496 réponses à ce sujet

[Arian Dynas]

[quote]HagarIshay wrote...

[quote]balance5050 wrote...


I have considered the endings at face value, and they are full of thematical inconsistencies, plotholes, and things that don't make any sense. You have heard that there was this huge movement that raised over $100000 because the face value endings suck so much right?

[/quote]

Yes, I have heard. And yes, the ending plot has so many plotholes to it that it's just sad. But beleive it or not, IT is not perfect either. Yes, it can explain a LOT of the ending and the stupidity of it, but it also have some plotholes, making a one way street for the game, which is obviously not the purpose of an RPG (or a game which has RPG elements and choices are supposed to be a part of the game), or the fact that it's changing the hole ending to something it's not, which is not a possiblity to do so if there will be a ME4. And of course that if the IT will be confirmed, then some fans will get screwed when others will rub it in them (not neceecerly you, but there will be).

And, if BioWare will actually do the IT, it's either they wanted to sell us the real ending and got pushed to do it for free by the retakers, which is a disgusting thing to do to a fan (that is also to answer the OP's question as to why I don't like the ending being sold incomplete). Or BioWare just took their fans ideas and that will really let down my repect for them as writers. Both options as to why BioWare will put the EC will probobly make me have a major let down from the company. I know I stand alone in this opinion (or with very few peole), but sadly, it seem that BioWare is now in the position of  "Damned if you do, Damned if you don't".

[/quote]

Hmm, before I part ways with this bunch, I think I'll leave something I came up with a while back for your consideration.

(also, if you're going to mention these "problems" IT has, be a sport and tell us what they are rather than making oblique hints. You can't have a conversation if you're not on the same wavelength.)

[quote]Arian Dynas wrote...

But, in address to the OP (And by the way, all the insults and such? Don't blame everyone who believes something different from what you do by the actions and words of a few elitists. And really, can you blame us for being defensive with the torches and pitchforks reaction we get?)

To be entirely honest with you?

I don't think the EC was planned at all.

Does that mean I doubt IT? Heck no.

I think that the EC is Bioware doing EXACTLY what they said, making things more clear so that people can comprehend the ending better. For the simple fact that I think and continue to beleive their DLC plan worked out something like this;

1). Start up the ANN twitter feed, giving "Live realtime accounts" of the war and the events leading up to it, place the timeline to start the invasion on March 6th.

2). Design Mass Effect 3, plant clues both subtle and obvious to draw the interest of the fans, the ending is designed to be strange, out of place, but ultimately fulfilling and capable of satisfying the fans for now. Multiplayer is implimented to keep fan interest up. Fans keep speculating about the strange, out of place ending, staying involved and interested where normally they would finish the game and that would be the end of their thoughts on the subject.

3). Do weekly multiplayer events to make sure that the fans keep playing, even the casual ones, also integrate a story into multiplayer, since A. That's what Bioware does, and B. It gets fans involved in the story, they get to feel like real soldiers in the war. Multiplayer events coincide with classified major operations in the war, usually announced by Admiral Hackett.

4). Release single player DLC which again raises fan involvement and interest and keeps them playing, as well as speculating as more evidence and information comes in over time, in the ANN timeline, it is announced via the Twitter feed (usually the day before) and launched on the dates the events take place on.

5). Release multiplayer packs, representing various forces that enter the war over time, such as the Quarians and more Krogan as forces swell and increase, reflecting the alliegance of various forces, as well as their maneuvers against the Reapers. Which also keeps ME3 in the front of fans minds, interested, involved. thinking about, speculating.

6). Keep updating the ANN twitter feed, which eventually reaches the date of Chronos Station and the Seige of Earth, then to great fanfare, a final ending DLC is released, potentially either free due to them making much of their money from multiplayer and choosing to do so for the PR, or possibly paid, in which it is revealed the ending was in fact a big mind **** and that Shepard was facing indoctrination, some fans having realized this before, they reveal the numbers from the legend saves, showing the number of people they "indoctrinated" before allowing people to download this DLC, which follows the choice from their Legendsave, forcing them to live with the choice they made, showing them a different result and mission depending on their choices.

7). Mac Walters and Casey Hudson share a bottle of bubbly with Dr. Musyka and Gamble.

