292 réponses à ce sujet

[Applepie_Svk]

Master Che wrote...

Gweedotk wrote...

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

And ultimately, our opinion on what is “really” happening is no more accurate than what a player believes when playing it. The interpretation of the story is a player choice, and like other choices in the game we don’t like to trample on it by definitively stating what is “canon”.

I agree. Leaving it up to players to create their own "canon" is precisely what makes Mass Effect so enjoyable. It is likely one of the most customizable role-playing games on the market.

Unfortunately, some people need EVERYTHING wrapped up in a neat little bow with explicity details about every bit of minutiae.  To these people I say "go read 'See Spot Run'."

We will talk later when supposed cannon of yours will be left behind and in next sequel of ME, BioWare pick own cannon....

[comrade gando]

So what Im getting from all of this is bioware never really ended their story if its left vague and open to interpretation, and that's horse****. So Im supposed to just essentially make up my own ending instead of earn it, outstanding... That is so garbage, especially when bioware told us we would get answers to everything. Well Im going to give the DLC a chance and If I dont like what I see, then I guess its time to give up.

[ld1449]

comrade gando wrote...

So what Im getting from all of this is bioware never really ended their story if its left vague and open to interpretation, and that's horse****. So Im supposed to just essentially make up my own ending instead of earn it, outstanding... That is so garbage, especially when bioware told us we would get answers to everything. Well Im going to give the DLC a chance and If I dont like what I see, then I guess its time to give up.

Don't you think it would uhh...be more effective to not buy it? To critisize and demand more while shoveling your money at them kinda makes it so you give up your only barganing chip (your patronage)

Modifié par ld1449, 12 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[elitehunter34]

Siran wrote...

elitehunter34 wrote...

I don't know why you guys decided to make such different endings. 

Really? ME was always about choices. Making a single ending would have meant none of your previous choices would matter at all. There was already enough outcry about the original 3 endings having practically no difference. Imagine the outcry if there was 1 ending for everyone...

Did you even read what I said?  I never said there should be no choices.  I said that the endings are so different that trying to make a future release of some sort would be almost impossible.  They would have to make a game with 3 radically different scenerios.

[Applepie_Svk]

ld1449 wrote...

comrade gando wrote...

So what Im getting from all of this is bioware never really ended their story if its left vague and open to interpretation, and that's horse****. So Im supposed to just essentially make up my own ending instead of earn it, outstanding... That is so garbage, especially when bioware told us we would get answers to everything. Well Im going to give the DLC a chance and If I dont like what I see, then I guess its time to give up.

Don't you think it would uhh...be more effective to not buy it? To critisize and demand more while shoveling your money at them kinda makes it so you give up your only barganing chip (your patronage)

It´s rude language which would be well known in every bussiness...

Modifié par Applepie_Svk, 12 juillet 2012 - 02:34 .

[SlyTF1]

The EC just enforces the IT theory. If it wheren't true, Bioware would have told us.

[Kel Riever]

I've used that picture and I approve. You would think that based on that picture, someone at BioWare would actually wake up and fix the ending. But it is pretty clear that the lead developer and writer are asleep in their egomaniac, pseudo intellectual, worlds.

[Applepie_Svk]

SlyTF1 wrote...

The EC just enforces the IT theory. If it wheren't true, Bioware would have told us.

Yep they could simply smite down from table whole IT but they didn´t do that, why ?

[Applepie_Svk]

Kel Riever wrote...

I've used that picture and I approve. You would think that based on that picture, someone at BioWare would actually wake up and fix the ending. But it is pretty clear that the lead developer and writer are asleep in their egomaniac, pseudo intellectual, worlds.

I told you if Indoctrination turn to be true I will be happy and angry at same time:
Happy because it simply fit to lore of ME and disproving that nonsense which create Catalyst and some fans even worship...  LoL
Angry ? Yes also because it will mean that ME3 was unfinished game because for full experience you need to get further dlcs ... it´s like buying car without engine...

[Kel Riever]

They already sold a car without an engine. I agree with you. But I still want a car that works, and I would still spend money to get my car that works. But I need a damn new mechanic (writer). One who knows how to do his actual job. And that guy, if he did the work I needed, he'd get paid, as pissed as I am that my car should have already been fixed.

And yeah, he'd get paid AFTER I knew the car worked....

[DiebytheSword]

Master Che wrote...

I think IT as a whole and compreshensive theory is dead, but I still think some elements on their own were valid.

You could still argue that the kid was a hallucination...not prove, but argue.

You could still argue that the nightmares were indications that the reapers were pounding on the door to Shepard's mind. I firmly believe that this is true. Why else would there be so many whispers (most unintelligible) and oily shadows (the kind described by the Rachni Queen)?

I think Shepard did physically ascend to the Decision Chamber and actually speak to the catalyst. I think all of the things we saw that occured after actually happened as shown.

This was always my stance from the Start; IT is on to something but not wholly accurate.  I don't think the EC killed IT, it killed one interpretation of it.

I disagree with the asertion that Shepard actually ascended to the decision chamber, however, I feel that at best that part is equal parts happening for real and happening in Shepard's mind.  Synthesis and Control endings work better as literal, but Destroy works better as IT paints it.  Refuse straddles the line, lending to both sides.

[nitefyre410]

comrade gando wrote...

So what Im getting from all of this is bioware never really ended their story if its left vague and open to interpretation, and that's horse****. So Im supposed to just essentially make up my own ending instead of earn it, outstanding... That is so garbage, especially when bioware told us we would get answers to everything. Well Im going to give the DLC a chance and If I dont like what I see, then I guess its time to give up.

