80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

Salient Archer wrote...

His words alone are clear evidence that either 1). BioWare wanted us to dig deeper and explore the older games for evidence that contradicts it's claims (which are even more so abundant after the EC) or 2). they [BioWare] have the worst possible writers in the world. And considering I thoroughly felt that everything prior to the endings was fine, I'm more inclined to believe the first option.

So, "literalists" will accept such "bad writing" without a flinch?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that if IT is "not true" then Bioware wrote a horrible end to their trilogy, even with EC added to it?

[Dwailing]

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Who said Leviathan is a Reaper?

The Leviathan of Dis, A Organic starship believed to have been made nearly a billion years ago. Balak a batarian from one of the mission on the Citadel states that it was in fact a reaper and it indoctrinated a bunch of scientists.

It's not the same thing for what I made out of the leaked script Leviathan is a member of the species that created the Reapers not a Reaper.

 It seems that the LOD is in fact a reaper, and its probably just called the leviathan for short.

I know the LOD is a Reaper, I'm saying the LOD and Leviathan are not the same thing.

No, they're not.  The Leviathan of Dis is a Reaper.  The Leviathan from the Leviathan pack is, based on what we've seen in the leaked files, a prototype Reaper, the first Reaper... and a failed Reaper.  It sounds like he was the first Reaper, but was made before the Reaperization method was perfected, leaving him different from the other Reapers.  However, it doesn't sound like that makes his weapons and defenses any less powerful, as he is rumored to be able to destroy a Reaper.

[masster blaster]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

byne wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

I can't believe people are so disheartened to hear this. Of course they'll forever leave it ambiguous, it's their artistic vision. That doesn't mean IT isn't true. It just means you'll never get official conformation. I've been saying this for ages.

I'm not disheartened. Nothing changed. He told us what we already knew, plus he contradicted himself in the post, claiming both that it wouldnt add to the endings, but that it would also add new dialogue.

Like someone else has been saying (I forget who, I'm tired), they added an entire ending with just dialogue in the EC.

And they added slide scenes and cinematics too. But that's nothing, it's all a dream right?

New dialougue =/= new ending, the star child may mention the leviathan, but will probably dismiss it. That's probably what's going to happen. Chris did not contradict himself in his own post, you guys are just in heavy denial that there won't be any more addings/subtracions or any new ending dlc. Ever. IT was basically announced wrong, as if the ec dlc wasn't enough. 

[Bill Casey]

TSA_383 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

sonicphoto wrote...

I kinda agree, Chris contradicted himself bigly on that, the DLC won't add to the ending but later says, it will add dialogue and stuff. I believe in IT but the reject ending felt like a way to deny the theory in all honesty.

He means add anything that will change the tone of the endings, but it will add exposition, which to most people who know about narrative, means very little.

Oh good, it's nice to have one of the writers here.
Oh wait, you're not one of the writers? Guess you're just speculating then.

Or...
What if... St. Elmo has READING COMPREHENSION!?!



If you don't understand what Chris Priestly is saying, I have a bucket of face palms for you...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 05 août 2012 - 03:47 .

[masster blaster]

Unicorn and you wonder why you don't get an answer. Read what I reposted you post above, and tell me you sound like a person that has come here to tell us what is, and fact wrong and what is right.

[TJBartlemus]

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Taken from Taboo-XX from another thread I created:

I don't. The scene with the Catalyst is absolutely ludicrous. You aren't supposed to take everything at face value, the devs have said this.

The endings are symbolic.

You grabs the reigns of Control

You leap into the unknown in Synthesis

You blow **** up in Destroy

It's more a bad implementation of surrealism than it is anything else. And that's why it's AWFUL.

If you actually read my post, you would know that I never said you can stop believing in IT, I only say it's just not true, like fan-theories are. They aren't true. The fact that you dismiss my posts with "opinion opinion blah blah" shows how little capacity you have for others who hold against your own beliefs. Which parts of my posts are opinions? What makes my post "blah blah"? How did you respond to 1/2 of my post before I posted?

Try to form a contstructive argument before raging and yelling at me. 

Hehe. Your funny. You go on to say literalism is true and IT is false yet you plainly say the bolded. Contradictory much? 

I actually did read your post. As I said in my reply. And I actually do consider and listen to other's opinions. I however have a low tolerancy for being ignored when you complain of being answered. (PS. Yelling is ALL CAPS LIKE THIS. For future reference. ) Posts that are opinions are posts that do not share true rock hard proof that we can confirm. None of which you have. If you look to my posts earlier today when you where here you would see what I was talking about answering 1/2 of the posted...but then again you ignored those too. <_< I respect your opinion but don't try to force it down other people's throats. 

