295 réponses à ce sujet

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

We have defended the position with a lot of gathered evidence. You disagree with or dismiss the evidence without considering it. Therefore it has not been objectively dismissed.

Again provide this evidence. We will conclusively dismiss it with storybased  evidence after we have fully considered it. But none of you ITers actually have any tenable evidence that's why you haven't provided any yet.

I see that this "debate" is going nowhere and that some people prefer to remain mindlessly deluded. It makes them feel better, I suppose.

When the EC comes and finally beheads the IT, I will enjoy watching its body die as well. 

I'm done.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 10 juin 2012 - 08:19 .

[Khajiit Jzargo]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

and that's a two-way street. We could tell you something and if you don't want to accept it, you'd be close-minded too. We're just two sides of the same coin.

The difference is I would accept it if it made sense. If you showed me a the color blue and it was red I wouldn't accept it, trust me I want to believe IT but I can't because its made out of speculations and if BW uses it, is because they think its the only way to fix the endings or because they're afraid of the backlash of the IT supporters. Now please supply with something.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

Inaccurate, both in the assumption that it's the way I've presented my interpretation and with the fact that it's been objectively dismissed.  

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

I've seen the way those arguments devolve.  "Bad writing".  "BioWare's lazy". "They're not clever enough to think of that".  It turns into a subjective mess, and I've lost my patience for that nonsense at this point. 

If you wish to not indulge in the interpretation, and enjoy the process of attempting to disprove a literary interpretation, good for you.

I look at the ending through several different lenses and interpretations, and I don't discount anything being possible at this point.  What rubs me the wrong way are folks so hell-bent on disproving constructive interpretations that they confront the interpreters as if it's a scientific theory predicting the way the corporeal universe operates.  It's an outlook on the data given, one that's far more pragmatic than many assert it is, and not some delusional flight of fancy.  It's an interpretation of the story using the established lore in a pragmatic way.

But anything I say will be simply dismissed as being cultist and crazy and unfounded, as that's the popular asinine trend nowadays, so why frakkin' bother?

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

We have defended the position with a lot of gathered evidence. You disagree with or dismiss the evidence without considering it. Therefore it has not been objectively dismissed.

Again provide this evidence. We will conclusively dismiss it with storybased  evidence after we have fully considered it. But none of you ITers actually have any tenable evidence that's why you haven't provided any yet.

I see that this "debate" is going nowhere and that some people prefer to remain mindlessly deluded. It makes them feel better, I suppose.

When the EC comes and finally beheads the IT, I will enjoy watching its body die as well. 

I'm done.

The evidence is in the IT thread itself. You've seen some of it and heard some of it. I've seen you dismiss it. You would not accept anything I put forth. Therefore, I'm only recognizing your disingenuous request for evidence.

Believe what you like. I'm not losing sleep over it.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because Indoctranation is used to move the plot fordward that does not mean its true, also there are many things in the Final Hours App, that doesn't mean their secretly put into the game. I have yet to hear evidence that I can't prove wrong completely...

Huh.  Sorry, but you haven't proven anything wrong to me. 

That's subjective, my friend.  Thinking it's an objective dismissal would be inaccurate and presumptuous. 

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

and that's a two-way street. We could tell you something and if you don't want to accept it, you'd be close-minded too. We're just two sides of the same coin.

The difference is I would accept it if it made sense. If you showed me a the color blue and it was red I wouldn't accept it, trust me I want to believe IT but I can't because its made out of speculations and if BW uses it, is because they think its the only way to fix the endings or because they're afraid of the backlash of the IT supporters. Now please supply with something.

If you want the evidence the interpretation is based on, go into the IT thread and look at the first post. Listed there are sources of evidence. I cannot possibly list it all here.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

Helios969 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

ahhhhhhhh here we go......
First thing first, TIM was originally suppose to be a boss battle, but they scraped it off at the last moment. Thats evidence itself that the scene that was put there had no nothing to do with the IT but instead just put therem but I'll continue and endulge you more. TIM can only control them, he learned that with the research that went on in Horizon. When Shepard shoots anderson it makes sense, TIM just finished saying "With the crucible, I am sure I can control the Reapers" with Shepard responding "Then what (hes saying what do you plan to do with it)" then Tim says "Look at the power its wields, look at what it can do" Then he forces shepard to shoot Anderson, TO SHOW THE POWER. Anyway why argue this thread is not about that, but if you want to explain anything else for you just ask.

