432 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...
@ JShepppp: It's okay, I understand it looks to be far-fetched and a lot of confirmation bias. We'll see how right or wrong I was, eventually.

On that as a fan of metrics and absolutes can we get an absolute moment when you know you will be right or wrong? Pleeeasse

I will go in with you if you like. Personally, if they never do an IT reveal by the end of the dlc cycle then I would say  IT stays as a fan interpretaion of the ending (not the actual ending)

However, if they do an actual IT reveal (eg you chose to shoot the tube and shep wakes up to finish the fight against the reapers) then I will conceed.

If you expect me to wait till ME4 for an IT reveail you have another thing coming brohan.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Well, the thing is, they could do several things. They could throw us some kind of mega-hint, but still be ambiguous or unclear as to the details of events, which they could then clarify in ME4.

Honestly, I think it would make the most sense if they did a reveal as the very last thing in the DLC cycle. Obviously, such a worldshocker would have to come last. Any DLC following that would pale in comparison.

In a worst case scenario, we'll have to wait until ME4, but I can't imagine them being that cruel, and that would really hurt interest in the next game. So yeah, I think end of the DLC cycle for ME3.

But again, I can't say with certainty. If ME4 would reveal the endings to be literal, then I'd concede. If we never get a sequel, then I'm obviously wrong about that aspect, but that does not mean IT isn't true. Just that it will remain a valid possibility for an otherwise almost perfectly ambiguous ending.

[Jadebaby]

i'm just gonna put this here...




Shepard: My mother's in the Alliance. Haven't heard from her since Earth got hit.

Garrus: I'm sure... she's okay. Pretty soon, blind hope is all we'll have left... and I hate being blind.

Shepard: I know you don't have any illusions about what we're up against, Garrus. How do you rate our chances?

Garrus: I know it looks bad now, but I think we can win this, Shepard. For the first time since we met, we're not alone in the fight.

Shepard: After what's happened to Palaven, you still believe that?

Garrus: It's something I learned long ago in C-Sec: an imminent and painful death has a way of motivating people.Instead of questioning your every word, whole civilizations are going to be begging you to save them.I didn't say there wouldn't be casualties. It's something turians are taught from birth... If just one survivor is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it, but humans want to save everyone.

[Vigil_N7]

The issue with this is not related to anything in-game, but with logistics and business. It'd be an overwhelmingly large risk to do all this, only to end Shepard's story arc in Mass Effect 4. Primarily, what's the point of it all? Why couldn't Shepard's story be completed in ME3? Why throw this spanner in the works?

Not only that, but bioware have funneled a good amount of resources into things like the extended cut, it makes 0 economic sense to produce extended cuts if the orginal endings were only curveballs in the first place. Fact is this is like the indoctrination theory; a nice idea but an utterly senseless and pointless one if it was ever truly intended.

[tangythang]

I like this kind of stuff!
Reapadooww

[Ithurael]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Well, the thing is, they could do several things. They could throw us some kind of mega-hint, but still be ambiguous or unclear as to the details of events, which they could then clarify in ME4.

Honestly, I think it would make the most sense if they did a reveal as the very last thing in the DLC cycle. Obviously, such a worldshocker would have to come last. Any DLC following that would pale in comparison.

In a worst case scenario, we'll have to wait until ME4, but I can't imagine them being that cruel, and that would really hurt interest in the next game. So yeah, I think end of the DLC cycle for ME3.

But again, I can't say with certainty. If ME4 would reveal the endings to be literal, then I'd concede. If we never get a sequel, then I'm obviously wrong about that aspect, but that does not mean IT isn't true. Just that it will remain a valid possibility for an otherwise almost perfectly ambiguous ending.

I agree that the most obvious - and practical - way to do a reveal is at the end of the cycle it does make some sort of sense and I would prefer an IT DLC rather than an ambiguous hint. Ambiguity is too open IMO and leaves the discussion vunerable to subjective interpretation and confirmation bias.

I personally don't think ME4 will be a sequel. It just feels...idk off to have a game that takes place after the reaper war. And personally, to continue the reaper war without shepard seems silly. My bet is that ME4 will be a spinoff or something but then again I will wait.

Though I did have faith in IT pre EC I see it more as an interpretation of the ending rather than what really happend. Though...I must say - I do love being wrong. Till then I play the drinking game and promote lemons

[DoomsdayDevice]

Jade8aby88 wrote...

i'm just gonna put this here...




Shepard: My mother's in the Alliance. Haven't heard from her since Earth got hit.

Garrus: I'm sure... she's okay. Pretty soon, blind hope is all we'll have left... and I hate being blind.

Shepard: I know you don't have any illusions about what we're up against, Garrus. How do you rate our chances?

Garrus: I know it looks bad now, but I think we can win this, Shepard. For the first time since we met, we're not alone in the fight.

Shepard: After what's happened to Palaven, you still believe that?

Garrus: It's something I learned long ago in C-Sec: an imminent and painful death has a way of motivating people.Instead of questioning your every word, whole civilizations are going to be begging you to save them.I didn't say there wouldn't be casualties. It's something turians are taught from birth... If just one survivor is left standing at the end of a war, then the fight was worth it, but humans want to save everyone.