Modifié par TJBartlemus, 05 août 2012 - 03:52 .

[Dwailing]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

His words alone are clear evidence that either 1). BioWare wanted us to dig deeper and explore the older games for evidence that contradicts it's claims (which are even more so abundant after the EC) or 2). they [BioWare] have the worst possible writers in the world. And considering I thoroughly felt that everything prior to the endings was fine, I'm more inclined to believe the first option.

So, "literalists" will accept such "bad writing" without a flinch?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that if IT is "not true" then Bioware wrote a horrible end to their trilogy, even with EC added to it?

Without the EC, the endings sucked.  They completely disregarded player choice, they offered almost no closure, and they were thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis were.  Now, with the EC, the endings take player choice into regard, offer more closure... and are still thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis still are.   And don't get me started on Rejection.  The theme of Rejection seems to be that free will and self determination are bad things, and will always get you in trouble.  Yeah.  That's totally what they are. <_< 

Honestly, without IT, I'm not a huge fan of any of the endings.  The presence of Star-Brat was completely pointless, one of the key themes of the series (That Synthetics and Organics, when you get down to it, are both equally alive.) was thrown out the window, and it generally seemed that the endings were just... I don't know, wrong.  They just didn't feel like the kind of endings that would "fit" a series like Mass Effect.  Not even Destroy, really.  Without IT, the endings are just wrong.  They aren't necessarily bad, it's just that they aren't right for Mass Effect.

Modifié par Dwailing, 05 août 2012 - 03:54 .

[Jadebaby]

Bill Casey wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

sonicphoto wrote...

I kinda agree, Chris contradicted himself bigly on that, the DLC won't add to the ending but later says, it will add dialogue and stuff. I believe in IT but the reject ending felt like a way to deny the theory in all honesty.

He means add anything that will change the tone of the endings, but it will add exposition, which to most people who know about narrative, means very little.

Oh good, it's nice to have one of the writers here.
Oh wait, you're not one of the writers? Guess you're just speculating then.

Or...
What if... St. Elmo has READING COMPREHENSION!?!



If you don't understand what Chris Priestly is saying, I have a bucket of face palms for you...

wow, you guys are becoming hostile.

[Home run MF]

Dwailing wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Who said Leviathan is a Reaper?

The Leviathan of Dis, A Organic starship believed to have been made nearly a billion years ago. Balak a batarian from one of the mission on the Citadel states that it was in fact a reaper and it indoctrinated a bunch of scientists.

It's not the same thing for what I made out of the leaked script Leviathan is a member of the species that created the Reapers not a Reaper.

 It seems that the LOD is in fact a reaper, and its probably just called the leviathan for short.

I know the LOD is a Reaper, I'm saying the LOD and Leviathan are not the same thing.

No, they're not.  The Leviathan of Dis is a Reaper.  The Leviathan from the Leviathan pack is, based on what we've seen in the leaked files, a prototype Reaper, the first Reaper... and a failed Reaper.  It sounds like he was the first Reaper, but was made before the Reaperization method was perfected, leaving him different from the other Reapers.  However, it doesn't sound like that makes his weapons and defenses any less powerful, as he is rumored to be able to destroy a Reaper.

Thank you.
That would make sense because if he is organic it'd mean he is immortal. But how do you explain the 'The Leviathan's created you, didn't they?' line from the leak?

[I_eat_unicorns]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

His words alone are clear evidence that either 1). BioWare wanted us to dig deeper and explore the older games for evidence that contradicts it's claims (which are even more so abundant after the EC) or 2). they [BioWare] have the worst possible writers in the world. And considering I thoroughly felt that everything prior to the endings was fine, I'm more inclined to believe the first option.

So, "literalists" will accept such "bad writing" without a flinch?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that if IT is "not true" then Bioware wrote a horrible end to their trilogy, even with EC added to it?

That's what the whole uproar was about. This ending made facebook books, $80,000 donation to cupcakes/other ways of raging, death threats to developers, news headlines, public relation damage control mode, and speculations. Really, everyone blames mac walters and casey hudson. Even if they didn't write the endings, it's still their fault. Rule #1 of leadership: everythings your fault. 

[Dwailing]

Bill Casey wrote...

TSA_383 wrote...

StElmo wrote...

sonicphoto wrote...

