883 réponses à ce sujet

[brettc893]

Hate to break it to ya, but getting an even more incomplete game would puss me off far more than any bad ending could.

Face it; Project X is nothing more than a ****ty Superbad wannabe. Or I hope it is for Biowares sake.

[JacobNZW]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

JacobNZW wrote...

For those about to whine about IT, here is a little something you might wanna read. You're arguments are basically one big straw-man.

http://en.wikipedia....aw-man_argument

How are we who oppose the IT idiocy using straw-men arguments? Can you please explain this and provide us with an example? Or are you just talking BS out of your neck?

How are you using strawmen arguments?

You misunderstand IT (maybe intentionally, because you prefer) or have a superficial understanding of it.
Than based on that you start mocking it and make it sound childish, equate it with wishfull thinking and god knows what else.

You just used the derogatory term "idiocy" to characterize IT, which it is NOT! (And that's how you start! Please tell me you read the article.)

[Restrider]

JacobNZW wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

JacobNZW wrote...

For those about to whine about IT, here is a little something you might wanna read. You're arguments are basically one big straw-man.

http://en.wikipedia....aw-man_argument

How are we who oppose the IT idiocy using straw-men arguments? Can you please explain this and provide us with an example? Or are you just talking BS out of your neck?

How are you using strawmen arguments?

You misunderstand IT (maybe intentionally, because you prefer) or have a superficial understanding of it.
Than based on that you start mocking it and make it sound childish, equate it with wishfull thinking and god knows what else.

You just used the derogatory term "idiocy" to characterize IT, which it is NOT! (And that's how you start! Please tell me you read the article.)

Why do you even bother? Haters gonna hate. And Heretic_Hanar has proven to be even more fanatic in his IT-bashing than the most fanatic IT supporters.
I would consider myself at least open to IT. The arguments are plausible, if BW indeed inteded it and if we are going to see IT being canon is a whole other thing.

[WhiteKnyght]

RussianZombeh wrote...

So, Clevernoob's new Indoctrination Theory documentary came out about 2 hours ago, and right at the end... something that is sure to cause a ****-storm of speculation was revealed.

Clevernoob revealed that a source from Bioware's "inner circle" spoke of something called "Project X", rumoured to be released in Quarter 1 of 2013. It will bring all the DLC's for ME3 together, and will take place post-breath scene in ME3. And it will be about Shepard's indoctrination.

Clevernoob makes a point of saying he trusts the source completely, and would not give the identity of the source or where he got this information from as to protect the source's job/position etc. Clevernoob is a very intellectual and trustworthy individual from what I've seen, and it seems he's placed full belief in his source.

This is very exciting. Speculation begins here - what are your thoughts on Mass Effect 3 "Project X", or as I like to call it: Mass Effect 3: Indoctrination.

Here is the documentary should you wish to watch it: Documentary

Chances are this wont have anything to do with the ending of the game. It'll be an extra story during the body of the game where Shepard ends up indoctrinated and everyone works to find a cure for him, and he ends up being released and immunized towards future attempts at control of him.

And technically, Leviathan already rooted its way into Shepard's brain. Arguably because of that, the Reapers cant touch him. (You cant be enthralled by two different controllers.)

[BlazingZephyr]

Maybe there is hope...

Unfortunately, I'll be busy with Halo 4/RE6 (don't hate me bro)/Borderlands 2.

[The Heretic of Time]

JacobNZW wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

JacobNZW wrote...

For those about to whine about IT, here is a little something you might wanna read. You're arguments are basically one big straw-man.

http://en.wikipedia....aw-man_argument

How are we who oppose the IT idiocy using straw-men arguments? Can you please explain this and provide us with an example? Or are you just talking BS out of your neck?

How are you using strawmen arguments?

You misunderstand IT (maybe intentionally, because you prefer) or have a superficial understanding of it.
Than based on that you start mocking it and make it sound childish, equate it with wishfull thinking and god knows what else.

I know perfectly well what the IT is. Sometimes I wonder if the IT followers themself understand what the IT really is. I think some pro-ITers have no clue what their "theory" really is.

You just used the derogatory term "idiocy" to characterize IT, which it is NOT! (And that's how you start! Please tell me you read the article.)