Unfortunately, they flubbed the "satisifed" part of the ending, but got the "strange and out of place" part spot on, so they need to make it clearer that it was intentional, so to salvage their original plan, they have to make the EC, which they didn't expect to have to make, and thus they are forced to defend the artistic integrity of their ending, which was meant to be intentional, yet most fans refused to interpret from the get go, not having to expect interpretative value from a videogame. It explains their comments that they didn't expect to make the EC, why they seemed "hurt" that we didn't like the ending, why they defended their artistic integrity so hard, and why they refused to change the endings that are, from face value, a bunch of stinkers, but from IT perspective, are positively brilliant.

Though I don't expect them to be following their original plan now, from the fan backlash, they likely decided it was a far better idea to just make the EC and squeeze in the ending content they originally had planned, potentially sans combat to win back the fans.

And even better? The funny thing about it? They aren't losing out on this at all. The only thing on the line is their reputation, which assuming this whole thing was planned will get completely turned around.

Returned copies? They don't lose any money, the distributing franchises like Gamestop and Amazon do, (considering Origin flatly refused refunds) and the only thing they maybe lose from them is reputation, which if they turn it around by revealing this massive plot twist? They just earned back AND MORE.

Sold games? Put in the used bin? Cerberus network all over again baby, people buy those used games, they already got their money from producing them, now they get to charge an additional $15 for the actual ending. Cash money.

Well what about the people who sold their games? Wouldn't you go out to buy another copy of one of the greatest games ever that was suddenly vindicated by the most epic twist in videogame interactive storytelling history? Especially since now with an ending suited to it, it's perfect? They just sold the same game to a person TWICE. Jackpot.

Lost reputation due to the worst ending in videogame history? Not quite, it's now being actually advertised as "The Most Talked About Ending in Years!" and there's no advertisement like free advertisement, and you KNOW people will buy it out of morbid cuiriousity to see if the ending is really that bad, and plenty will remember the good parts and think "Hmm, that game was fantastic for 98%" and potentially go back to buy the other two. Ca-CHING!

And the prestige! (not the Christopher Nolan flick) Bioware suddenly will be rocketed to the top again as brilliant storytellers, completely vindicated in the eyes of even their most curmudgeonly fans after the supposed fiasco of DA2, as well as having pulled off a plot twist that would make M. Night Shamaylan cry in jealousy, something other developers will dream of copying, but being completely unable to, cementing Bioware's reputation as tops in the videogame storytelling biz. EA will have conquered their reputation as this evil monolithic company, concerned only with making money (yet ironically, will be making more bank than ever, hmm funny, seems people don't mind that when they get what they want out of it.)

And revealing something this big? After the treatment the ending got on the news, you can BET this will be plastered EVERYWHERE. Yet more free advertisement. Not to mention everyone and their literature professor will be talking about it and dissecting it ala Kubrickian methods for years to come (just like we are now) they will have cemented their place as videogame legends.

Not to mention this will be a HUGE jumping off point for an entire FRANCHISE, Mass Effect just became mainstream, nearly as much as Star Trek and Star Wars, with a feature length movie, comic books, videogames, statuettes, three award winning games, the top of their respective markets, novels, patches, tee shirts, anime, all dragged into the limelight.

Think about it greedily if you must, EA is full of smart, undeniably greedy people, do you honestly think they would possibly turn down a gold mine like this, with literally NO downside? With movies and anime and novels and every kind of merchandising swag under the sun coming out with the Mass Effect name, ME is a franchise they are pushing HARD. IT is a win-win suitation for them, if Bioware DIDN'T do it or plan it, EA would be leaning on them anyway TO do it, their artistic integrity be damned! And yet Bioware gets to pull off a first in gaming, a truly interactive, involving storytelling experience, involving REAL roleplaying (not just Paragon and Renegade choices) with actual interprative vaue just like any well written novel, and a genuine artistic value.

It is literally a win-win suitation. And If I can think of it, you can bet your bollocks that EA and Bioware would. [/quote]
[/quote] 

Also, to prove another point, going by IT, 
http://social.biowar.../index/12095313 one's Shepard is not necessarily screwed from the get go, this is a possible example.

[MysticSpace]

Omanisat wrote...

P47 ace wrote...

@ Omanisat
Mass effect is a SPACE OPERA

Then at what point does Shepard's evil half-brother show up, scheming to steal Shepard's inheritance?