I kinda agree, Chris contradicted himself bigly on that, the DLC won't add to the ending but later says, it will add dialogue and stuff. I believe in IT but the reject ending felt like a way to deny the theory in all honesty.

He means add anything that will change the tone of the endings, but it will add exposition, which to most people who know about narrative, means very little.

Oh good, it's nice to have one of the writers here.
Oh wait, you're not one of the writers? Guess you're just speculating then.

Or...
What if... St. Elmo has READING COMPREHENSION!?!



If you don't understand what Chris Priestly is saying, I have a bucket of face palms for you...

Uh, Bill, are you being sarcastic?  Because I thought you were a hardcore ITist...   We didn't lose ANOTHER of our number today, did we?  I don't think I could take it. 

[Dwailing]

Home run MF wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Dam0299 wrote...

Home run MF wrote...

Who said Leviathan is a Reaper?

The Leviathan of Dis, A Organic starship believed to have been made nearly a billion years ago. Balak a batarian from one of the mission on the Citadel states that it was in fact a reaper and it indoctrinated a bunch of scientists.

It's not the same thing for what I made out of the leaked script Leviathan is a member of the species that created the Reapers not a Reaper.

 It seems that the LOD is in fact a reaper, and its probably just called the leviathan for short.

I know the LOD is a Reaper, I'm saying the LOD and Leviathan are not the same thing.

No, they're not.  The Leviathan of Dis is a Reaper.  The Leviathan from the Leviathan pack is, based on what we've seen in the leaked files, a prototype Reaper, the first Reaper... and a failed Reaper.  It sounds like he was the first Reaper, but was made before the Reaperization method was perfected, leaving him different from the other Reapers.  However, it doesn't sound like that makes his weapons and defenses any less powerful, as he is rumored to be able to destroy a Reaper.

Thank you.
That would make sense because if he is organic it'd mean he is immortal. But how do you explain the 'The Leviathan's created you, didn't they?' line from the leak?

I don't know.  TSA, I remember you were the one who posted the summary of the Leviathan pack, would you kindly explain this? 

[masster blaster]

Home run. The Leviathans are a race that created the AI, which could have adapted into a new body hence why Shepard ask the AI. What is Harbinger old tongue, ehich leads me to believe that Harbinger has a huge role, than we think.

[masster blaster]

Hey unicorn guess what earlier today we sent Chris a pm about going ahead with creating our own ending for IT so we can find the clouser we wanted, and if Chris arrpoves you will get your wish, along with the others.

[Iconoclaste]

Dwailing wrote...


Without the EC, the endings sucked.  They completely disregarded player choice, they offered almost no closure, and they were thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis were.  Now, with the EC, the endings take player choice into regard, offer more closure... and are still thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis still are.   And don't get me started on Rejection.  The theme of Rejection seems to be that free will and self determination are bad things, and will always get you in trouble.  Yeah.  That's totally what they are.  

Honestly, without IT, I'm not a huge fan of any of the endings.  The presence of Star-Brat was completely pointless, one of the key themes of the series (That Synthetics and Organics, when you get down to it, are both equally alive.) was thrown out the window, and it generally seemed that the endings were just... I don't know, wrong.  They just didn't feel like the kind of endings that would "fit" a series like Mass Effect.  Not even Destroy, really.  Without IT, the endings are just wrong.  They aren't necessarily bad, it's just that they aren't right for Mass Effect.

I understand that perfectly. Like I posted just one page ago :

The problem arises if you compare endings with each other. Bioware made them on quite different "thematics", and I believe it wouldn't make sense, if one prefers "synthesis" for example, to look into "control" and " destroy" to try to see if he made the "best" choice. So IT goes hand in hand with "destroy", it doesn't have to rely on something "outside" of that "theme", in my sense.

I think hoping for future DLC to give more "foundation" to IT is not a wise strategy. Making comments that equate "IT false = very bad writing" is just insulting Bioware's efforts to please all, even if it's impossible. To that point, since EC calmed a lot of the angry players, seeing this in here is quite indicative of the amount of frustration regarding the "face value endings", and this speaks for itself : if anyone truly believes in IT, he shouldn't even think about "bad writing possibility", it is utterly unproductive. Best approach is still to work on actual "evidence" gathered by you all, and make it fit together so it holds even under good scrutiny. At the very least, some work could be done so IT's "foundation" isn't shaken upon every argument thrown against it. Since there was already a few "schisms" among IT supporters that resulted in the birth of "new IT variations" (walking nightmare theory, reality overlay, etc), maybe something fundamental is missing here.

