80611 réponses à ce sujet

[Dwailing]

Norlond wrote...

Personally, I think WNT is more believable than IT-con

I actually support WNT, or at least, my own variation of it.  I do believe that Shepard starts hallucinating on Earth, but the full nightmare doesn't hit until Shepard is knocked out by the beam.  The Citadel is an indoctrination nightmare.  It's too surreal to be anything else.  The end chamber, however, is a hallucination.  Shepard is "awake", but is not seeing things properly.

[demersel]

The Twilight God wrote...

TJBartlemus wrote...

 Sup guys!!! Once again congrats to Hellish and Turbo!!! Regarding to Julians video and thread I am not impressed. Also I came across this IT con / IT dream nonsense. That needs to be dealt with. Every time I see it I just have to facepalm.

http://social.biowar...ndex/13821253/2

StElmo wrote...

What is the point of IT Con, IT ties up the plot holes, having shepard awake means RGB still happens and thats really bad for the plot holes. Same with the catalyst existence etc.

I'd love for you both to point out any holes in my theory.

http://social.biowar...ndex/13419372/1


Here is my problem with dreams or hallucinations.

Dream: So Shepard wakes up... then Harbinger finishes what he started and vaporizes Shepard.

Waking Dream (endings delusional): 

All of the pertinent events of each ending play out in the same general manner. For instance, regardless of the ending you choose Admiral Hackett gives an order to fall back to the rendezvous point and the same brief scene between Joker and a squad mate at the helm play out identically in all endings. Regardless of the ending you choose the energy wave erupts from the epicenter under the same battlefield conditions in orbit (i.e. Allied Fleet and Reaper vessels situated in the same exact positions). Regardless of the ending you choose the ground forces fighting on Earth are shown in the exact same neighborhood moving in the exact same fashion. The exact same advancing Cannibal is shot by the exact same resistance soldier. The exact same reaper destroyer lands and the exact same dreadnaughts are in the distance. The Normandy is forced to land or crash land on the same identical jungle world in which you state is a delusion in the context of Control and Synthesis. The crew is depicted exiting the Normandy in the same exact manner in Control and Destroy.

Would it not be sensible to conclude that either all endings are equally delusional or they all play out in reality?

However, certain aspects of the differences between endings are worth noting because they would indicate that it is not a hallucination. For instance, why would Shepard's subconscious in the Control ending involve the Citadel arms closing and the Control eruption reaching the Charon Mass Relay in the form of an energy wave as opposed to reaching it as a beam and causing severe explosions across the Citadel in the Synthesis and Destroy versions? There are no clues leading up to the Control decision to account for why Shepard would envision its outcome playing out in a different fashion than Synthesis or Destroy. Furthermore, if it is all a delusion why does the readiness of the allied fleets have any relevance whatsoever on what delusions Shepard perceives in the Crucible docking chamber? Why is there a high EMS necessity for Synthesis. Why does the choice to either preserve of destroy the Collector Base in Mass Effect 2 even matter in this regard with low EMS? 
  

Don't you ever consider a possibility, that it is Harbinger that is infusing dream/hallucination on shepard? And by breaking free you severy hurt him? (even kill him possibly?) And that is why he can't finish shepard right away? 
Also you get the breath scene only in high EMS destroy. That suggests that it has something to do with how much forces and war assets you have. THe easiest explanation - in high ems destroy you've got enough forces to keep harbinger busy or even take him out entirely, while you're unconcious. That makes sense if you consider low ems scenario - your army is too weak to give a fight, you've broken free from the dream, good for you, no harbinger just shoots you for real. The end. ) 

[StElmo]

So a user on the Project X thread just blew my mind:

Eryri wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We
have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there
is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no
more "endings" DLC.




[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

If you don't mind me asking, does "no more "endings" DLC." also preclude an old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?

If the rumors are true that this putative "Project X" is a large piece of
content, it would make sense to be released as a physical disc, as Xbox
live has a 2Gb cap for DLC, and not everyone has broadband.

Modifié par StElmo, 25 août 2012 - 07:07 .

[Dwailing]

StElmo wrote...

So a user on the Project X thread just blew my mind:

Eryri wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We
have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there
is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no
more "endings" DLC.




