354 réponses à ce sujet

[Ithurael]

Han Shot First wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
I think the above image pretty much sums it up. They believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is that, exactly?  Your own opinion? 

Bioware stating that they are done with the endings. For IT to be true, there needs to be DLC content that confirms it as such. That DLC isn't happending.

Finally, the Refuse ending firmly debunked indoctrination theory. If the end sequence was just a massive mind game with Shepard battling indoctrination, refusing to play along should be a victory. Instead it ends with the destruction of every space faring civilization and the annihilation of every space faring species, including humanity.

Actually, that is the real IT breaker.

You see refuse is the only option that ISN'T outright offered and you need to use ME's mechanics to get to it:
- Dialog wheel (Prime Mechanic)
- Shoot the kid (gameplay mechanic)

It is a hidden choice- the one the reapers don't want shep to see. All other options lead to indoctrination. In the refuse, shepard breaks indoctrination, the reapers harvest all life, and the next cycle (because of shepards actions) stops the reapers.

10/10 Brilliant!

[eddieoctane]

Ithurael wrote...

Charlieblacko wrote...

As a believer of IT i'm quite willing to hold my hands up and let it go if its not elaborated on in the final DLC for ME3. Although I will be dissapointed they wasted such potential for an ending.

SEE! This is what we need! If ITers truly believe that IT is bioware's intention then I really do think we all need to set some kind of measurable metric to ping against. You cannot just say "I hope they leave it open and ambiguous forever" as - with how IT works - you are left with no ending.

Honestly, for the sake of sanity I really do think that we should set down some kind of landmark that is:
- Absolute (Shep was dreaming and the ending did not actually happen)
- Definite (no subjective interpretaion or bias can show otherwise)

Basically, my qualification criteria is: After shooting the tube, shep wakes up on earth and completes the war against the reapers. That is really simple when you think about it.

Otherwise everyone will be left up in the air speculating.

Speculation isn't always a bad thing. If you only leave a few details open to debate, you have an interesting discussion. Inception had room for speculation with the closing scene. Was it all Leo's dream or was it "real" (as real as jumping around inside someone else's dreams can be)? Only one brief scene was open for debate and it harkened back to something that had been touched on all throughout the film.

ME3 was very literal and then suddenly leaves people scratching their heads. The horror of war against someone who wants your extinction. Then it gets all philosophical at the last second and ask people to speculate what really happened. That doesn't work. And instead of having 2 distinct possible explanations, we have a whole spectrum of ideas that are very incompatible with one another. A game that played as literal as ME3 shouldn't have had room for "is this just a mindf***" to even be thought up. But when little hints at indoctrination are sprinkled throughout the game and then the plotline is supposedly dropped, you end up with chaos.

[DoomsdayDevice]

AlanC9 wrote...

The only downside for me will be having The Twilight God running around the forums proclaiming that he was right all along (since IT-Con will no longer be disprovable), but I can live with that.

I'm pretty sure IT-Con will not turn out to be correct. I'm pretty sure classic IT (everything after Harbinger's laser = illusion) is more correct.

I guess we're going to have to wait and see.

Also, TTG didn't 'invent' IT-Con either. It's just one of the many variants of IT.

[DoomsdayDevice]

Ithurael wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...

ElSuperGecko wrote...

Han Shot First wrote...
I think the above image pretty much sums it up. They believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What evidence is that, exactly?  Your own opinion? 

Bioware stating that they are done with the endings. For IT to be true, there needs to be DLC content that confirms it as such. That DLC isn't happending.

Finally, the Refuse ending firmly debunked indoctrination theory. If the end sequence was just a massive mind game with Shepard battling indoctrination, refusing to play along should be a victory. Instead it ends with the destruction of every space faring civilization and the annihilation of every space faring species, including humanity.

Actually, that is the real IT breaker.

You see refuse is the only option that ISN'T outright offered and you need to use ME's mechanics to get to it:
- Dialog wheel (Prime Mechanic)
- Shoot the kid (gameplay mechanic)

It is a hidden choice- the one the reapers don't want shep to see. All other options lead to indoctrination. In the refuse, shepard breaks indoctrination, the reapers harvest all life, and the next cycle (because of shepards actions) stops the reapers.

10/10 Brilliant!

No, in refuse you don't want to destroy the Reapers any more, because the catalyst told you it will kill your friends.

In destroy, you reject his logic and fight on.

Modifié par DoomsdayDevice, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:20 .

[dorktainian]

i suppose the question really is....

'If IT is confirmed to be a part of the story of Mass Effect 3 will the non-ITers ever live it down'?

[Fingertrip]

If you people have any education within design and business, they will know that IT was never the case, and will never ever be released as a bonus-content tied to the ending. It makes no sense, and is a bad business model.

Seriously, it's just mind boggling stupidity that ties IT to their believers. It's hilarious :-)

[ElSuperGecko]

Han Shot First wrote...
Bioware stating that they are done with the endings. For IT to be true, there needs to be DLC content that confirms it as such. That DLC isn't happening.