"... in this war, that's not going to happen."

Good call! Especially the blind hope line, I've noticed it before.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Vigil_N7 wrote...

The issue with this is not related to anything in-game, but with logistics and business. It'd be an overwhelmingly large risk to do all this, only to end Shepard's story arc in Mass Effect 4. Primarily, what's the point of it all? Why couldn't Shepard's story be completed in ME3? Why throw this spanner in the works?

Not only that, but bioware have funneled a good amount of resources into things like the extended cut, it makes 0 economic sense to produce extended cuts if the orginal endings were only curveballs in the first place. Fact is this is like the indoctrination theory; a nice idea but an utterly senseless and pointless one if it was ever truly intended.

This isn't really meant as a separate theory. I support IT. This is just a look at a different type of clues. =)

And I'm not saying they'll change the EC endings, I'm saying they'll give them more context by adding on to the story.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Ithurael wrote...

I personally don't think ME4 will be a sequel. It just feels...idk off to have a game that takes place after the reaper war. And personally, to continue the reaper war without shepard seems silly. My bet is that ME4 will be a spinoff or something but then again I will wait.

But see, that's the thing, I'm saying:

- Reapers weren't defeated
- Shepard will be back

I really don't think they'll continue the war without Shepard, or have Shepard return but the Reapers defeated. At least, that's not what I'm taking from the clues. (If they're clues, of course)

[Cheopz]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Well, the thing is, they could do several things. They could throw us some kind of mega-hint, but still be ambiguous or unclear as to the details of events, which they could then clarify in ME4.

Honestly, I think it would make the most sense if they did a reveal as the very last thing in the DLC cycle. Obviously, such a worldshocker would have to come last. Any DLC following that would pale in comparison.

In a worst case scenario, we'll have to wait until ME4, but I can't imagine them being that cruel, and that would really hurt interest in the next game. So yeah, I think end of the DLC cycle for ME3.

But again, I can't say with certainty. If ME4 would reveal the endings to be literal, then I'd concede. If we never get a sequel, then I'm obviously wrong about that aspect, but that does not mean IT isn't true. Just that it will remain a valid possibility for an otherwise almost perfectly ambiguous ending.

pleeeeeease stop giving them such ideas...

From the 'Vigil' theme being subtly hidden in the main menu

it's been a long time since i played ME1 so please forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't the vigil theme the same as the one from the ME1 main menu? if it is, then it would be quite common to stay with the original, would it not?

anyway... thanks for your efforts on all of this...
i'm not quite sure about IT, but i'm always "all in" for "a lot of speculation"... ^^

[DoomsdayDevice]

Cheopz wrote...

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

Well, the thing is, they could do several things. They could throw us some kind of mega-hint, but still be ambiguous or unclear as to the details of events, which they could then clarify in ME4.

Honestly, I think it would make the most sense if they did a reveal as the very last thing in the DLC cycle. Obviously, such a worldshocker would have to come last. Any DLC following that would pale in comparison.

In a worst case scenario, we'll have to wait until ME4, but I can't imagine them being that cruel, and that would really hurt interest in the next game. So yeah, I think end of the DLC cycle for ME3.

But again, I can't say with certainty. If ME4 would reveal the endings to be literal, then I'd concede. If we never get a sequel, then I'm obviously wrong about that aspect, but that does not mean IT isn't true. Just that it will remain a valid possibility for an otherwise almost perfectly ambiguous ending.

pleeeeeease stop giving them such ideas...

From the 'Vigil' theme being subtly hidden in the main menu

it's been a long time since i played ME1 so please forgive me if i'm wrong, but isn't the vigil theme the same as the one from the ME1 main menu? if it is, then it would be quite common to stay with the original, would it not?

anyway... thanks for your efforts on all of this...
i'm not quite sure about IT, but i'm always "all in" for "a lot of speculation"... ^^

Yeah, it is the Mass Effect 1 main menu music. But in the ME 3 menu, it's hidden... there's all kinds of background sounds and you can only hear the music if you turn it up real loud or listen with headphones. I wouldn't have noticed if it hadn't been pointed out to me.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 09 décembre 2012 - 07:20 .

[DoomsdayDevice]

Found some more cool references!

This is after the Rachni mission, the Missing Scouts, Anderson on vidcom:

Anderson: Shepard. So I imagine you've wiped the galaxy clean of Reapers, and we can all come up for air?
Shepard: Not quite. There are a few complications.
Anderson: Aren't there always? Hackett filled me in on the Crucible. Sounds like you've got some knots to untangle.
(...)
Shepard: It's what you hired me to do.
Anderson: Mostly you were hired to kill Reapers. I hope you haven't been sidetracked by all the politics.
Shepard: Nothing I can't handle.

[Capt. Pancake]

I'm glad it will just stay speculation until ME4. This thread produces word clues and IT produces visual clues. Mass Effect has been such a great saga and (don't care what anyone else says) well written storys. I can't for one second think, for the end their thinking was "****** on it. slap this s**t together and get it out the door". So for me;
The only thing that makes sence is, it's not over...can't wait but I'll have to.

