I_eat_unicorns wrote...
hmm, I don't know what everyone in this thread is talking about, so I'll reiterate my op:
The IT is no better than the original endings, they take away player choice, they make the ending choices a "roulette" thing which goes against the rpg of mass effect, and they depend on future content that goes against the ec dlc and developed works.
IT is wrong. It's never going to come. Now I hear of this "con" theory and "dream" theory, well the fact that you have to make different parts of a fan-theory shows how ridiculous it is.
I feel that all IT supporters at this point are still butthurt over the endings and can't accept them. That's okay, the plot really was me2's fault, as it didn't set up anything for me3 (except cerberus). I really feel that one person can play me1, skip me2, and play me3 without any major misunderstandings.
It's all me2's fault that we got a rushed plot for me3.
The collector base merely infuses the cerberus quotient into the game as a 'next' item, really, but is important if you take a 'trilogy' approach.
I thinks it's all a matter of just how much "stuff" can be included in the game. So we have three, that make up the fourth game as a whole. Another reason I suspect there'll be NO ME 4. Only DLC to 'fiddle' with the ideas set forth in the trilogy. Kind of hoaky, but it's hard to imagine any other way, currently, to devise such a story and then tell it. Especially when so many/divergent players have their own take on it all.
Like you say tho, I agree that the IT demands too much in the way of their control of simple props in the game to be all inclusive plot drivers to the theory. To say that Shepard is(that's all players by the way) are delagated to only have the option of not being aware of their mentality during the playthroughs and are victims of their own deception by making any other choices, but those given by the IT.
Everyone is radio controlled?