Wait...what?  What makes TIM special that he can control the crucible?  Why does he have the power? Not Shepard or Anderson?

1-He was indoctrinated, it wasn't really him
2- The research he learned at sanctuary.

[BatmanTurian]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

Inaccurate, both in the assumption that it's the way I've presented my interpretation and with the fact that it's been objectively dismissed.  

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

I've seen the way those arguments devolve.  "Bad writing".  "BioWare's lazy". "They're not clever enough to think of that".  It turns into a subjective mess, and I've lost my patience for that nonsense at this point. 

If you wish to not indulge in the interpretation, and enjoy the process of attempting to disprove a literary interpretation, good for you.

I look at the ending through several different lenses and interpretations, and I don't discount anything being possible at this point.  What rubs me the wrong way are folks so hell-bent on disproving constructive interpretations that they confront the interpreters as if it's a scientific theory predicting the way the corporeal universe operates.  It's an outlook on the data given, one that's far more pragmatic than many assert it is, and not some delusional flight of fancy.  It's an interpretation of the story using the established lore in a pragmatic way.

But anything I say will be simply dismissed as being cultist and crazy and unfounded, as that's the popular asinine trend nowadays, so why frakkin' bother?

If they ask for evidence, it is usually a trap because they are already ready to dismiss it without careful consideration. Only one side of the argument is intellectually honest it seems.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

Inaccurate, both in the assumption that it's the way I've presented my interpretation and with the fact that it's been objectively dismissed.  

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

I've seen the way those arguments devolve.  "Bad writing".  "BioWare's lazy". "They're not clever enough to think of that".  It turns into a subjective mess, and I've lost my patience for that nonsense at this point. 

If you wish to not indulge in the interpretation, and enjoy the process of attempting to disprove a literary interpretation, good for you.

I look at the ending through several different lenses and interpretations, and I don't discount anything being possible at this point.  What rubs me the wrong way are folks so hell-bent on disproving constructive interpretations that they confront the interpreters as if it's a scientific theory predicting the way the corporeal universe operates.  It's an outlook on the data given, one that's far more pragmatic than many assert it is, and not some delusional flight of fancy.  It's an interpretation of the story using the established lore in a pragmatic way.

But anything I say will be simply dismissed as being cultist and crazy and unfounded, as that's the popular asinine trend nowadays, so why frakkin' bother?

Nope, I can prove anything wrong with evidence, not by excuses. And you see the endings trough a "lense' that makes no sense, I feel bad.

[BatmanTurian]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

If you can't defend your position with more than, "because I like how it makes the ending turn out", then it has been objectively dismissed.

Inaccurate, both in the assumption that it's the way I've presented my interpretation and with the fact that it's been objectively dismissed.  

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Because you haven't supplied mw with anything to prove wrong, tell me something that I won't be able to prove me wrong and I will, and If I give you absolute proof its wrong and you don't want to accept that, thats you being close-minded.

I've seen the way those arguments devolve.  "Bad writing".  "BioWare's lazy". "They're not clever enough to think of that".  It turns into a subjective mess, and I've lost my patience for that nonsense at this point. 

If you wish to not indulge in the interpretation, and enjoy the process of attempting to disprove a literary interpretation, good for you.

I look at the ending through several different lenses and interpretations, and I don't discount anything being possible at this point.  What rubs me the wrong way are folks so hell-bent on disproving constructive interpretations that they confront the interpreters as if it's a scientific theory predicting the way the corporeal universe operates.  It's an outlook on the data given, one that's far more pragmatic than many assert it is, and not some delusional flight of fancy.  It's an interpretation of the story using the established lore in a pragmatic way.