They all ready did that with Wrex.

[M Hedonist]

IT believers are from Noveria, IT haters from Feros.

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...


A. You say that I.T. has plotholes and then fail to mentions what these are.

B. It's not railroading you into anything, the decision you make is actually just another decision that will affect your *expanded* ending.

C. Yes, games tend to nickel and dime people in this day and age.
http://www.cinemable...6-99-40917.html 
http://www.gamespot....essions-6234008 
http://www.eurogamer...nding-explained 

A. Well, maybe saying plotholes is not the word. I conceed that point. But It's basically saying: Everything that happened from here and now is a dream. It not really a plothole, since there could be no plotholes. But you can also say the hole Mass Effect 3 was a dream by Shepard. It's simply too convinient to say. I will tell all things like " Talking Harbinger was hellucination. No one else has talked to Harby in ME2 aside from Shepard, and S/he was alone there in arrival". 

B. I know you are not doing anything on purpose, don't get me wrong. But to say that Shepard was only strong willed if my idealism is telling me to choose destroy is not fair. It's exactly like telling someone in a democractic country that his opinions are not right, and get burned by thinking differently. The EC is suppose to be a closure, not a punishment. And it WILL be a ponishment for anyone who have not chosen destroy.

C. Can't say I play any of this games (and now I'm glad I'm not), so I may be worng here. But I'm guessing the continuation of this games will not be based on the previous games, such as those ones. ME is different. If there will be a new ending, it needs to have the same concept the the original one. Otherwise, people who didn't get the EC will have no idea what the ME4 is about. People who have chosen control will have no idea why the galaxy is in dissaray and not being protected by the reapers. People who have chosen synthesis will have no idea why people aren't green, but husks. It's not possible to create a new ending, or very implausible. If BioWare will put the IT in the EC, I just hope it will be tastefull for the people who want it. I, unfourtenatly, will not take the EC, even if it's free.

[Ageless Face]

Sauruz wrote...

IT believers are from Noveria, IT haters from Feros.

Why?

[HellishFiend]

HagarIshay wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

IT believers are from Noveria, IT haters from Feros.

Why?

He's referencing this:

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


A. You say that I.T. has plotholes and then fail to mentions what these are.

B. It's not railroading you into anything, the decision you make is actually just another decision that will affect your *expanded* ending.

C. Yes, games tend to nickel and dime people in this day and age.
http://www.cinemable...6-99-40917.html 
http://www.gamespot....essions-6234008 
http://www.eurogamer...nding-explained 

A. Well, maybe saying plotholes is not the word. I conceed that point. But It's basically saying: Everything that happened from here and now is a dream. It not really a plothole, since there could be no plotholes. But you can also say the hole Mass Effect 3 was a dream by Shepard. It's simply too convinient to say. I will tell all things like " Talking Harbinger was hellucination. No one else has talked to Harby in ME2 aside from Shepard, and S/he was alone there in arrival". 

B. I know you are not doing anything on purpose, don't get me wrong. But to say that Shepard was only strong willed if my idealism is telling me to choose destroy is not fair. It's exactly like telling someone in a democractic country that his opinions are not right, and get burned by thinking differently. The EC is suppose to be a closure, not a punishment. And it WILL be a ponishment for anyone who have not chosen destroy.

C. Can't say I play any of this games (and now I'm glad I'm not), so I may be worng here. But I'm guessing the continuation of this games will not be based on the previous games, such as those ones. ME is different. If there will be a new ending, it needs to have the same concept the the original one. Otherwise, people who didn't get the EC will have no idea what the ME4 is about. People who have chosen control will have no idea why the galaxy is in dissaray and not being protected by the reapers. People who have chosen synthesis will have no idea why people aren't green, but husks. It's not possible to create a new ending, or very implausible. If BioWare will put the IT in the EC, I just hope it will be tastefull for the people who want it. I, unfourtenatly, will not take the EC, even if it's free.

So all that leaves is B.... I won't go on to tell you why your choice could be wrong, dozens of game references can do that. But you need to remember that this is a game not a country, it is INDEED possible to have an opinion on what the best decision is and the game is free to tell you that you're wrong.