I don't need to read some wikipedia article about strawmen arguments, as I know perfectly well what a strawman argument is.Even so, I've read that article several times several years ago. If you only knew how sick and tired I'm getting of people linking the same Wikipedia sh*t over and over and over again. I'm not a newb to the internet, nor is anyone else here. You can safely assume that the majority of us has already read that article at least once, so no need to link that, or any other Wikipedia article for that matter.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 02 septembre 2012 - 06:57 .

[Ithurael]

JacobNZW wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

JacobNZW wrote...

For those about to whine about IT, here is a little something you might wanna read. You're arguments are basically one big straw-man.

http://en.wikipedia....aw-man_argument

How are we who oppose the IT idiocy using straw-men arguments? Can you please explain this and provide us with an example? Or are you just talking BS out of your neck?

How are you using strawmen arguments?

You misunderstand IT (maybe intentionally, because you prefer) or have a superficial understanding of it.
Than based on that you start mocking it and make it sound childish, equate it with wishfull thinking and god knows what else.

You just used the derogatory term "idiocy" to characterize IT, which it is NOT! (And that's how you start! Please tell me you read the article.)

There are, currently, two popular skisms of IT.

IT Dream - the enitre sequence happened during a dream after harbinger blasted shepard and RGB never happend. Once shep chooses destroy he wakes up to 'finish the fight'

IT Con - Everything during the final moments is real and the starkid is an abbaration of harbinger or the reapers. In the end though. RGB happens when you make your choice.

One of these is a valid interpretation of the ending - the other is fan fiction at this point

[TSA_383]

XXIceColdXX wrote...

Would redeem the series for me if this Project X happens.

kyban wrote...

If project X is real, I will throw buckets of money at Bioware!

 

Wouldn't it be awesome if this became a self-fulfilling prophecy? That is, Bioware take messages like these to heart and realise how much cash they would make off something like this.

Oh that's right, Bioware don't listen to their fans, my bad 

[Restrider]

Ithurael wrote...
There are, currently, two popular skisms of IT.

IT Dream - the enitre sequence happened during a dream after harbinger blasted shepard and RGB never happend. Once shep chooses destroy he wakes up to 'finish the fight'

IT Con - Everything during the final moments is real and the starkid is an abbaration of harbinger or the reapers. In the end though. RGB happens when you make your choice.

One of these is a valid interpretation of the ending - the other is fan fiction at this point

You have to admit though that the breath scene taking place on the Citadel, is at least kind of unrealistic. Of course this does not proof anything (could be explained by space-magical forcefields - as it was by Merizan, if I recall correct).
So the crux remains, is Shepard in the breath scene on the Citadel and the explosion is just imagination or was he not at the core of the explosion, or is he on Earth? Unless this question remains unanswered IT (both, Dream and Con) remains what it always was, a - to me - plausible interpretation of the end.

[The Heretic of Time]

Restrider wrote...

Ithurael wrote...
There are, currently, two popular skisms of IT.

IT Dream - the enitre sequence happened during a dream after harbinger blasted shepard and RGB never happend. Once shep chooses destroy he wakes up to 'finish the fight'

IT Con - Everything during the final moments is real and the starkid is an abbaration of harbinger or the reapers. In the end though. RGB happens when you make your choice.

One of these is a valid interpretation of the ending - the other is fan fiction at this point

You have to admit though that the breath scene taking place on the Citadel, is at least kind of unrealistic. Of course this does not proof anything (could be explained by space-magical forcefields - as it was by Merizan, if I recall correct).
So the crux remains, is Shepard in the breath scene on the Citadel and the explosion is just imagination or was he not at the core of the explosion, or is he on Earth? Unless this question remains unanswered IT (both, Dream and Con) remains what it always was, a - to me - plausible interpretation of the end.

The Shepard breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel. In the breath scene rubble you see black cables and wires that look exactly the same as the black cables/wires that are attached to the Control and Destroy devices. These black cables aren't seen anywhere else and most certainly not on Earth right before the beam. Therefor the breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel and thus the IT dream is not true (though the IT con could be true, although that too is unlikely).