  

No Bioware  just fudged the ending with poor writing.. 

End of Evangelion is a open to interpation  type ending.   It was the end of the world.  Full stop.  What happened  to Shinji after is open to  the view wants to spin. What we do know is that... the  the world ended.

[BP93]

Xemnas07 wrote...

But IT is dead. BW was obviously not the geniuses we gave them credit for, and they couldnt pull of the biggest, most intelligent and awe inspiring mind warp in gaming history. So please, stop. EC puts it to rest. BW failed, and made a perfect 10 game that could compete with Skyrim into an average 8 game that is now only worth $30 4 months after release, while Skyrim is STILL $60. We were grasping at straws trying to save our favorite game and trilogy, but face it; it was just bad writing and the inconsistencies and plot holes are just that; inconsistencies and plot holes.

This is the part that pisses me off. I went into Gamestop the other day and saw a brand new copy of ME3 for 25 bucks. Like WTF?! I paid almost 70 bucks for mine with the Javik DLC included. What's the point of buying a brand new game anymore if you can just wait a few months and get it for more than 50% off? Ridiculous.

I know you have to buy the stupid online pass nowadays for EA games but that's the kind of **** that makes buying used games a damn bargain. How does a game sell for 60 bucks and then turns right around just a few months later and sell for 25?

Communists. <_<

[Paranoidal nemesis]

At best,IT is just a coincidence, and the only reasonably articulated explanation of the ending pre extended cut. I suspect that the writers maintained neutral on IT because the fan speculation in regards to the ending gave the writers a free pass to leave it alone.

[ld1449]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

SlyTF1 wrote...

The EC just enforces the IT theory. If it wheren't true, Bioware would have told us.

Yep they could simply smite down from table whole IT but they didn´t do that, why ?

Because they know the EC is crap maybe. And they know that according to the polls nearly half thier fanbase before this believed in the IT and another 30 percent more or less would take it if they didn't have to swallow the endings available so smiting it down completely would have been a dumb move and wouldn't keep those irritated fans around long enough to be tempted to buy some DLC like the Leviathan of Dis.

And as tully says they want you to be able to interpret the ending any way you want of course. Means you get to do all the imagining/interpreting and they get to have significantly less work by not actually doing much more than leaving it ridiculously vague.

[NM_Che56]

DiebytheSword wrote...

Master Che wrote...

I think IT as a whole and compreshensive theory is dead, but I still think some elements on their own were valid.

You could still argue that the kid was a hallucination...not prove, but argue.

You could still argue that the nightmares were indications that the reapers were pounding on the door to Shepard's mind. I firmly believe that this is true. Why else would there be so many whispers (most unintelligible) and oily shadows (the kind described by the Rachni Queen)?

I think Shepard did physically ascend to the Decision Chamber and actually speak to the catalyst. I think all of the things we saw that occured after actually happened as shown.

This was always my stance from the Start; IT is on to something but not wholly accurate.  I don't think the EC killed IT, it killed one interpretation of it.

I disagree with the asertion that Shepard actually ascended to the decision chamber, however, I feel that at best that part is equal parts happening for real and happening in Shepard's mind.  Synthesis and Control endings work better as literal, but Destroy works better as IT paints it.  Refuse straddles the line, lending to both sides.

I'm not bothered by "shooting the tube" being the literal mechanism for destroy as opposed to flipping the switch.  I can see how that's odd, but it really doesn't bother me.

[Harorrd]

Mass effect 3 was the biggest disapointment in videogame history, you cant repair that dmg no matter how much free stuff you give us

[tyrvas]

TullyAckland wrote...

The interpretation of a story is a personal thing, and it’s one of the most enjoyable aspects of an experience like this for many players. To tell you what we think would be to take away the validity of each player’s take on it.

......

Exactly!!! Some people don't seem to understand this.

[WandySilva]

Bioware said before the release of the EC that the EC it would neither confirm or deny IT. There has been no concrete evidence that directly disproves or confirms the IT, with that in mind, both literal and IT perspectives are still very plausible.
Bioware even stated they wanted speculation. Why confirm literal or IT when that would kill alot of speculation?

[Novate]

Applepie_Svk wrote...

 FINAL HOURS OF ME3 QUOTE - On Deciding the End of the Game:
And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gaemplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices).


They didn´t said they also left idea of Indoctrination, they left only gameplay mechanics.
IT was just a theory, an explanation... but it was their idea to use indoctrination 

They also promised 16 different endings, no 3 button endings and Rachni was gonna play a big part at the end. Guess what, it all went bye bye

[macrocarl]

Nope. IT and a lot of other interpretations are still totally valid. I'm glad that the OP though found closure when viewing it literally though. That was my biggest complaint about how the endings stood prior to the free release of the EC. But to be clear I enjoyed the pre-EC endings, but MOAR! is always nice, right?

[macrocarl]

[quote]Harorrd wrote...

Mass effect 3 was the biggest disapointment in videogame history, you cant repair that dmg no matter how much free stuff you give us me (as in you Harorrd) /quote]

Fixed! Don't say 'we' when you're one of many. Thanks.

[Fliprot]

SergeantSnookie wrote...

BSN never gonna give IT up,
Never gonna let IT down,
Never gonna run around and,
Desert IT.

/Thread.

38 internets to you, sir.

[saber00005]

For Bioware not to denie or comfirm the I.T is stupid. IF IT'S THE END OF SHEPARD THEN TELL US. For crying out loud. I noticed that Bioware staff slabb'd this to be their one of many official threads on their forums.

Is this too much to ask?