The bolded part is simply not true.  It does not actually require or necessiate any changes to the end of ME3.  Bioware saying Shepard's story is done with ME3, and that they are done with the endings doesn't preclude them giving additional in-game context to the final decision in future DLC, like they did with Leviathan.  The conversation with Leviathan takes part in Shepard's mind, and they communicate with Shepard using features figures and memories from Shepard's past.  This directly foreshadows the Catalyst conversation, where Shepard converses with a (ghostly) figure from the past, proving that it could just as easily take place inside Shepard's mind.

The Leviathan DLC changed the conversation with the Catalyst, and gave us insight into it.  It did NOT change the endings.  Bioware only need make one or two silimar changes in upcoming DLC, and IT would be all but revealed.  Truthfully though, they don't even have to do that - they wanted speculation, they can keep the fans guessing until the end of time if they want.  Until they say something either way - as Chris Priestly saids - "IT is a perfectly valid interpretation of the endings."

Finally, the Refuse ending firmly debunked indoctrination theory. If the end sequence was just a massive mind game with Shepard battling indoctrination, refusing to play along with the Catalyst should be a victory over indoctrination. Instead it ends with the destruction of every space faring civilization and the annihilation of every space faring species, including humanity.

..........nope.

Sorry, but the Refuse ending within IT..hell, even within the literal interpretation actually represents Shepard giving up.  When given the choice between Destroying, Controlling or Synthesising with the Reapers, Shepard decides to... not decide.  To leave the hard decision to everyone else.  It's just all too much. And so Shepard dithers, and waits, as the races fighting to give Shepard the chance die.  We're told all along "Conventional victory is impossible against the Reapers".  Shepard MUST make a decision.  Instead... Shepard capitulates.  SO BE IT. 

In this case, Shepard never wakes up.  The Victory fleet is annhillated.  THE CYCLE CONTINUES.

[Maxster_]

Fingertrip wrote...

If you people have any education within design and business, they will know that IT was never the case, and will never ever be released as a bonus-content tied to the ending. It makes no sense, and is a bad business model.

Seriously, it's just mind boggling stupidity that ties IT to their believers. It's hilarious :-)

Exactly.
This is also completely ignored by ITers.

[Finlandiaprkl]

Han Shot First wrote...

[supercoolimage]

I think the above image pretty much sums it up. They believe what they want to believe, despite all evidence to the contrary.

What evidence? There is no evidence that IT is true, but there is no evidence telling otherwise.

[Fingertrip]

Javik also tells there are probably more hard choices that lies ahead in his final speech at the forward base. An obvious subtle hint towards the three difficult choices you're presented with in the end. Not taking a stand at the end is just weak.

[Ithurael]

DoomsdayDevice wrote...

No, in refuse you don't want to destroy the Reapers any more, because the catalyst told you it will kill your friends.

In destroy, you reject his logic and fight on.

Also, refuse the reapers is rejecting all of the "options" given to you by the starbinger. It makes no sense that he would just outright give you or even present you with an option to break free of indoctrination. Even in low ems shep can choose destroy thus breaking indoc but killing him. no way. He even tells you that in refuse the reapers will kill all of your allies (not just some). Starkid does NOT want you to pick refuse.

Bioware came through, they delivered IT. In the refuse ending shepard acts like shepard and doesn't go along with anything starbinger suggests or offers and it fits with one of the biggest key themes foreshadowed since ME1: Freedom.

Yes the reapers harvest the races in this ending, yes you die, but you break the indoctrination and everyone dies free and the next cycle is truly able to defeat the reapers because of your choices in the trilogy.

[PinkysPain]

StElmo wrote...
Will it only be when ME4 canonizes or refers to the ME3 finale in a way that solidifies it?

ME4 will not be a sequel, IT will remain.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:36 .

[dorktainian]

Fingertrip wrote...

If you people have any education within design and business, they will know that IT was never the case, and will never ever be released as a bonus-content tied to the ending. It makes no sense, and is a bad business model.

Seriously, it's just mind boggling stupidity that ties IT to their believers. It's hilarious :-)

you mean like how they retconned the endings because actually explosive decompression(normandys engines blowing off) in space is a really bad idea, (lungs exposed to the vacumm of space would explode....ewww,,, bits of joker all over space)and having people mysteriously transport onto the normandy as it leaves the system while running away like a chicken made a lot of sense?Oh and not forgetting the incredible and flawless ending that never turned up, and left more question than a 747 cargo plane full of cases of 1001 questions about questions?

fwiw i am in business and management and the first rule of business is that the CUSTOMER is always right.  Trying to alienate you customer base as  bioware did by claiming we 'didnt get it' (when most of the planet didnt get it) was a really shrewd business move...so shrewd people took the game back to amazon claiming that it wasnt finished and amazon gave them a FULL REFUND. 

but thats ok.  It's all our fault.

[RukiaKuchki]

I think it's great that there is still so much controversy and discussion 9 months on. Like it or not, ME3 has really got people talking passionately about a game. For the vast majority of other games, there is no where near this amount of passion (positive or negative) so long after release. It just shows how much the ME universe has gotten under everyone's skin. Pretty cool really.