[Restrider]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The Shepard breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel. In the breath scene rubble you see black cables and wires that look exactly the same as the black cables/wires that are attached to the Control and Destroy devices. These black cables aren't seen anywhere else and most certainly not on Earth right before the beam. Therefor the breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel and thus the IT dream is not true (though the IT con could be true, although that too is unlikely).

I am not that certain about this fact.
In any case, the breathing scene lets IT Con be the most plausible interpretation. The sequence after the beam is just too bizarre to be taken 100 % literally:
- location resembling Collector Base, Shadow Broker Ship and TIM's office
- the ambiguity of the dialogue between Anderson, TIM and Shepard
- TIM's space-magic
- the abdomen wound on Anderson and Shepard
- and furthermore the breathing scene
There is no logical, in the boundaries of the lore inherent explanation for Shepard to survive such an explosion being at its core. No force fields, no space-magic, no teleportation, nothing can explain that. This just lets the 100 % literalist interpretation be highly improbable or just totally stupid.

If we follow the logic of IT Con, RBG happens, but there is no need for Shepard to be at the core of the explosion. He could be at some of the Wards for example, meaning he could survive without breaking the logic of the established lore. This would also mean that there is no conflict in the rubble discussion. As I stated earlier, IT Con is very plausible, at least to me.

If it turns out that Shepard is in London rubble, and I think it is possible (maybe let those cables be from a trashed Mako Tank or Gunship), then IT Dream gains a lot of validity again, because no one could seriously explain Shepard's return to Earth using IT Con or literalist interpretation. Personally, I would prefer this most, since it lets Bioware the possibility to fix ME3. Though I am realist enough to admit that right now it seems to be unlikely.

If you think about it, everything boils down to this question:
Where the bloody f**k does the breathing scene take place?

And as long as we have no certain answer to that question, there simply is no certainty if literalist view, IT Con or IT Dream is true.
€: Typos

Modifié par Restrider, 02 septembre 2012 - 09:59 .

[UrgentArchengel]

This is definiately what I think is the plan. EA makes a ton of cash by selling us dlc, and then after all the dlc is released they would then tell us the truth about what really happened at the end. Any company would get behind this.

[Restrider]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

This is definiately what I think is the plan. EA makes a ton of cash by selling us dlc, and then after all the dlc is released they would then tell us the truth about what really happened at the end. Any company would get behind this.

Kind of a diabolic plan. You deliver such a crappy ending that the customers are even happy to buy DLC, just to fix the series....

[UrgentArchengel]

Restrider wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

This is definiately what I think is the plan. EA makes a ton of cash by selling us dlc, and then after all the dlc is released they would then tell us the truth about what really happened at the end. Any company would get behind this.

Kind of a diabolic plan. You deliver such a crappy ending that the customers are even happy to buy DLC, just to fix the series....

Yeah, it's horrible, but it wouldn't really surprise me if this were true.

[TreguardD]

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.

Bioware, I wish to report a bug.

Please FIX the bug, stop claiming it's a feature.

[The Heretic of Time]

[quote]Restrider wrote...

[quote]Heretic_Hanar wrote...
The Shepard breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel. In the breath scene rubble you see black cables and wires that look exactly the same as the black cables/wires that are attached to the Control and Destroy devices. These black cables aren't seen anywhere else and most certainly not on Earth right before the beam. Therefor the breathing scene is obviously on the Citadel and thus the IT dream is not true (though the IT con could be true, although that too is unlikely).

[/quote]
I am not that certain about this fact.
In any case, the breathing scene lets IT Con be the most plausible interpretation. The sequence after the beam is just too bizarre to be taken 100 % literally:
[/quote]

It's obvious that the breathing scene takes place on the Citadel. We see the same props in that breathing scene as we saw in the decision chamber. That alone should be evidence enough.

And no, the sequence after the beam is not too bizarre to be taken literally, it's just stupid and dumb,but not bizarre.


[quote]
- location resembling Collector Base, Shadow Broker Ship and TIM's office
[/quote]

Just like any location in any Mass Effect game resembles other locations. Remember ME2? Almost every single location looked like a goddamn warehouse or storage depot.. Even the prison where Jack was kept looked like a friggin warehouse.  But you don't see me creating farfetched theories about that now do you?

Honestly, you're looking to deep into things. You're seeing things that aren't there.