[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

If you don't mind me asking, does "no more "endings" DLC." also preclude an old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?

If the rumors are true that this putative "Project X" is a large piece of
content, it would make sense to be released as a physical disc, as Xbox
live has a 2Gb cap for DLC, and not everyone has broadband.

An old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?  Now THAT would be awesome.  I miss those days...

[BansheeOwnage]

Dwailing wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Ah, I just reinstalled Star Trek Voyager Elite Force and Star Wars Republic Commando and I'm taking a serious nostalgia trip this week.  Anyway, any new speculations, or are we just holding out until Leviathan gets here?

Hey Dwailing! I'm not sure when the last time you were here was, so maybe. But mostly waiting for Leviathan. Did you see my thing about EDI? Or why Leviathan can't really disprove IT?

I missed both, unfortunately.  Could you please give me a brief summary of each?

I'll just repost them for anyone else that missed them.

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.

So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals  – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also supports that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Modifié par BansheeOwnage, 25 août 2012 - 07:11 .

[Dwailing]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Ah, I just reinstalled Star Trek Voyager Elite Force and Star Wars Republic Commando and I'm taking a serious nostalgia trip this week.  Anyway, any new speculations, or are we just holding out until Leviathan gets here?

Hey Dwailing! I'm not sure when the last time you were here was, so maybe. But mostly waiting for Leviathan. Did you see my thing about EDI? Or why Leviathan can't really disprove IT?

I missed both, unfortunately.  Could you please give me a brief summary of each?

I'll just repost them for anyone else that missed them.

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.

So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals  – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also supports that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Mind=Blown!   That is AWESOME!  And why else would they do that?  Why else would they use those specific colors?  I can't think of a better explanation.  Man, I <3 Fridge Brilliance.

[StElmo]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Ah, I just reinstalled Star Trek Voyager Elite Force and Star Wars Republic Commando and I'm taking a serious nostalgia trip this week.  Anyway, any new speculations, or are we just holding out until Leviathan gets here?

Hey Dwailing! I'm not sure when the last time you were here was, so maybe. But mostly waiting for Leviathan. Did you see my thing about EDI? Or why Leviathan can't really disprove IT?

I missed both, unfortunately.  Could you please give me a brief summary of each?

I'll just repost them for anyone else that missed them.

EDI: Objective Symbology

I’m actually very surprised no one has brought this up before, (or at least not that I’ve seen) but whatever, I will.

So basically, the first time I played through ME3 I was all like:

“Huh. EDI’s visor is orange/red, and Eva’s was blue. That’s weird. Most colour symbology has the opposite colours. Whatever.”

After seeing the extended cut however, it became blatantly obvious. The colour of her visor reflects her goals  – her objectives. Dr. Eva was in TIM’s control, and TIM wanted control. After EDI takes over the body, it changes to destroy’s colour. Likewise, in the EC, if you pick synthesis it changes to green, the colour of synthesis. What is so interesting about that though, is that you have to have beaten the game to notice it. Yet more evidence that Bioware is not bad at writing, or implementing subtleties. In my opinion, this also supports that EDI indeed favours destroy, even though it includes her death in a literal ending, since if she didn’t, why is it orange? Meaning, if the writers didn’t want her to favour destroy, why is it orange?

What do you all think of this?

Doesn't EDI sanction her own death to save her friends? She discusses sacrificing herself for jeff with shepard at one point.

Destroy is definitely what edi would have wanted. Synthesis EDI is creepy.

[BansheeOwnage]

Dwailing wrote...

Mind=Blown!   That is AWESOME!  And why else would they do that?  Why else would they use those specific colors?  I can't think of a better explanation.  Man, I <3 Fridge Brilliance.

Thanks, and yeah, frigde stuuf is great.

[BansheeOwnage]

StElmo wrote...

Doesn't EDI sanction her own death to save her friends? She discusses sacrificing herself for jeff with shepard at one point.

Destroy is definitely what edi would have wanted. Synthesis EDI is creepy.

That she wanted destroy was never in doubt for me, I just said this supports that idea.