I thought that overriding the Geth code to be good in ME2 was the right decision, not killing them, but they end up joining the reapers anyway. That decision I made was wrong but I thought it was right. You can be punished in games, hell in TW2 lot's of dialogue choices end in instant death!

[Silhouett3]

So OP, you got your answer:

Anti-ITers take the "unfinished game that sucks".

And they don't put any effort to make it any better either. They have never cared to come up with an alternative. They have made their choice. I don't know or care why.

Let's respect their choice and maybe they'll respect our choice as we try to actually create something.

[Arian Dynas]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


A. You say that I.T. has plotholes and then fail to mentions what these are.

B. It's not railroading you into anything, the decision you make is actually just another decision that will affect your *expanded* ending.

C. Yes, games tend to nickel and dime people in this day and age.
http://www.cinemable...6-99-40917.html 
http://www.gamespot....essions-6234008 
http://www.eurogamer...nding-explained 

A. Well, maybe saying plotholes is not the word. I conceed that point. But It's basically saying: Everything that happened from here and now is a dream. It not really a plothole, since there could be no plotholes. But you can also say the hole Mass Effect 3 was a dream by Shepard. It's simply too convinient to say. I will tell all things like " Talking Harbinger was hellucination. No one else has talked to Harby in ME2 aside from Shepard, and S/he was alone there in arrival". 

B. I know you are not doing anything on purpose, don't get me wrong. But to say that Shepard was only strong willed if my idealism is telling me to choose destroy is not fair. It's exactly like telling someone in a democractic country that his opinions are not right, and get burned by thinking differently. The EC is suppose to be a closure, not a punishment. And it WILL be a ponishment for anyone who have not chosen destroy.

C. Can't say I play any of this games (and now I'm glad I'm not), so I may be worng here. But I'm guessing the continuation of this games will not be based on the previous games, such as those ones. ME is different. If there will be a new ending, it needs to have the same concept the the original one. Otherwise, people who didn't get the EC will have no idea what the ME4 is about. People who have chosen control will have no idea why the galaxy is in dissaray and not being protected by the reapers. People who have chosen synthesis will have no idea why people aren't green, but husks. It's not possible to create a new ending, or very implausible. If BioWare will put the IT in the EC, I just hope it will be tastefull for the people who want it. I, unfourtenatly, will not take the EC, even if it's free.

A. I will be blunt, this has always annoyed me. There is a difference between "It was all a dream" which in a literary narrative indicates that everything that occured previously meat nothing. and what IT is.

If you like, I shall explain in TV-Tropese.

Shepard is fighting off the influence of Harbinger through a mental combat with him, which does, unlike a dream, have real world consequences and outcomes, and does also have reality interconnecting with the unreal. Yes Shepard could have been hallucinating details from the moment he landed on Earth according to some IT interpretations, but the clear transition remains Harbinger's beam, which injures him to the point he becomes succeptible to his ministrations. Really it's less "hallucination" than it is " Controlled perception of reality" Someone else is controlling what Shepard sees and hears. Harbinger speaking likely was a "hallucination" an auditory hallucination he planted in the minds of those he wanted to hear. By choosing destroy you are rejecting their reality and substituting your own, choosing to fight off their influence, rather than take the offer they give you.

After all, to the Reapers, the mind is nothing more than a computer to hack, wipe, download or control. They are organic machines themselves, why would they not manipulate a chemical supercomputer?

B. It's not really the first time something like this has happened in Bioware games really, finding out later that a supposedly minor choice had major consequences, look at Rana Thanoptis or what happens if you choose Harrowmont over Bhelen. And it's not necessarily a punishment either, as I said, check the link I gave for an example of how they can give closure and wrap up everything even if you chose Synthesis or Control.

C. Also as I pointed out, they wouldn't necessarily had to have charged, seeing as we're getting the multiplayer stuff for free, I am thinking that right now Bioware is making alot of bank from the points for gear system alone. I highly doubt that HTL was enough to make Bioware give us ALL the Multiplayer DLC for free if it wasn't intended to have some free DLC to begin with.

Modifié par Arian Dynas, 04 juin 2012 - 08:25 .

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...

So all that leaves is B.... I won't go on to tell you why your choice could be wrong, dozens of game references can do that. But you need to remember that this is a game not a country, it is INDEED possible to have an opinion on what the best decision is and the game is free to tell you that you're wrong.