[quote]
- the ambiguity of the dialogue between Anderson, TIM and Shepard
[/quote]

ALL DIALOGUE in ME3 is ambiguous if you're desperately looking for deeper or multiple meanings behind all dialogue. Again, you're lloking to deep into things. You're seeing things that aren't there.


[quote]
- TIM's space-magic
[/quote]

It's not space-magic, it's new biotic powers he gained from the reaper implants. What TIM does is no different than Morinth's 'domination' power.


[quote]
- the abdomen wound on Anderson and Shepard
[/quote]

Shepard was already hurt there before he walked into the beam. You see Shepard keeping his hand on a bleeding spot there from the very beginning, even before Anderson got shot.


[quote]
- and furthermore the breathing scene
There is no logical, in the boundaries of the lore inherent explanation for Shepard to survive such an explosion being at its core. No force fields, no space-magic, no teleportation, nothing can explain that. This just lets the 100 % literalist interpretation be highly improbable or just totally stupid.[/quote]

There is also no logical, in boudaries of the lore inherent explanation for Shepard's body to survive events of the ME2 intro.
There is also no logical, in boundaries of the lore inherent explanation how it was possible to ressurect Shepard back from the death with his full memories and personality in tact.
There is also no logical, in boundaries of the lore inherent explanation how it was possible for TIM to place his office in front of a giant star without burning alive, getting skin cancer or becoming blind from the solar light that should be blinding but somehow isn't.

There are so many things in Mass Effect that aren't inherently explained in the game. Some things just need to be accepted at face value. Things are the way the are because the writers wanted it to be so. 


Besides, it's not that far-fetched for Shepard to survive the high EMS Destroy ending. The EC made it very clear that the Citadel does not completely blow up in the Destroy ending and the area of the Citadel where Shepard lies is still almost 100% in tact, as is clearly seen in the EC.


So yeah, the endings are literal, Shepard did survive the blast and the breathing scene is on the Citadel. Period. 


[quote]
If we follow the logic of IT Con, RBG happens, but there is no need for Shepard to be at the core of the explosion. He could be at some of the Wards for example, meaning he could survive without breaking the logic of the established lore. This would also mean that there is no conflict in the rubble discussion. As I stated earlier, IT Con is very plausible, at least to me.
[/quote]

THIS doesn't make any sense. How the heck did Shepard get on the wards?

And again, Shepard ISN"T at the core of the explosion. Pay attention. It's the wards that get damaged the most in fact. Shepard is on the spot that is the LEAST damaged, as is clearly show in the EC Destroy ending.


IT con is not plausible at all, as IT con would mean that 2 of the 3 original endings are false endings. That means 2 of the 3 original decisions are wrong decisions. This is totally and completely 100% against the core of Mass Effect and everything these games stood for. Mass Effect never had flat-out wrong decisions. And Mass Effect was always about shaping your own future. It is already bad enough that we're all getting railroaded into the same 3 stupid endings, but if 2 of those 3 endings would be false, not real or simply wrong, then it would be even worse!

Imagine the outrage if BioWare would come out and state that half of their fanbase made the wrong decision in the end and now have an indoctrinated Shepard who saw a false ending. Imagine how pissed-off most people would be. And rightfully so. Saying that 2 of the 3 choices are false is basically taking the options away from the player. You're taking the freedom of choice away from the player. Why the f*ck would BioWare do that? (and no, offering the player to choose between the only correct ending or a random false ending in which Shepard gets indoctrinated is not a real choice)

[quote]
If it turns out that Shepard is in London rubble, and I think it is possible (maybe let those cables be from a trashed Mako Tank or Gunship), then IT Dream gains a lot of validity again, because no one could seriously explain Shepard's return to Earth using IT Con or literalist interpretation.
[/quote]

No, Shepard isn't in London, the rubble resembles the Citadel decision chamber structure and the cable are 100% exactly the same cables as we see in the Citadel decision chamber, they're not from some random gunship or even from the Mako, they don't have cables like that. The IT dream is a hoax, a myth, it's nothing more than a fan-fic.

And what makes you assume Shepard returns to earth in the first place? All we see is Shepard taking a breath on the Citadel, nothing more.