[Ageless Face]

BansheeOwnage wrote...
Oh and keep in mind what I've brought up before: They're all indoctrinated. Even a lot of the minor enemies like thorian creepers or random scientists are indoctrinated. Reaper troops are indoctrinated. The main enemy of the series is indoctrination. It makes perfect sense to fight it in the last battle of the game. Beating indoctrination is impossible? Well Shepard has built a career off performing the impossible, like most heroes.

 
But... If Shepard can beat indoctrination, then s/he might not be in the process at all. 

Oh and here's another thing: A couple of people, like Hackett and Liara, say the reapers can't be beaten conventionally.SO WHAT? Some people also said the reapers didn't exist, certain things were "inevitable" and you can't go through the Omega-4 relay. The point of the hero is to beat the impossible odds; to do what everyone else thought you couldn't do. In this case, beat the reapers conventionally.

Thoughts?

But the Hackett is an admiral. If he would be wrong about such a thing, then it means he's one of the most lousy admirals there ever were- not a good sign, esspeically since we needed to listen to the guy throughout all the game. So it's kind of important when he says that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally. Not to mention that so many resources were spent on the Crucible, and there are only so many ships in the galaxy. It's not the suicide mission that everything depended on Shepard. Shepard isn't even the one who leads the fleets, no matter how much the game would like to make it look that way.

It could be, if the IT is right, that the Crucible will still be used, only it will do something else.

Oh and hey Banshee.

Modifié par HagarIshay, 25 août 2012 - 07:17 .

[BansheeOwnage]

Someone asked what if Leviathan could be the end of IT because Leviathan could perhaps suggest that control is possible. Here’s what I had to say about that:
Well it's a bit of a non-issue really. How would it be confirmed? If Leviathan told you, that would ruin the whole "no one knows what it does" aspect of the game from potentially the very beginning. Plus, it would render the whole game-long debate with TIM that you can't control the reapers pointless. As well, the "surprise" that starkid tells you TIM was right wouldn't make any sense. In addition to that, all of the Shepards who want to stay true to the original goal of destroy would then have to try and finish a device that is confirmed to control them? No. Not even worth considering.

[demersel]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

paxxton wrote...

That war is too big for a single game. It didn't receive enough treatment in ME3.

Your actually right now that I think about it. You spend the majority of the game fighting Cerberus, not the reapers.

ME1: Geth heretics = primary enemy, reapers secondary
ME2: Collectors = primary enemy, reapers secondary
ME3: Cerberus = primary enemy, reapers secondary

Oh and keep in mind what I've brought up before: They're all indoctrinated. Even a lot of the minor enemies like thorian creepers or random scientists are indoctrinated. Reaper troops are indoctrinated. The main enemy of the series is indoctrination. It makes perfect sense to fight it in the last battle of the game. Beating indoctrination is impossible? Well Shepard has built a career off performing the impossible, like most heroes.

Oh and here's another thing: A couple of people, like Hackett and Liara, say the reapers can't be beaten conventionally. SO WHAT? Some people also said the reapers didn't exist, certain things were "inevitable" and you can't go through the Omega-4 relay. The point of the hero is to beat the impossible odds; to do what everyone else thought you couldn't do. In this case, beat the reapers conventionally.

Thoughts?

You're 100% right. I think the same.
It really makes sense to end the game at the point where you either break free from indoctrination or not, and not tell what exactly did you do. That is the only way for this concept to work. THey tried to make some sort of game mechanic, but didn't succede, and this is the only way left to do it. 
Remember according to game lore it is IMPOSSIBLE to break free from indoctrination. How do you implement a plot point, that includes pefrorming an impossible feat without making it trivial. THat's how - you cut off the narrative exactly at the point of performing a feat, without showing if the attempt was actaully sucsessfull. In this particular case the feat requires the player being ignorant of it's existence. They will expand on it evetually, thus the statment of 1 year of support with dlc.  If they'd tell you right away that this was indoctrination, and the final choice whether you break free oor not - there is no point in having such a plot point in the first place. 

[demersel]

StElmo wrote...

If you don't mind me asking, does "no more "endings" DLC." also preclude an old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?