I thought that overriding the Geth code to be good in ME2 was the right decision, not killing them, but they end up joining the reapers anyway. That decision I made was wrong but I thought it was right. You can be punished in games, hell in TW2 lot's of dialogue choices end in instant death!

Yet it is a democratic country, as a metaphor at least. You have options, there is not a really right or wrong here. You can choose your options, and you decide which one is the best. It's all about idealism in the end.

I will go by your example of the rewrite. The consequences of rewrite are more severe, that is true. Yet even if they are, it's still not marked as a wrong decision. The proof for that is Shepard being able to tell Legion that if you could come back and make the decision again, would you do it. Shepard can say yes. And that is a major statement of telling us "There is not a real right or wrong. Consequences will always be, but that does not mean you were wrong". At least that is how I see it. And lets see another thing- stop the genor****e cure. While the best outcome is to kill wrex in ME1, destroy meylon's cure and kill eve, and save mordin... how many people have actually done that? It doesn't feel right, even if the outcome is the best. That's why there are no right and wrong decisions here.

And the endgame choices are the most important ones, They are the decisions of how the galaxy will continue. There are bad decisions in each one of them, and good things in each one. Again, idealism. What you think is the best. But now, telling people their opinions are so wrong, when other people are the only ones that are right, the only decisions that ca make you end the game and with success, that is... simply cruel. That is unfair, it is offesnsive, and it is a major letdown for some of us.

[Ageless Face]

Arian Dynas wrote...


A. I will be blunt, this has always annoyed me. There is a difference between "It was all a dream" which in a literary narrative indicates that everything that occured previously meat nothing. and what IT is.

If you like, I shall explain in TV-Tropese.

Shepard is fighting off the influence of Harbinger through a mental combat with him, which does, unlike a dream, have real world consequences and outcomes, and does also have reality interconnecting with the unreal. Yes Shepard could have been hallucinating details from the moment he landed on Earth according to some IT interpretations, but the clear transition remains Harbinger's beam, which injures him to the point he becomes succeptible to his ministrations. Really it's less "hallucination" than it is " Controlled perception of reality" Someone else is controlling what Shepard sees and hears. Harbinger speaking likely was a "hallucination" an auditory hallucination he planted in the minds of those he wanted to hear. By choosing destroy you are rejecting their reality and substituting your own, choosing to fight off their influence, rather than take the offer they give you.

After all, to the Reapers, the mind is nothing more than a computer to hack, wipe, download or control. They are organic machines themselves, why would they not manipulate a chemical supercomputer?

B. It's not really the first time something like this has happened in Bioware games really, finding out later that a supposedly minor choice had major consequences, look at Rana Thanoptis or what happens if you choose Harrowmont over Bhelen. And it's not necessarily a punishment either, as I said, check the link I gave for an example of how they can give closure and wrap up everything even if you chose Synthesis or Control.

C. Also as I pointed out, they wouldn't necessarily had to have charged, seeing as we're getting the multiplayer stuff for free, I am thinking that right now Bioware is making alot of bank from the points for gear system alone. I highly doubt that HTL was enough to make Bioware give us ALL the Multiplayer DLC for free if it wasn't intended to have some free DLC to begin with.

A. Well, I will conceed this point. I am not an expert on the IT, and to say I know exactly what there is to it is arrogant of me. I apoligize if I offended. 

B. I've explained to Balance in a post before why I think the base idea the IT bring a an anti-control and anti-synthesis is problomatic. (BTW, I  have read the script a while ago. Apperantly I didn't read it right and it casued a flame war . But after I read it again I relaised it was actually very good. If the IT is true, I hope it will be simmilar to this).

C. I sure hope money was not their intentions. When you putt it the way you did in the post before, BioWare have been a modest geniuess, or something like that. I hope that is the case, But from some reasons of specticalism, I doubt that.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 04 juin 2012 - 08:50 .

[balance5050]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

So all that leaves is B.... I won't go on to tell you why your choice could be wrong, dozens of game references can do that. But you need to remember that this is a game not a country, it is INDEED possible to have an opinion on what the best decision is and the game is free to tell you that you're wrong.

I thought that overriding the Geth code to be good in ME2 was the right decision, not killing them, but they end up joining the reapers anyway. That decision I made was wrong but I thought it was right. You can be punished in games, hell in TW2 lot's of dialogue choices end in instant death!