[quote]
Personally, I would prefer this most, since it lets Bioware the possibility to fix ME3. Though I am realist enough to admit that right now it seems to be unlikely.
[/quote]

The IT won't fix ME3, not at all. Neither IT con nor IT dream would fix ME3. People need to wake up and realize that the problem with Mass Effect 3 lies much deeper than just the final 10 minutes. The writing in ME3 already started off very very weak and a lot of things already went wrong at the very beginning of the game. ME3's crappy writing is not exclusive to the endings. There is crappy writing all over the entire game! Some IT DLC or Project X or whatever can't and won't fix the entire game.

[quote]
If you think about it, everything boils down to this question:
Where the bloody f**k does the breathing scene take place?
[/quote]

And I already gave you the answer multiple times: The Citadel.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 septembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[plfranke]

Hey Hanar, why do you think Bioware is being so secretive about dlc, instead of just telling us what they have in store?

[Legion of 1337]

Yeah this is totally legit >_>

[The Heretic of Time]

plfranke wrote...

Hey Hanar, why do you think Bioware is being so secretive about dlc, instead of just telling us what they have in store?

Is this even a serious question? There are so many reasons why a company wouldn't flat out say what they exactly have in store for us; the most obvious reason is that BioWare themselves doesn't even know the answer to that!

I'm sure BioWare has some plans for future DLC, but these plans might chance depending on the general feedback and the sales numbers of the previous DLC. The most obvious example is of course the Extended Cut DLC, which was a DLC that BioWare totlaly hadn't planned, but the negative publicity around their crappy endings forced them to change their plans and create an ending DLC ASAP, which is exactly what they did. The Extended Cut was the ending DLC and with that they've "fixed" and finished the ME3 endings, as has been stated by Chris and other BioWare employees multiple times.

[plfranke]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

plfranke wrote...

Hey Hanar, why do you think Bioware is being so secretive about dlc, instead of just telling us what they have in store?

Is this even a serious question? There are so many reasons why a company wouldn't flat out say what they exactly have in store for us; the most obvious reason is that BioWare themselves doesn't even know the answer to that!

I'm sure BioWare has some plans for future DLC, but these plans might chance depending on the general feedback and the sales numbers of the previous DLC. The most obvious example is of course the Extended Cut DLC, which was a DLC that BioWare totlaly hadn't planned, but the negative publicity around their crappy endings forced them to change their plans and create an ending DLC ASAP, which is exactly what they did. The Extended Cut was the ending DLC and with that they've "fixed" and finished the ME3 endings, as has been stated by Chris and other BioWare employees multiple times.

It just is annoying that they are so secretive about every little thing. No need to go off on me dude.

[Ithurael]

@hanar

You make a lot of good points.

In fact I am sure that shep is on the citatdel for the breath scene due to the number of black cables you see strewn around shepard. These cables were nowhere in the beam run.

And yeah, in the end, it was all just bad writing. How did shepard survive? I dunno - space shielding and stuff. How was shep able to breath? Space sheilding and stuff. Why was the dialog between TIM and anderson so odd? Don't get too attached to a plot.

In the end, IT Dream allowed people an escape from the horrors of reality. They didn't want to think that bioware could make an ending THAT bad. Unfortunately, they did. Many say the bad writing theory is a hand wave justification for everything...but then again so isn't the IT Dream theory.

[CyberMiguel]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

IT con is not plausible at all, as IT con would mean that 2 of the 3 original endings are false endings. That means 2 of the 3 original decisions are wrong decisions. This is totally and completely 100% against the core of Mass Effect and everything these games stood for. Mass Effect never had flat-out wrong decisions. And Mass Effect was always about shaping your own future. It is already bad enough that we're all getting railroaded into the same 3 stupid endings, but if 2 of those 3 endings would be false, not real or simply wrong, then it would be even worse!

Imagine the outrage if BioWare would come out and state that half of their fanbase made the wrong decision in the end and now have an indoctrinated Shepard who saw a false ending. Imagine how pissed-off most people would be. And rightfully so. Saying that 2 of the 3 choices are false is basically taking the options away from the player. You're taking the freedom of choice away from the player. Why the f*ck would BioWare do that? (and no, offering the player to choose between the only correct ending or a random false ending in which Shepard gets indoctrinated is not a real choice)

I think you're VERY mistaken, Heretic_Hanar. In Mass Effect 2 we were shown that there were actually wrong decisions in the game. Proof of that is the suicide mission, where only a very specific set of decisions give you the "correct" ending (i.e. everyone lives). In fact, in that same mission, if you make all the wrong choices you wind up with Shepard getting killed. 