HAHA! Very clever!
The only counter argument to this i can think of, is that the reveal expansion/dlc should be free, and with disc you can't really do that. Anyway, all i'm saying that it SHOULD be free, not that it WIILL be. 


Also this disc expansion, might not be free if it's centered around some other character, like DA:A. You'll get the chance to finish the reapers, and even pick Shepard up from the rubble. (if you chose control or synthesis - you may have to even fight your own castom Shepard, if destroy, he'll fight alongside you or even command and direct you, like anderson did with shepard himself in the main games. Maybe you'll play as Vega. Or you'll have a chance to create another character. )

Modifié par demersel, 25 août 2012 - 07:28 .

[BansheeOwnage]

HagarIshay wrote...

But the Hackett is an admiral. If he would be wrong about such a thing, then it means he's one of the most lousy admirals there ever were- not a good sign, esspeically since we needed to listen to the guy throughout all the game. So it's kind of important when he says that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally. Not to mention that so many resources were spent on the Crucible, and there are only so many ships in the galaxy. It's not the suicide mission that everything depended on Shepard. Shepard isn't even the one who leads the fleets, no matter how much the game would like to make it look that way.

It could be, if the IT is right, that the Crucible will still be used, only it will do something else.

Oh and hey Banshee.

Hey, Hagar, nice to see you again.  Hackett is an admiral sure, but figures of authority (*cough* council/commitee *cough*) are often wrong about stuff. Granted Hackett isn't a figure like that, he can still be wrong. If IT is true, the crucible may or may not be used. It could go either way. There is a lot of evidence that suggests it's a trap. I had my own theory that the facility in Rio could be developing a weapon of mass destruction or a mass relay, which would be a cool nod to Ilos, if you want be to repost that.

[The Heretic of Time]

For the sake of the non-ITers I have to reply to this in order to defend the majority of the BSN against this nonsense.

So before you guys jump at my throat again telling me that I'm trolling: No I'm not trolling, I simply feel the need to defend the non-ITer point of view against this nonsense.


Here we go:

The Twilight God wrote...

They had 3 endings

1. Sunshine and butterflies, no sacrifice, everything is fixed, The Shreapers protect and ensure peace!!
2. Sunshine and butterflies, no sacrifice, everything is fixed, The Lore Keepers share all knowledge and peace reigns forever more!!
3. Rough times are ahead, synthetic life is sacrificed, the relay network is done, people are stranded and we have to depend on ourselves

That's a huge misrepresentation of all 3 endings there mate. You're also a liar.

You're also flat-out lying about the Destroy ending. With the EC, the relays are no longer forever destroyed, they are only damaged. Admiral Hackett makes it very clear that they can be repaired. There is hope. No one is stranded. BioWare said so. The EC said so.

In fact, the relays are damaged in all 3 endings. All 3 of them. But in all 3 they can be repaired. In the Control ending we see the reapers repairing them. In the Synthesis ending we don't see any repairs but lets go ahead and assume that in this ending it is also the reapers that repair the relays. In Destroy Admiral Hackett makes it clear that the species that survived the reaper war will work together and repair the relays. Heck, even the goddamn Starchild tells us that the relays can be repaired in the Destroy ending, he specifically says so!

As for the Control ending: It doesn't look like sunshine and butterflies at all, especially not when you played as a renegade, like I did. Basically in Control what you get is a reaper dictatorship. While a dictatorship isn't necessarily bad, it's far from sunshine and butterflies.

The only ending that does come of as sunshine and bunnies is the Synthesis ending. I can't deny that Synthesis is a bit too idealistic and a bit too perfect for my taste. I don't like it at all. Not to mention that the whole premise of Synthesis is absolutely unrealistic. Changing the DNA of all organic life with a simple flash of the Crucible? Yeah right.

And to say nothing is sacrificed in Control and Synthesis is a big fat lie too. At first, Shepard himself is sacrificed in both Control and Synthesis, while Shepard lives in Destroy.
In Control, self-determination and true freedom is sacrificed. All species live under the dictate of the reapers.
In Synthesis, again, self-determination is sacrificed. The perverted idea of synthesis is forced upon the whole galaxy by Shepard's choice.