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 05 août 2012 - 03:59 .

[Lyria]

 I_eat_unicorns makes me miss GBGriffin. 

Also, I_eat_unicorns I first read your screen name as I_eat_Unicrons and my inner Transformer nerd squeed like the five year old he is.  Then I was dissapoint. 

[Jadebaby]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


Without the EC, the endings sucked.  They completely disregarded player choice, they offered almost no closure, and they were thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis were.  Now, with the EC, the endings take player choice into regard, offer more closure... and are still thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis still are.   And don't get me started on Rejection.  The theme of Rejection seems to be that free will and self determination are bad things, and will always get you in trouble.  Yeah.  That's totally what they are.  

Honestly, without IT, I'm not a huge fan of any of the endings.  The presence of Star-Brat was completely pointless, one of the key themes of the series (That Synthetics and Organics, when you get down to it, are both equally alive.) was thrown out the window, and it generally seemed that the endings were just... I don't know, wrong.  They just didn't feel like the kind of endings that would "fit" a series like Mass Effect.  Not even Destroy, really.  Without IT, the endings are just wrong.  They aren't necessarily bad, it's just that they aren't right for Mass Effect.

I understand that perfectly. Like I posted just one page ago :

The problem arises if you compare endings with each other. Bioware made them on quite different "thematics", and I believe it wouldn't make sense, if one prefers "synthesis" for example, to look into "control" and " destroy" to try to see if he made the "best" choice. So IT goes hand in hand with "destroy", it doesn't have to rely on something "outside" of that "theme", in my sense.

I think hoping for future DLC to give more "foundation" to IT is not a wise strategy. Making comments that equate "IT false = very bad writing" is just insulting Bioware's efforts to please all, even if it's impossible. To that point, since EC calmed a lot of the angry players, seeing this in here is quite indicative of the amount of frustration regarding the "face value endings", and this speaks for itself : if anyone truly believes in IT, he shouldn't even think about "bad writing possibility", it is utterly unproductive. Best approach is still to work on actual "evidence" gathered by you all, and make it fit together so it holds even under good scrutiny. At the very least, some work could be done so IT's "foundation" isn't shaken upon every argument thrown against it. Since there was already a few "schisms" among IT supporters that resulted in the birth of "new IT variations" (walking nightmare theory, reality overlay, etc), maybe something fundamental is missing here.

The Puzzle Theory!

[masster blaster]

I still think that Shepard is afrid of Harbinger because when Shepard sees Harbinger. It looks to me like his/her nightmers are coming true.

[Taboo]

TJBartlemus wrote...

I_eat_unicorns wrote...

Taken from Taboo-XX from another thread I created:

I don't. The scene with the Catalyst is absolutely ludicrous. You aren't supposed to take everything at face value, the devs have said this.

The endings are symbolic.

You grabs the reigns of Control

You leap into the unknown in Synthesis

You blow **** up in Destroy

It's more a bad implementation of surrealism than it is anything else. And that's why it's AWFUL.

If you actually read my post, you would know that I never said you can stop believing in IT, I only say it's just not true, like fan-theories are. They aren't true. The fact that you dismiss my posts with "opinion opinion blah blah" shows how little capacity you have for others who hold against your own beliefs. Which parts of my posts are opinions? What makes my post "blah blah"? How did you respond to 1/2 of my post before I posted?

Try to form a contstructive argument before raging and yelling at me. 

Hehe. Your funny. You go on to say literalism is true and IT is false yet you plainly say the bolded. Contradictory much? 

That's MY post, not his.

Do not take MY opinion of something to twist his words.

You have every right to an opinion, which is what I said. 

Don't confuse the two.

[TSA_383]

Dwailing wrote...
I don't know.  TSA, I remember you were the one who posted the summary of the Leviathan pack, would you kindly explain this? 

Sick of repeating myself 
Page 21. Look for a giant spoiler.
You really can't miss it.

[Home run MF]

masster blaster wrote...

Home run. The Leviathans are a race that created the AI, which could have adapted into a new body hence why Shepard ask the AI. What is Harbinger old tongue, ehich leads me to believe that Harbinger has a huge role, than we think.

Nope

'My creators gave them form I gave them function. They, in turn, gave me purpose.'
'Yes and no. The Reapers are a synthetic representation of the ones who created us.'

[TSA_383]

masster blaster wrote...

Hey unicorn guess what earlier today we sent Chris a pm about going ahead with creating our own ending for IT so we can find the clouser we wanted, and if Chris arrpoves you will get your wish, along with the others.