Now, how can 2 endings being "indoctrination" and only one "correct" be against what Mass Effect saga is about? 

Since game one we get the ILLUSION OF CHOICE, in which through our choices we always end up accomplishing the objective through a set of paths which are not too much appart from each other. 

And yes, giving the player the power to choose between being indoctrinated or not is actually a big choice.

[Restrider]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
And no, the sequence after the beam is not too bizarre to be taken literally, it's just stupid and dumb,but not bizarre.

The difference between bizarre and stupid/dumb relies only in the fact, if there is a deeper meaning behind all that has been shown.

Just like any location in any Mass Effect game resembles other locations. Remember ME2? Almost every single location looked like a goddamn warehouse or storage depot.. Even the prison where Jack was kept looked like a friggin warehouse.  But you don't see me creating farfetched theories about that now do you?

Honestly, you're looking to deep into things. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Seriously? You are comparing random locations throughout the series that are very similar. But you know what? Any warehouse looks similar too each other. And in most parts, you are just comparing warehouse scenes with other warehouse scenes of the game. There is no point in that.
Compare the important scenes.
ME 1 ending at the Citadel Tower is unique.
ME 2 LotSB is unique (aka SB Ship).
ME 2 Collector Base is unique.
ME 3 TIM's office is unique.
ME 3 ending resembles the three settings mentioned before. Coincidence? At the most important part of the trilogy? I doubt it.

ALL DIALOGUE in ME3 is ambiguous if you're desperately looking for deeper or multiple meanings behind all dialogue. Again, you're lloking to deep into things. You're seeing things that aren't there.

Yes and no. Though this point is one of the weaker points to support IT.

It's not space-magic, it's new biotic powers he gained from the reaper implants. What TIM does is no different than Morinth's 'domination' power.

Throughout the series no one without biotics gets biotics through reaper implants. That would be a novum. Furthermore while TIM uses his powers, a purple halo is seen. Usually biotics would be blue. So this is not really certain at all.

Shepard was already hurt there before he walked into the beam. You see Shepard keeping his hand on a bleeding spot there from the very beginning, even before Anderson got shot.

Again it is a question about coincidence.

There is also no logical, in boudaries of the lore inherent explanation for Shepard's body to survive events of the ME2 intro.
There is also no logical, in boundaries of the lore inherent explanation how it was possible to ressurect Shepard back from the death with his full memories and personality in tact.
There is also no logical, in boundaries of the lore inherent explanation how it was possible for TIM to place his office in front of a giant star without burning alive, getting skin cancer or becoming blind from the solar light that should be blinding but somehow isn't.

There are so many things in Mass Effect that aren't inherently explained in the game. Some things just need to be accepted at face value. Things are the way the are because the writers wanted it to be so. 


Besides, it's not that far-fetched for Shepard to survive the high EMS Destroy ending. The EC made it very clear that the Citadel does not completely blow up in the Destroy ending and the area of the Citadel where Shepard lies is still almost 100% in tact, as is clearly seen in the EC.


So yeah, the endings are literal, Shepard did survive the blast and the breathing scene is on the Citadel. Period. 

I just checked the Destroy EC ending again. I suggest you do the same.

Minute 2:59 ... it is cake to survive that.

THIS doesn't make any sense. How the heck did Shepard get on the wards?

And again, Shepard ISN"T at the core of the explosion. Pay attention. It's the wards that get damaged the most in fact. Shepard is on the spot that is the LEAST damaged, as is clearly show in the EC Destroy ending.


IT con is not plausible at all, as IT con would mean that 2 of the 3 original endings are false endings. That means 2 of the 3 original decisions are wrong decisions. This is totally and completely 100% against the core of Mass Effect and everything these games stood for. Mass Effect never had flat-out wrong decisions. And Mass Effect was always about shaping your own future. It is already bad enough that we're all getting railroaded into the same 3 stupid endings, but if 2 of those 3 endings would be false, not real or simply wrong, then it would be even worse!