In Destroy, the galaxy still has their self-determiniation and freedom left. Shepard lives and the galaxy can finally move on naturally, in peace, without a reaper dictatorship and without a forced unnatural upgrade to transhumanism.





So, so the CORRECT summing up of the 3 endings are:

1. Control: Shepard is sacrificed, the galaxy is rebuild by the reapers, everyone lives under the dictate of the reapers.
2. Synthesis: Shepard is sacrificed, the galaxy rebuilds together with the reapers, everyone has become a cyborg because Shepard forced it upon them.
3. Destroy: The geth and EDI are sacrificed, the galaxy rebuilds on their owns strength, everyone has a future free from the reapers.

1 and 2 are obviously bull****, but people want to believe even though they are thematically and narratively presented as indoctrinated endings.

NO, 1 and 2 AREN'T bull****, that's just YOUR personal interpretation of it.


And NO, they aren't thematically and narratively presented as indoctrinated endings. That's just YOUR interpretation of it.

Non-IT is about blind absolute faith to maintain peace of mind. They have ignored the logical in-game conclusion and jumped outside the game itself to handwave away whatever evidence contradicts what they want to believe as "bad writting".

No, the IT is about bnlind absolute faith to maintain peace of mind. The ITers can't accept that ME3's story is crap. Not just the endings, but the entire story. You're so hardcore Mass Effect fan that you sitll haven't gotten over it, maybe you don't want to get over it, but rather you set up a delusion that offers you peace of mind.

Just like the religious people set up a delusion that offers them peace of mind, because they find it hard ot deal with the harsh cold truth about death. Death is scary, it's hard ot face death, it's easier to believe there is something beautiful after death, instead of accepting that death is probably the end if everything.

The idea that BioWare massively screwed up is scary, it's hard to face the crap writing that ME3 offers, it's easier to believe there is something genius hidden within this writing that appears to be nonsensical and crap.




Also, there is no evidence for the IT. There never will be. The IT is all based on speculation and personal interpretations. BioWare is so kind to acknowledge your IT interpretation, but they never intented IT and nor will they make it canon. 

To BioWare, The IT interpretation is just as valid at the litteral interpretation of the endings. BioWare will not pick sides. But the fact that BioWare so far did nothing to expand on the IT gives me the feeling that BioWare always intented for the endings to be interpretated literally, you know, just like the other 99% of the Mass Effect trilogy, which is also all meant to be interpretated literally. Always was. 

But there is no way there two objectively  in my personal subjective opinion superior endings and one in my opinion crappy one. No way.

^

There, fixed that for you.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 25 août 2012 - 07:26 .

[Hrothdane]

Good to see Heretic_Hanar has dropped the facade and gone back to trolling.

Kinda like The Illusive Man in ME3. Very appropriate.

[Arashi08]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

BansheeOwnage wrote...

The Twilight God wrote...

Blind faith? Is there any other kind?  I think that's pretty much what faith is; hope without reason to hope. Maybe. Some stuff to think about.

If I ask you to help me mow my lawn each Saturday and each Saturday you do, then I have faith that you will the next weekend. People have faith in the weatherman, faith in the speedy police response, faith in medicine.

Blind faith is faith which isn't based upon anything. I believe in unicorns. I've never seen one. Nobody else has ever seen one to my knowledge, but I choose to believe it regardless.

You seem to be confusing "faith" with "trust" and "confidence".

 




 Faith  Noun:





1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something
2. Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

Either definition equates to faith.

Modifié par Arashi08, 25 août 2012 - 07:30 .

[byne]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

For the sake of the non-ITers I have to reply to this in order to defend the majority of the BSN against this nonsense.

I like how you start off with this, then rail against someone else presenting their personal opinion as fact.

Its like you have never heard of irony.

[demersel]

BansheeOwnage wrote...

HagarIshay wrote...

But the Hackett is an admiral. If he would be wrong about such a thing, then it means he's one of the most lousy admirals there ever were- not a good sign, esspeically since we needed to listen to the guy throughout all the game. So it's kind of important when he says that the Reapers can't be beaten conventionally. Not to mention that so many resources were spent on the Crucible, and there are only so many ships in the galaxy. It's not the suicide mission that everything depended on Shepard. Shepard isn't even the one who leads the fleets, no matter how much the game would like to make it look that way.