Yet it is a democratic country, as a metaphor at least. You have options, there is not a really right or wrong here. You can choose your options, and you decide which one is the best. It's all about idealism in the end.

I will go by your example of the rewrite. The consequences of rewrite are more severe, that is true. Yet even if they are, it's still not marked as a wrong decision. The proof for that is Shepard being able to tell Legion that if you could come back and make the decision again, would you do it. Shepard can say yes. And that is a major statement of telling us "There is not a real right or wrong. Consequences will always be, but that does not mean you were wrong". At least that is how I see it. And lets see another thing- stop the genor****e cure. While the best outcome is to kill wrex in ME1, destroy meylon's cure and kill eve, and save mordin... how many people have actually done that? It doesn't feel right, even if the outcome is the best. That's why there are no right and wrong decisions here.

And the endgame choices are the most important ones, They are the decisions of how the galaxy will continue. There are bad decisions in each one of them, and good things in each one. Again, idealism. What you think is the best. But now, telling people their opinions are so wrong, when other people are the only ones that are right, the only decisions that ca make you end the game and with success, that is... simply cruel. That is unfair, it is offesnsive, and it is a major letdown for some of us.

Nah, mass effect is a videogame not a country. And the decisions you made at the end of ME2 could have ended in your squadmates dying and even your own death. You can have the idealistic opinion that Grunt is a great hacker and won't die in the vents, but he's not and he does. If this doesn't let you know that some decisons have wrong answers in Mass Effect I don't know what will.... 

 

[SubAstris]

P47 ace wrote...


so for the IT theory Haters out there you have 2 chioces

1) unfinshed game that sucks
or
2) unfinshed game that dose not suck

the chioce is your's

Your assumption is that IT is itself a good idea, one thing many will disagree with (including myself).

[SpiderFan1217]

P47 ace wrote...

ok I know some people don't like the idea of indoc theory, and for differant reasons (mostly illogical ones), but there is one that i hear a lot that makes sence but i still have to ask Why

Here it is, tell me if you have herd it
"IT means i bought an unfinished game"

Now i understand their resoning for saying this but look at it this way

Everyone knows the game was rushed out the door, so EA and friends could get their $$$$$$

So one, you already have an unfinshed product that Sucks beyond Sucking, and many other descriptions,

now IT still has this "unfinshed game that was already unfinshed" but it will help it NOT suck

so for the IT theory Haters out there you have 2 chioces

1) unfinshed game that sucks
or
2) unfinshed game that dose not suck

the chioce is your's

Your post implies that IT doesn't suck. It does.

[Ageless Face]

balance5050 wrote...

Nah, mass effect is a videogame not a country. And the decisions you made at the end of ME2 could have ended in your squadmates dying and even your own death. You can have the idealistic opinion that Grunt is a great hacker and won't die in the vents, but he's not and he does. If this doesn't let you know that some decisons have wrong answers in Mass Effect I don't know what will.... 

 

it's a metaphor. You can't tell a person his opinions were wrong if he is giving the option to voice his opinion, or sort of.

There is a different between idealism and tactical thinking. EMS is like doing the loyalty missions. The more you did those, the more you had a chance to survive. But questions like: Is it worth keeping the base or not? That is idealism, there is no doubt about that. Yet you can't tell someone that because he chose to keep the base, he is now indoc, so he lost the game. It doesn't work that way. If the person did everything throughout the game well, kept everyone alive and intact, did all the mission to prefection, he should be rewarded for it. Not telling him that even if he did everything right, it doesn't matter, because he is stupid for not being the same as someone else that chose to destroy the collctor base. 

All of it is also valid to the final choices, and even more so since they are much more important. You cannot tell someone who is thinking differently than you that he is wrong. You can explain why you think your method is better, or telling him why you disagree. But you cannot simply dismiss his way of thinking.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 04 juin 2012 - 09:18 .

[Ronin09]

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

[Arian Dynas]

Ronin09 wrote...

Zardoc wrote...

What I don't get about IT supporters (maybe not all, but a whole lot of them) is how they think their THEORY = THE ONE AND ONLY TRUTH. You remind me of religious zealots.

Yep, my thoughts exactly.