But anything I say will be simply dismissed as being cultist and crazy and unfounded, as that's the popular asinine trend nowadays, so why frakkin' bother?

Nope, I can prove anything wrong with evidence, not by excuses. And you see the endings trough a "lense' that makes no sense, I feel bad.

It makes no sense to you. That does not actually mean it doesn't make sense.

[dreamgazer]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Nope, I can prove anything wrong with evidence, not by excuses. And you see the endings trough a "lense' that makes no sense, I feel bad.

(laughs) Okay, buddy.  I'm not going to explain how lenses work---or metaphors, for that matter.

You've given me the answer I need, though, as to whether I should continue this conversation.  Good day. 

[Catamantaloedis]

dreamgazer wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

Nope, I can prove anything wrong with evidence, not by excuses. And you see the endings trough a "lense' that makes no sense, I feel bad.

(laughs) Okay, buddy.  I'm not going to explain how lenses work---or metaphors, for that matter.

You've given me the answer I need, though, as to whether I should continue this conversation.  Good day. 

You've never actually made any points or supplied any evidence anyway, so that's a good call.

[dreamgazer]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You've never actually made any points or supplied any evidence anyway, so that's a good call.

Neither have you, outside of your falsely-asserted absolutist outlook on the nature of the story---and a jaded, acidic tone that debases the integrity of any points you think you might have made.

Good day.

[Catamantaloedis]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You've never actually made any points or supplied any evidence anyway, so that's a good call.

Neither have you, outside of your falsely-asserted absolutist outlook on the nature of the story---and a jaded, acidic tone that debases the integrity of any points you think you might have made.

Good day.

What points do I need to make? I'm not reading some delusional, idiotic theory into the story, like you and your buddies are. I asked you to prove your theory and your response is that the endings is just so, so "surreal" that something must be going on. Therefore, indoctrination.

Nice point you got there.

[Khajiit Jzargo]

dreamgazer wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

You've never actually made any points or supplied any evidence anyway, so that's a good call.

Neither have you, outside of your falsely-asserted absolutist outlook on the nature of the story---and a jaded, acidic tone that debases the integrity of any points you think you might have made.

Good day.

I like how you backed away, I see you don't want to be proven wrong and how you want to completely ignore the question, perfect example of the steroetypical IT theorist. Good tidings!!!

[dreamgazer]

Why would I engage in that discussion, under this situation?

Voicing an interpretation of the story wouldn't be constructive or enjoyable with a pair of people hell-bent on dismantling it and labeling the person talking as a delusional cultist.

Grow up, guys.

[Catamantaloedis]

dreamgazer wrote...

Why would I engage in that discussion, under this situation?

Voicing an interpretation of the story wouldn't be constructive or enjoyable with a pair of people hell-bent on dismantling it and labeling the person talking as a delusional cultist.

Grow up, guys.

Maybe calling it cultic was a little harsh. I'll just call it your religion instead. Your beliefs are based entirely on "faith" and feeling, not on reason or factual evidence.

Modifié par Catamantaloedis, 10 juin 2012 - 09:02 .

[BatmanTurian]

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Why would I engage in that discussion, under this situation?

Voicing an interpretation of the story wouldn't be constructive or enjoyable with a pair of people hell-bent on dismantling it and labeling the person talking as a delusional cultist.

Grow up, guys.

Maybe calling it cultic was a little harsh. I'll just call it your religion instead. Your beliefs are based entirely on "faith" and feeling, not on reason or factual evidence.

typical. comparing literary analysis to religion. It only makes you seem ignorant to compare the two.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 10 juin 2012 - 09:05 .

[Vox Draco]

BatmanTurian wrote...

typical. comparing literary analysis to religion. It only makes you seem ignorant to compare the two.

The funny thing is that a lot of Anti-It-lers by now seem to just as "fanatical" and "absolute" in their views as they accuse the IT-lers to be...And that is irony! 