It could be, if the IT is right, that the Crucible will still be used, only it will do something else.

Oh and hey Banshee.

Hey, Hagar, nice to see you again.  Hackett is an admiral sure, but figures of authority (*cough* council/commitee *cough*) are often wrong about stuff. Granted Hackett isn't a figure like that, he can still be wrong. If IT is true, the crucible may or may not be used. It could go either way. There is a lot of evidence that suggests it's a trap. I had my own theory that the facility in Rio could be developing a weapon of mass destruction or a mass relay, which would be a cool nod to Ilos, if you want be to repost that.

Also, if T is true, we'll still have to deal with TIM, and find out what was cerberus REALLY up to. I mean what was their plan. And they did have some sort of plan, or reapers wouldnt attack Sanctuary. 

[The Heretic of Time]

Hrothdane wrote...

Good to see Heretic_Hanar has dropped the facade and gone back to trolling.

Kinda like The Illusive Man in ME3. Very appropriate.

Except I'm not trolling. But of course everyone who disagrees wih the IT and is vocal about it, is trolling in your eyes. That's a pretty close-minded of you there mate.

[Eryri]

StElmo wrote...

So a user on the Project X thread just blew my mind:

Eryri wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We
have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there
is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no
more "endings" DLC.




[smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/devil.png[/smilie]

If you don't mind me asking, does "no more "endings" DLC." also preclude an old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?

If the rumors are true that this putative "Project X" is a large piece of
content, it would make sense to be released as a physical disc, as Xbox
live has a 2Gb cap for DLC, and not everyone has broadband.

Thanks for reposting me.  I hope I haven't got your hopes up unnecessarily. It just struck me that "no more ending DLC" seemed carefully worded not to rule out a physical expansion pack. I know they're out of fashion these days, but I would be absolutely thrilled if they brought one out for ME3.

Plus it would deflect a lot of potential criticism that people without broadband are locked out of story essential content. This way, everyone would have access to it.

Modifié par Eryri, 25 août 2012 - 07:32 .

[OneWithTheAssassins]

StElmo wrote...

So a user on the Project X thread just blew my mind:

Eryri wrote...

Chris Priestly wrote...

You can keep discussing this if you wish, but it is false. Sorry.

We
have aid numerous times now, we have "ended the endings". While there
is more DLC for both Single and Multiplayer still to come, there is no
more "endings" DLC.

If you don't mind me asking, does "no more "endings" DLC." also preclude an old-fashioned disc-based expansion pack?

If the rumors are true that this putative "Project X" is a large piece of
content, it would make sense to be released as a physical disc, as Xbox
live has a 2Gb cap for DLC, and not everyone has broadband.

So wait, whats Project X? Did Chris conferm there is no IT?
I'm gone one day, and now I'm all sorts of confused.

[byne]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Hrothdane wrote...

Good to see Heretic_Hanar has dropped the facade and gone back to trolling.

Kinda like The Illusive Man in ME3. Very appropriate.

Except I'm not trolling. But of course everyone who disagrees wih the IT and is vocal about it, is trolling in your eyes. That's a pretty close-minded of you there mate.

Heretic, literally on the same page is someone who disagrees with IT that we dont call a troll: HagarIshay.

Maybe you should look at how the two of you present yourselves and see why we call you a troll but not Hagar.

[The Heretic of Time]

byne wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

For the sake of the non-ITers I have to reply to this in order to defend the majority of the BSN against this nonsense.

I like how you start off with this, then rail against someone else presenting their personal opinion as fact.

Its like you have never heard of irony.

That's because the original poster did present his personal opinions as facts. I actually called him out on it, telling him very clearly that whatever he says is NOT a fact, but merely his own personal opinion.


Talking about irony... Maybe you should read my entire post before jumping to conclusions.

[BansheeOwnage]

byne wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

For the sake of the non-ITers I have to reply to this in order to defend the majority of the BSN against this nonsense.

I like how you start off with this, then rail against someone else presenting their personal opinion as fact.

Its like you have never heard of irony.

Good to see Byne is back to totally owning people with one sentence.