We choose it because we eschew to the maxim "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however impossible, must be the truth." Since it is physically impossible for the entire Bioware writing team, which thus far throughout 18 games has been suprelative, and manages to be quite simply the best in their buisness niche to suddenly be struck with simaltaneous concussions and major brain damage, and the sheer number of clearly intentional and just strange things that do not have accidental explanations, Bioware MUST have something of some kind planned, and we examine the idea that makes most sense to us.

I can beleive incompetence, but not incompetence on THIS scale, especially when it is so incredibly out of place.

[SauliusL]

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Nah, mass effect is a videogame not a country. And the decisions you made at the end of ME2 could have ended in your squadmates dying and even your own death. You can have the idealistic opinion that Grunt is a great hacker and won't die in the vents, but he's not and he does. If this doesn't let you know that some decisons have wrong answers in Mass Effect I don't know what will.... 

 

it's a metaphor. You can't tell a person his opinions were wrong if he is giving the option to voice his opinion, or sort of.

There is a different between idealism and tactical thinking. EMS is like doing the loyalty missions. The more you did those, the more you had a chance to survive. But questions like: Is it worth keeping the base or not? That is idealism, there is no doubt about that. Yet you can't tell someone that because he chose to keep the base, he is now indoc, so he lost the game. It doesn't work that way. If the person did everything throughout the game well, kept everyone alive and intact, did all the mission to prefection, he should be rewarded for it. Not telling him that even if he did everything right, it doesn't matter, because he is stupid for not being the same as someone else that chose to destroy the collctor base. 

All of it is also valid to the final choices, and even more so since they are much more important. You cannot tell someone who is thinking differently than you that he is wrong. You can explain why you think your method is better, or telling him why you disagree. But you cannot simply dismiss his way of thinking.

My take on that  is - with every decision you will continue game in the EC - no desicion will say "Game over". However the ending will depend on them. If you made all the right desicions in all previous games, even being indoctrinated you will save the galaxy and a lot of species, however you might lose control at some moments and let's say be forced to shoot you love interest, or even die yourself. Just like suicide mission.
None of the three options are wrong - they might give some different paths with different consequenses.

[Arian Dynas]

SauliusL wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Nah, mass effect is a videogame not a country. And the decisions you made at the end of ME2 could have ended in your squadmates dying and even your own death. You can have the idealistic opinion that Grunt is a great hacker and won't die in the vents, but he's not and he does. If this doesn't let you know that some decisons have wrong answers in Mass Effect I don't know what will.... 

 

it's a metaphor. You can't tell a person his opinions were wrong if he is giving the option to voice his opinion, or sort of.

There is a different between idealism and tactical thinking. EMS is like doing the loyalty missions. The more you did those, the more you had a chance to survive. But questions like: Is it worth keeping the base or not? That is idealism, there is no doubt about that. Yet you can't tell someone that because he chose to keep the base, he is now indoc, so he lost the game. It doesn't work that way. If the person did everything throughout the game well, kept everyone alive and intact, did all the mission to prefection, he should be rewarded for it. Not telling him that even if he did everything right, it doesn't matter, because he is stupid for not being the same as someone else that chose to destroy the collctor base. 

All of it is also valid to the final choices, and even more so since they are much more important. You cannot tell someone who is thinking differently than you that he is wrong. You can explain why you think your method is better, or telling him why you disagree. But you cannot simply dismiss his way of thinking.

My take on that  is - with every decision you will continue game in the EC - no desicion will say "Game over". However the ending will depend on them. If you made all the right desicions in all previous games, even being indoctrinated you will save the galaxy and a lot of species, however you might lose control at some moments and let's say be forced to shoot you love interest, or even die yourself. Just like suicide mission.
None of the three options are wrong - they might give some different paths with different consequenses.

There are two theories on this, a sort of "Saving throw" for players who did things right. If you saved the Rachni Queen, then she comes to help, using her hive mind, linking her mind with yours and making the resistance easier, if you killed her or got the breeder on the other hand you're boned.

And well, Eve's crystal has got to be good for something... she did say it would help you in "Your darkest hour."

[liggy002]

I think that Bioware should make the IT true as a big FU to all of the fans who said that they were too dumb to pull it off. That is, assuming that wasn't the plan from the start.