Imagine the outrage if BioWare would come out and state that half of their fanbase made the wrong decision in the end and now have an indoctrinated Shepard who saw a false ending. Imagine how pissed-off most people would be. And rightfully so. Saying that 2 of the 3 choices are false is basically taking the options away from the player. You're taking the freedom of choice away from the player. Why the f*ck would BioWare do that? (and no, offering the player to choose between the only correct ending or a random false ending in which Shepard gets indoctrinated is not a real choice)

Well. you are misunderstanding IT Con then (I'm not saying it was intentionally). IT Con says that RBG happens. Period. The whole post-beam to Shepard at Control room sequence is an Indoc attempt, after that everything, including all endings happen. Seriously, you're just fighting sidebattles here.

No, Shepard isn't in London, the rubble resembles the Citadel decision chamber structure and the cable are 100% exactly the same cables as we see in the Citadel decision chamber, they're not from some random gunship or even from the Mako, they don't have cables like that. The IT dream is a hoax, a myth, it's nothing more than a fan-fic.

And what makes you assume Shepard returns to earth in the first place? All we see is Shepard taking a breath on the Citadel, nothing more.

Again, try to understand the different theories. IT Dream never states that Shepard returns to Earth from the Citadel. It assumes Shepard was never on the Citadel in the first place. I'm getting the opinion misunderstanding other's opinions and ranting afterwards is your default way of discussion.

The IT won't fix ME3, not at all. Neither IT con nor IT dream would fix ME3. People need to wake up and realize that the problem with Mass Effect 3 lies much deeper than just the final 10 minutes. The writing in ME3 already started off very very weak and a lot of things already went wrong at the very beginning of the game. ME3's crappy writing is not exclusive to the endings. There is crappy writing all over the entire game! Some IT DLC or Project X or whatever can't and won't fix the entire game.

I have to agree on that, though. ME 3 suffers alot from the endings, but the other parts are not perfect at all, either. The rushed intro for example, the limited number of hubs (there is only one...), the lack of good sidequests.
Still, I think an improved ending would fix ME 3 in combination with other SP DLCs.


To sum up: It depends on what you assume. Do you have an optimist or an pessimistic view of life?
Optimist would be: Too many coincidences, there has to be more to it.
Pessimist would be: Bad writing.

A strong point for the latter view is Mass Effect: Deception, I have to admit that.

Modifié par Restrider, 03 septembre 2012 - 09:55 .

[plfranke]

@Restrider
I'm only gonna respond to the last thing you said. Bioware can't undo the terrible things they did with Mass Effect 3, such as the Crucible plotline or how Cerberus was handled. However, adding in something like IT or a Crucible trap storyline through dlc, war assets, quests to fill out the game, etc, would be steps in the right direction.

Even if IT was their goal, there is no way Bioware can undo the atrocious way they've handled it through PR and giving an incomplete game. However, if they can get this game to a point, where any given person can play it from a clean slate and enjoy it, and say afterwards, that was a good game with no glaring plot inconsistencies, then they have done an admirable job of salvaging the current situation.

[The Heretic of Time]

Restrider wrote...

Seriously? You are comparing random locations throughout the series that are very similar. But you know what? Any warehouse looks similar too each other. And in most parts, you are just comparing warehouse scenes with other warehouse scenes of the game. There is no point in that.

No, I'm comparing PRISONS to warehouses. Last time I checked, prisons are not warehouses. Yet in Mass Effect 2 they are apperantly.

Compare the important scenes.
ME 1 ending at the Citadel Tower is unique.
ME 2 LotSB is unique (aka SB Ship).
ME 2 Collector Base is unique.
ME 3 TIM's office is unique.

ME 3 ending resembles the three settings mentioned before. Coincidence? At the most important part of the trilogy? I doubt it.

No it doesn't. The hall with corpses doesn't look like the Collector base at all. I don't see any simularities. None of the locations looks like TIM's office either.

The only resemblances I see are the shifting plates that indeed look like the LotSB ship's shifting plates and the location with the control panel indeed somewhat looks like the Citadel Tower, which is perfectly logical because we are on the Citadel.

