if it's possible, because I haven't the foggiest*

Its perfectly possible.

There's just as much evidence that Shepard is still on the Citadel in the 'survive' ending as there is evidence that he is London.

No, it's physically impossible for Shepard to have survived that blast on the Citadel. To believe so is to completely ignore Basic Physics and the effects of force and heat on the body and materials.

Its also impossible for him to have survived being within a couple of feet of a Reaper death beam on Earth, Tuchunka, Rannoch, and then on Earth again. These beams are jets of ridiculously hot metal fired at close to the speed of light. The heat and kinetic energy would vapourise anything even vaguely near it, and even if the shockwave didn't disintegrate Shepard the air would vapourise around him and he'd suffocate.

Basic physics is ignored quite a lot. You can't claim that this example of physics being ignored is somehow proof that it didn't occur.

the first one (the only direct impact) is solved cleverly with IT.   the others didnt hit shepard, he had amor and  the bullets in the game travel and near light speed as well. (might want to check back up on the codex)

[BatmanTurian]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based mostly off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

you dont play many games do you? 

I can think of several games (prince of persia for one) where they didnt put the ending on the disk- not only that, but they sold it for 10$!!

also I think seperating the ending is a good idea, because otherwise there wouldnt of been any specualtion whatsoever, which is what bioware wanted al along.

Prince of Persia had an ending. What they gave the players in DLC was an epilouge.

And seperating an ending from the game is an all around flawed plan and the heads at EA know this. MEs sales have been hurt greatly over the ending because word of mouth has spread mostly in the form of speculation from disipointed fans so unless BioWares goal was to prevent ME3 from hitting market expectations they failed. 

They did hit market expectations. At the end of their fiscal year, When they released ME3, they made 200 million in sales to show to EA's shareholders. Since then, they have made another 30 million in new games sold and MP credits being bought by Xbox Live points and the like.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 mai 2012 - 07:10 .

[Leonardo the Magnificent]

[/quote]
Indoctaination Theory is ingenous no matter how we slice it but it is lightyears beyond the abelities of the ME writing team at least with Mac as the lead.
[/quote]

My thoughts exaclty.

[llbountyhunter]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

IT is a fan made theory based off graphical errors and poor writing. The whole thing depends on the idea that BioWare knowingly did not sell us a complete game and has chosen to give us the real ending at a later time. There is no past example of anyone ever selling a game without a real ending. I know of DLCs that have changed and extended game endings but there is not a single example of a game that was sold without an ending. 

I could spend weeks arguing about and proving wrong in-game "evidence'' of IT but I dont need to because the real world gives us a much easier way to prove it wrong. ME was a massive investment for EA and BioWare and their writing, marketing, and PR teams would not risk ME3s longer term profitability by not giving the game an end. We already see the fan outrage when the ending to such a loved series fails this hard...can you imagine the outrage if they tried to sell us the 'real ending' for 10$?

The free EC was a marketing move to try and save sales for MEs DLC not to give us the ending we should have gotten anyway. The reason they dont deny IT is simple marketing. Should BioWare come out and say it is false the die hard ITers will lose interest and that will hurt profits. The real goal is to keep as many people on board as they can so that when EC comes out more people download it and possibly enjoy the expansion regardless and buy other DLC.

Its way more than just minor in-game hiccups backing up the theory. The entire premise of the series strongly suggests Shepard would likely be indoctrinated.

You're not the first  guy to suggest the theory is absolute garbage while refusing to share your reasoning.

It is also based around recyled image assests. Nor did I say the theory was garbage so dont put words in my mouth.

Indoctaination Theory is ingenous no matter how we slice it but it is lightyears beyond the abelities of the ME writing team at least with Mac as the lead.

IT is not BASED on recycled images. those are only the smaller bits of evidence that help support IT.why not attack some of the stonger parts? 

http://masseffectind...n.blogspot.com/