[Arian Dynas]

liggy002 wrote...

I think that Bioware should make the IT true as a big FU to all of the fans who said that they were too dumb to pull it off. That is, assuming that wasn't the plan from the start.

That would be petty and immature. And would only damage them in the end. Really if you're willing to sacrifice goodwill for satisfaction, don't go into buisness. There is no place for satisfaction there.

[Mobius-Silent]

Silhouett3 wrote...

So OP, you got your answer:

Anti-ITers take the "unfinished game that sucks".

And they don't put any effort to make it any better either. They have never cared to come up with an alternative. They have made their choice. I don't know or care why.

Let's respect their choice and maybe they'll respect our choice as we try to actually create something.

Actually I'd say people who disregard the I.T. are generally thinking _harder_ about the end and, in general, coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

I.T. is destructive, it does nothing but subtract content, hence it can seem to be as good as you think it should be as it doesn't actually contribute anything. IMHO it's just terribly lazy, much as I don't like the ending we have, I.T. is _more_ lazy and less coherent.

[Robhuzz]

Lookout1390 wrote...


I have supported IT, my biggest concern though is that IF it were to come true, it means Shepard is still on the ground after being partially zapped by the Harbinger laser, and is still in a condition not fit for fighting.

Unless I didn't read it properly..

What would happen then? I'm not trying to **** on IT, I just want to hear some opinions/explanations.

Medi gel has brought people back from the brink of death since ME1, that's an established point. Shepard received tons of upgrades in ME2 that make medi gel work both better and faster. There's no reason a surviving soldier (provided there are any) couldn't patch Shepard up enough to continue.

Next 

[Arian Dynas]

Mobius-Silent wrote...

Silhouett3 wrote...

So OP, you got your answer:

Anti-ITers take the "unfinished game that sucks".

And they don't put any effort to make it any better either. They have never cared to come up with an alternative. They have made their choice. I don't know or care why.

Let's respect their choice and maybe they'll respect our choice as we try to actually create something.

Actually I'd say people who disregard the I.T. are generally thinking _harder_ about the end and, in general, coming up with better and more interesting suggestions.

I.T. is destructive, it does nothing but subtract content, hence it can seem to be as good as you think it should be as it doesn't actually contribute anything. IMHO it's just terribly lazy, much as I don't like the ending we have, I.T. is _more_ lazy and less coherent.

Just because you have to think more and tack on more concepts and ideas to make an earlier idea work does not make it more creative. Yes it means people have to think creatively, but, well consider Occam's Razor, which states that simple explanations are usually better. Consider epicycles, when we were still trying to justify geocentrisim, one of the popular explanatations for the motion of the planets was not that they orbited the sun, but they preformed complex little mini orbits around each of their own defined points, which of course increased the complexity of the whole thing to the umpteenth degree. It was also quite wrong. Creative yes, but perhaps too much so.

As for lazy, well I have seen quite alot of thought come out of the IT thread, myself included and it DOES require a great deal of thinking and consideration, producing theories, opening doors for other possibilities. IT does not subtract from the ending at all, if anything it doubles it, since now we have to consider two things, the ending as was shown and we perceived, and the reality of what actually happened.

[Arian Dynas]

Robhuzz wrote...

Lookout1390 wrote...


I have supported IT, my biggest concern though is that IF it were to come true, it means Shepard is still on the ground after being partially zapped by the Harbinger laser, and is still in a condition not fit for fighting.

Unless I didn't read it properly..

What would happen then? I'm not trying to **** on IT, I just want to hear some opinions/explanations.

Medi gel has brought people back from the brink of death since ME1, that's an established point. Shepard received tons of upgrades in ME2 that make medi gel work both better and faster. There's no reason a surviving soldier (provided there are any) couldn't patch Shepard up enough to continue.

Next 

And for that matter, stepping aside from the fact that Shepard is pretty much the Terminator by this point, (he is capable of healing bone fractures in days, his skin is laced with medi-gel dispensers and his muscle fibers are perforated with similar tubes, all of which make him as tough as a Krogan) Shepard might not even need to fight anyone for the ending at all. Though personally I do fully expect to see gameplay or at least movement of some kind in the EC, seeing as they said yes there will be cutscenes seperate from epilogue scenes, despite never defining what they meant by epilogue scene at all.