So yeah, 2 rough similarities between earlier locations from the trilogy, of which 1 similarity makes perfect sense. The only similarity that is slightly odd is the shifting plates that looks exactly like the shifting plates in the SB ship. But does this prove IT? No, it does not. It's more likely a result of BioWare recycling and reusing their 3d models and assets in a smart way.

Throughout the series no one without biotics gets biotics through reaper implants. That would be a novum. Furthermore while TIM uses his powers, a purple halo is seen. Usually biotics would be blue. So this is not really certain at all.

Not true. Saren had biotic powers in ME1, while he didn't have those in the prequel novel about him and Anderson (Mass Effect Revelations). I assume the reaper implants gave Saren biotic powers.

Besides, it's clear that TIM's powers aren't just normal biotic powers. They're far from normal. They're powers that come from the reaper tech.

And last time I checked, all biotic powers in the game are blue/purple-ish. The color of TIM's powers aren't signifantly different. Keep in mind that the area and light is very yellow-ish, which naturally makes blue colors look more purple-ish.

But again, this does not prove IT at all. It merely proves TIM got some new awesome powers from his reaper tech.

Again it is a question about coincidence.

I just checked the Destroy EC ending again. I suggest you do the same.

Minute 2:59 ... it is cake to survive that.

I already did. I suggest you look at this part in the Destroy EC ending: 8:08

See how the Citadel tower and the place where the decition chamber was are perfectly in tact? The Citadel is horribly damaged, but the place where Shepard was during the explosions is still 100% intact.

Well. you are misunderstanding IT Con then (I'm not saying it was intentionally). IT Con says that RBG happens. Period. The whole post-beam to Shepard at Control room sequence is an Indoc attempt, after that everything, including all endings happen. Seriously, you're just fighting sidebattles here.

I think it depends on which person I ask what IT con is, because I've heard many IT Con believers say that Shepard is screwed when he picks Control or Synthesis. They believe Shepard is indoctrinated when you pick anything else but Destroy. That's what I've been told.

If this is not the case and you indeed believe the EC slideshows truly happen as they are presented, then what's the difference between IT Con and the literal intepretation of the endings?

Again, try to understand the different theories. IT Dream never states that Shepard returns to Earth from the Citadel. It assumes Shepard was never on the Citadel in the first place. I'm getting the opinion misunderstanding other's opinions and ranting afterwards is your default way of discussion.

No, you should have been more clear from the start. You said, and I quote: "no one could seriously explain Shepard's return to Earth using IT Con or literalist interpretation."


We don't have to explain how Shepard returns to Earth, because he doesn't. All we see is Shepard taking a deep breath on the Citadel. Whatever happens after that and if Shepard ever returns to Earth is all speculation.

I have to agree on that, though. ME 3 suffers alot from the endings, but the other parts are not perfect at all, either. The rushed intro for example, the limited number of hubs (there is only one...), the lack of good sidequests.
Still, I think an improved ending would fix ME 3 in combination with other SP DLCs.

I actually find the current endings in ME3 not so bad. There are far worse things in ME3, such as how Cerberus was handled, the silly nonsensical coup on the Citadel, the Leviathan DLC that only pokes even more plotholes in the story and the fact that we're spending an entire game building a stupid super-weapon which we don't even know how it works or what it does during the entire game! 

In order to fix ME3, we have to get rid of the entire Crucible plot device and change Cerberus back to what they used to be: an underground black-ops shadow organisation that used to be part of the Alliance.

To sum up: It depends on what you assume. Do you have an optimist or an pessimistic view of life?
Optimist would be: Too many coincidences, there has to be more to it.
Pessimist would be: Bad writing.

I'm rather optimistic, but this isn't about optimism and pessimism at all. This is about idealism and realism.
Idealist: Too many coincidences, there has to be more to it.
Realist: Bad writing.

A strong point for the latter view is Mass Effect: Deception, I have to admit that.

Well luckily BioWare declared Deception as non-canon. In Deception, Kai Leng was retconned from an ex-N7 specialist to an ex-N6 specialist. In ME3 we see that Kai Leng is an ex-N7 specialist. So that means Deception, or at least all the retcons in Deception, are not canon.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 03 septembre 2012 - 12:13 .