[liggy002]

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

 First things first, I don't believe that IT was originally planned by BW, but that doesn't matter. I think what BW wants to do is release an ending that can please everyone, therefore if they release EC and it cointains the IT theory completely the Anti-IT people and people that for whatever reason liked the original ending will be mad. If they release EC and doesn't have to do anything with IT, IT theorist will be mad. So I doubt they're going to made the ending completely to deal with IT, or not deal with IT at all. What I believe is that they're going to implement IT in some way to please the IT theorist and maybe explain some plotholes, how they will pull it off i don't know, but I doubt the whole thing will be based on Indoctrination. Also, I think the new EC DLC will be big, not just a few "clarification" cutscenes, because it wouldn't be taking this long, they want to take they're time and release something that will please us. Also, Them taking a long time I believe can be seen as proof itself about the IT being actually used, I think they were gathering ideas and now they're finishing it up.

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

Modifié par liggy002, 10 juin 2012 - 09:57 .

[SubAstris]

liggy002 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

 First things first, I don't believe that IT was originally planned by BW, but that doesn't matter. I think what BW wants to do is release an ending that can please everyone, therefore if they release EC and it cointains the IT theory completely the Anti-IT people and people that for whatever reason liked the original ending will be mad. If they release EC and doesn't have to do anything with IT, IT theorist will be mad. So I doubt they're going to made the ending completely to deal with IT, or not deal with IT at all. What I believe is that they're going to implement IT in some way to please the IT theorist and maybe explain some plotholes, how they will pull it off i don't know, but I doubt the whole thing will be based on Indoctrination. Also, I think the new EC DLC will be big, not just a few "clarification" cutscenes, because it wouldn't be taking this long, they want to take they're time and release something that will please us. Also, Them taking a long time I believe can be seen as proof itself about the IT being actually used, I think they were gathering ideas and now they're finishing it up.

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

The chances of BW making two separate ECs, one to please IT theorists and other for those want the original endings explained, is very close to nil. It would cost too much and take up too many resources, also given how much BW like to talk about artistic integrity...

[liggy002]

SubAstris wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

 First things first, I don't believe that IT was originally planned by BW, but that doesn't matter. I think what BW wants to do is release an ending that can please everyone, therefore if they release EC and it cointains the IT theory completely the Anti-IT people and people that for whatever reason liked the original ending will be mad. If they release EC and doesn't have to do anything with IT, IT theorist will be mad. So I doubt they're going to made the ending completely to deal with IT, or not deal with IT at all. What I believe is that they're going to implement IT in some way to please the IT theorist and maybe explain some plotholes, how they will pull it off i don't know, but I doubt the whole thing will be based on Indoctrination. Also, I think the new EC DLC will be big, not just a few "clarification" cutscenes, because it wouldn't be taking this long, they want to take they're time and release something that will please us. Also, Them taking a long time I believe can be seen as proof itself about the IT being actually used, I think they were gathering ideas and now they're finishing it up.

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

The chances of BW making two separate ECs, one to please IT theorists and other for those want the original endings explained, is very close to nil. It would cost too much and take up too many resources, also given how much BW like to talk about artistic integrity...

   Yeah, it would cost a lot, that's why I have said in the past that you should make the first choice of DLC free (IT or Literal) free to the players and then charge them for it if they want the other DLC.  Some will end up buying the other DLC.  Or, alternatively, they could simply absorb the cost.  It would cost more money and resources to do so obviously but it would generate more goodwill amongst the fans by attempting to please everyone or almost everyone.  It's not as if Bioware doesn't make a ton of money on multiplayer anyway.  It's either that, or they alienate a significant portion of their fans by being extreme with either idea.  Unless, of course, most people are OK with IT in which case they may just go 100% with that.

  But releasing a mixture of both concepts?  That's a terrible idea.  It seems to me that you are pleasing neither camps and just pissing off a bunch of people.  They'll lose my business if they do that and I suspect many others will be turned off by that as well.

Modifié par liggy002, 10 juin 2012 - 10:10 .

[Catamantaloedis]

BatmanTurian wrote...