[Femlob]

You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into this theory, DoomsdayDevice, but I think you give BioWare too much credit. Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Modifié par Femlob, 14 décembre 2012 - 05:24 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Femlob wrote...

You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into this theory, DoomsdayDevice, but I think you give BioWare too much credit. Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Occams razor cant be applied to literary works since it does not allow for symbolism or metaphors. Even if it could, it is by no means meant to suggest the simplest explanation is always correct. It merely suggests it is. 

And if its simple youre after, then what could be simpler than a theory that accounts for all inconsistencies found in the ending with zero deviation from established lore? 

IT doesnt force you to head cannon stupid impossible stunts like surviving at ground zero of a thermo nuclear explosion followed by atmospheric re entry. IT offers the simplest explanation for that and many other things.

And how is Bioware being given too much credit? Theyve pulled off mind screw endings like this in several games.

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 14 décembre 2012 - 07:19 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

ops double post.

Modifié par GethPrimeMKII, 14 décembre 2012 - 07:15 .

[Femlob]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Femlob wrote...

You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into this theory, DoomsdayDevice, but I think you give BioWare too much credit. Occam's Razor: the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Occams razor cant be applied to literary works since it does not allow for symbolism or metaphors. Even if it could, it is by no means meant to suggest the simplest explanation is always correct. It merely suggests it is. 

And if its simple youre after, then what could be simpler than a theory that accounts for all inconsistencies found in the ending with zero deviation from established lore? 

IT doesnt force you to head cannon stupid impossible stunts like surviving at ground zero of a thermo nuclear explosion followed by atmospheric re entry. IT offers the simplest explanation for that and many other things.

And how is Bioware being given too much credit? Theyve pulled off mind screw endings like this in several games.

It's not that I inherently disagree with this theory, or even the IT - it's just that I don't buy that this was BioWare's intent all along. I subscribe to a much simpler theory: they f*cked up.

[GethPrimeMKII]

Ok, when you suggest they simply "f**ked up, you ignore the fact that they are well known for creating endings like this that trick players into making fatal decisions.

I suggest really taking a closer look at the trilogy and the theory itself. Indoctrination plays a huge role in the story and the intent to have that factor into Shepard's story are evident in many places in the game.

[RockSW]

blew muh mind

[Femlob]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Ok, when you suggest they simply "f**ked up, you ignore the fact that they are well known for creating endings like this that trick players into making fatal decisions.

I suggest really taking a closer look at the trilogy and the theory itself. Indoctrination plays a huge role in the story and the intent to have that factor into Shepard's story are evident in many places in the game.

Tricking players into making fatal choices is one thing. Expecting them to pay for the real ending after they've fallen for your trick, as theorized by this thread and others, is quite another.

If they didn't plan anything, they f*cked up. If they planned to have people pay for the real ending, they f*cked up. Either way, they f*cked up.

Modifié par Femlob, 14 décembre 2012 - 09:02 .

[GethPrimeMKII]

Femlob wrote...

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Ok, when you suggest they simply "f**ked up, you ignore the fact that they are well known for creating endings like this that trick players into making fatal decisions.

I suggest really taking a closer look at the trilogy and the theory itself. Indoctrination plays a huge role in the story and the intent to have that factor into Shepard's story are evident in many places in the game.

Tricking players into making fatal choices is one thing. Expecting them to pay for the real ending after they've fallen for your trick, as theorized by this thread and others, is quite another.

If they didn't plan anything, they f*cked up. If they planned to have people pay for the real ending, they f*cked up. Either way, they f*cked up.

Thats not f**king up, thats just how the gaming industry works now. Whether you like it or not DLC are how game companies stay afloat now. They will not be the first to make fans pay for a "real ending", nor will they be the last.

[Femlob]

GethPrimeMKII wrote...

Thats not f**king up, thats just how the gaming industry works now. Whether you like it or not DLC are how game companies stay afloat now. They will not be the first to make fans pay for a "real ending", nor will they be the last.

You don't see how the DLC model is f*cked up, and how anyone driving up the profit by cutting content intended to be in the base game and selling it as DLC is f*cking up? This is not "how the gaming industry works now" - it's simply another easy money scheme they pursue because customers allow them to get away with it.

[DoomsdayDevice]

It still remains to be seen if we'll have to pay for it.

And I think it will be clear it was all planned. All these finds are testimony to that, I think. Some people just won't see that until it's made official.

[Femlob]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

It still remains to be seen if we'll have to pay for it.

And I think it will be clear it was all planned. All these finds are testimony to that, I think. Some people just won't see that until it's made official.

Another free DLC? I can hear Riticello's heart explode all the way over here.

I never said that your theory could not become practice. I said that I doubt it, and that I think that it's f*cked up if it does.

Modifié par Femlob, 14 décembre 2012 - 01:43 .

[Mixxer5]

I quite like these examples posted in first post. On the other hand this can be over-interpreted...