Just... please be less... whatever it is you're being right now.
Please?

[ZerebusPrime]

protognosis wrote...

Also, I_eat_unicorns I first read your screen name as I_eat_Unicrons and my inner Transformer nerd squeed like the five year old he is.  

"Lo, I am Megalaxianicus!  Devourer of Devourers of Worlds!"



But seriously.  It is a fan theory.  It's also a valid interpretation.  So it's a valid fan theory.  It is not, however, a good predictive model for what comes next in terms of BioWare's future dlc because there has so far been insufficient dlc to form a proper track record.  I hope that IT sees its day of glory, but I can't predict for certain whether it will or not.

[TSA_383]

Home run MF wrote...

masster blaster wrote...

Home run. The Leviathans are a race that created the AI, which could have adapted into a new body hence why Shepard ask the AI. What is Harbinger old tongue, ehich leads me to believe that Harbinger has a huge role, than we think.

Nope

'My creators gave them form I gave them function. They, in turn, gave me purpose.'
'Yes and no. The Reapers are a synthetic representation of the ones who created us.'

Swing and a miss.
Page 21.
Spoiler.

[Dwailing]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Dwailing wrote...


Without the EC, the endings sucked.  They completely disregarded player choice, they offered almost no closure, and they were thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis were.  Now, with the EC, the endings take player choice into regard, offer more closure... and are still thematically revolting.  Or at least, Control and Synthesis still are.   And don't get me started on Rejection.  The theme of Rejection seems to be that free will and self determination are bad things, and will always get you in trouble.  Yeah.  That's totally what they are.  

Honestly, without IT, I'm not a huge fan of any of the endings.  The presence of Star-Brat was completely pointless, one of the key themes of the series (That Synthetics and Organics, when you get down to it, are both equally alive.) was thrown out the window, and it generally seemed that the endings were just... I don't know, wrong.  They just didn't feel like the kind of endings that would "fit" a series like Mass Effect.  Not even Destroy, really.  Without IT, the endings are just wrong.  They aren't necessarily bad, it's just that they aren't right for Mass Effect.

I understand that perfectly. Like I posted just one page ago :

The problem arises if you compare endings with each other. Bioware made them on quite different "thematics", and I believe it wouldn't make sense, if one prefers "synthesis" for example, to look into "control" and " destroy" to try to see if he made the "best" choice. So IT goes hand in hand with "destroy", it doesn't have to rely on something "outside" of that "theme", in my sense.

I think hoping for future DLC to give more "foundation" to IT is not a wise strategy. Making comments that equate "IT false = very bad writing" is just insulting Bioware's efforts to pleas all, even if it's impossible. To that point, since EC calmed a lot of the angry players, seeing this in here is quite indicative of the amount of frustration regarding the "face value endings", and this speaks for itself : if anyone truly believes in IT, he shouldn't even think about "bad writing possibility", it is utterly unproductive. Best approach is still to work on actual "evidence" gathered by you all, and make it fit together so it holds even under good scrutiny. At the very least, some work could be done so IT's "foundation" isn't shaken upon every argument thrown against it. Since there was already a few "schisms" among IT supporters that resulted in the birth of "new IT variations" (walking nightmare theory, reality overlay, etc), maybe something fundamental is missing here.

One of the best things about IT is that we never claim to know EXACTLY what's going on (Unlike SOME Literalists. <_<  Not you, BTW.).  We have our evidence, and some of us interpret it in different ways.  Right now, all that we're 99% certain of is that Shepard was experiencing some kind of indoctrination attempt during the ending sequence.  Maybe the whole thing was an indoctrination, for lack of a better word, "dream", and Shepard is knocked out throughout the whole thing.  Maybe Shepard was "dreaming" the TIM/Anderson confrontation, and was "awake" but hallucinating during the Catalyst chamber (My view.).  The thing is, we pride ourselves on IT being a true scientific theory.  And theories are modified to fit evidence, not the other way around.  That's why IT doesn't have a "foundation" beyond the concept of Shepard experiencing an indoctrination attempt.  If we tried to make things TOO concrete, then we'd be in even worse shape than if we were forced to change with each piece of new evidence, or each piece of debunked evidence.  If we tried to claim that we knew EXACTLY what was going on, and refused to change, we would start ignoring evidence (Like many Literalists.), or we would start using a catch-all excuse to explain away everything that didn't fit our preconceived notions (Again, like many Literalists.).  So, simply put, our lack of a "strong foudation" is actually our strength, rather than our weakness.