Catamantaloedis wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Why would I engage in that discussion, under this situation?

Voicing an interpretation of the story wouldn't be constructive or enjoyable with a pair of people hell-bent on dismantling it and labeling the person talking as a delusional cultist.

Grow up, guys.

Maybe calling it cultic was a little harsh. I'll just call it your religion instead. Your beliefs are based entirely on "faith" and feeling, not on reason or factual evidence.

typical. comparing literary analysis to religion. It only makes you seem ignorant to compare the two.

Not when the comparison is so fitting. 

Religion has no empirical evidence, and makes no pretense of having any. Therefore, the religious people follow their respective beliefs because of faith.

ITers have no evidence for their belief and they follow it because they believe it. That's it. The bad part is that they pretend their beliefs have some evidence outside of their own deluded minds.

[davishepard]

liggy002 wrote...

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

This would be just stupid. Nothing in the ending suggests that they shouldn't be saw at face value. IT is a product of sadness and deception about the endings. It's a state of denial, and will be better if Bioware just put it down.

[SubAstris]

liggy002 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

Khajiit Jzargo wrote...

 First things first, I don't believe that IT was originally planned by BW, but that doesn't matter. I think what BW wants to do is release an ending that can please everyone, therefore if they release EC and it cointains the IT theory completely the Anti-IT people and people that for whatever reason liked the original ending will be mad. If they release EC and doesn't have to do anything with IT, IT theorist will be mad. So I doubt they're going to made the ending completely to deal with IT, or not deal with IT at all. What I believe is that they're going to implement IT in some way to please the IT theorist and maybe explain some plotholes, how they will pull it off i don't know, but I doubt the whole thing will be based on Indoctrination. Also, I think the new EC DLC will be big, not just a few "clarification" cutscenes, because it wouldn't be taking this long, they want to take they're time and release something that will please us. Also, Them taking a long time I believe can be seen as proof itself about the IT being actually used, I think they were gathering ideas and now they're finishing it up.

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

The chances of BW making two separate ECs, one to please IT theorists and other for those want the original endings explained, is very close to nil. It would cost too much and take up too many resources, also given how much BW like to talk about artistic integrity...

   Yeah, it would cost a lot, that's why I have said in the past that you should make the first choice of DLC free (IT or Literal) free to the players and then charge them for it if they want the other DLC.  Some will end up buying the other DLC.  Or, alternatively, they could simply absorb the cost.  It would cost more money and resources to do so obviously but it would generate more goodwill amongst the fans by attempting to please everyone or almost everyone.  It's not as if Bioware doesn't make a ton of money on multiplayer anyway.  It's either that, or they alienate a significant portion of their fans by being extreme with either idea.  Unless, of course, most people are OK with IT in which case they may just go 100% with that.

  But releasing a mixture of both concepts?  That's a terrible idea.  It seems to me that you are pleasing neither camps and just pissing off a bunch of people.  They'll lose my business if they do that and I suspect many others will be turned off by that as well.

Yet, but like in any business, you try to do the least amount of work for the most amount of profit. I would respect that just doing regular DLC would be much more cost effective, since everyone would be able to enjoy it.

As for you saying a significant portion of their fans wouldn't be pleased, that's unknowable to a large extent. You can have polls on here but the average gamer of ME, even if they have played all the games, isn't really going to go on this site anyway. It is hard to gauge whether people want expansion or IT

[Catamantaloedis]

davishepard wrote...

liggy002 wrote...

   If they make this some sort of mixture like you are saying than it would be even worse than just the ending at face value.  I don't think that would work.  Seriously, this would be an idiotic move on their part.  Insted of making it a mixture, make it TWO SEPERATE ECs - one that deals with the IT and the other that takes the ending at face value. That would be a far better solution.  Mixing up the IT with the literal ending isn't enough to keep me on as a loyal customer.

This would be just stupid. Nothing in the ending suggests that they shouldn't be saw at face value. IT is a product of sadness and deception about the endings. It's a state of denial, and will be better if Bioware just put it down.

So true.