[dreamgazer]

Fingertrip wrote...

If you people have any education within design and business, they will know that IT was never the case, and will never ever be released as a bonus-content tied to the ending. It makes no sense, and is a bad business model.

Seriously, it's just mind boggling stupidity that ties IT to their believers. It's hilarious :-)

(laughs) 

It still amuses me how much your tune's changed since earlier this year, when you would berate anybody who didn't believe in IT.

[PinkysPain]

RukiaKuchki wrote...
Pretty cool really.

I haven't bought DA2 and won't buy a prequel ME4 ... just cause I'm talking doesn't mean I'm buying.

[hukbum]

@ Fingertrip and Maxter_
Stupid question: What more can BW loose atm to say this would be a bad business plan?
It would be a DLC, not a game. And it would also work towards a sequel, because it would create some sort of canon ending.
To see how devided the fanbase is atm something like "bad business plan" doesn't really fit to prove anything imo.

[dreamgazer]

RukiaKuchki wrote...

Pretty cool really.

It's sorta interesting in a performance art kind of way, but it'll be equally as interesting to see what's left of the rubble when moving forward with another game.

[Cyberfrog81]

HYR 2.0 wrote...

If I'm fine with the ridiculous fan-love for MEHEM, I can be fine with people's contentment with indoc-headcanon.

What I do NOT like is people pissan in my ear and tellan me it's rainan. And that's people who subscribe to IT and say they like the ending. That's like someone who downloads MEHEM saying they like the ending (after MEHEM). You do not, you've changed it so drastically from what we're given at face-value that it's BS to say you like it.

Wut? I'm an anti-ender, but ITers typically believe the ending is ingenious. Therefore, they like it. Why wouldn't they?

Interpretations other than face-value aren't invalidated by you disliking them or calling them "headcanon". ME3 was not meant to be a 100% literal no-use-of-your-imagination-allowed kind of game. Since the ending is "art" (apparently) you have to live with different interpretations. Even the EC didn't change that, but future content might.

And I reject with the idea that any interpretation is valid interpretation. Bioware's diplomatic statement therein is hollow. IMO, there *is* a right and wrong way to interpret things.

So... when it is finally revealed that synthesis is a terrible choice, you'll be happy with that?

Might not happen; the point is that their "diplomatic" behavior doesn't just benefit ITers.

Modifié par Cyberfrog81, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:52 .

[Maxster_]

hukbum wrote...

@ Fingertrip and Maxter_
Stupid question: What more can BW loose atm to say this would be a bad business plan?
It would be a DLC, not a game. And it would also work towards a sequel, because it would create some sort of canon ending.
To see how devided the fanbase is atm something like "bad business plan" doesn't really fit to prove anything imo.

Bad business plan - is making game with no ending, and then release ending after a year. It makes absolutely no sense from business perspective.
And this means, IT was never planned. Or EA is insane and don't like money.
I'll go for former. It is hard to believe that company that ripped off game content to sell it separately(from ashes) will suddenly lose taste for money.

As for release of DLC with a new ending - why they should care? ME3 is a lost cause, they changed target audience - there is no reason to bring back former fans : ME3 was a financial success, ME3 DLCs is a success(although not even close to ME1 and ME2 dlcs), garbage stand-alone shooter does not require same effort like rpg(on lore, on coherent writing, on dialogues), thus you can cut development time and expenses.
Also, to make ME3 close to ME1 in quality, you need to remake more than half a game. And ending DLC won't help.

Modifié par Maxster_, 06 décembre 2012 - 09:59 .

[Ithurael]

Maxster_ wrote...

hukbum wrote...

@ Fingertrip and Maxter_
Stupid question: What more can BW loose atm to say this would be a bad business plan?
It would be a DLC, not a game. And it would also work towards a sequel, because it would create some sort of canon ending.
To see how devided the fanbase is atm something like "bad business plan" doesn't really fit to prove anything imo.

Bad business plan - is making game with no ending, and then release ending after a year. It makes absolutely no sense from business perspective.
And this means, IT was never planned. Or EA is insane and don't like money.
I'll go for former. It is hard to believe that company that ripped off game content to sell it separately(from ashes) will suddenly lose taste for money.

As for release of DLC with a new ending - why they should care? ME3 is a lost cause, they changed target audience - there is no reason to bring back former fans : ME3 was a financial success, ME3 DLCs is a success(although not even close to ME1 and ME2 dlcs), garbage stand-alone shooter does not require same effort like rpg(on lore, on coherent writing, on dialogues), thus you can cut development time and expenses.

with respect I know that blizzard is doing this with WOW expansions. They tell the story via the patches to each expansion. The patches are 'free' because you pay the service and have - of course - bought the expansion

[PinkysPain]

Shooters might be less expensive, but ME2 and ME3 already showed they can skimp on quite a lot and still sell and review well ... a succesful franchise with almost guarantueed profitability is worth a lot, plenty of high profile shooters have bombed lately ...

Killing the franchise with an ending which precludes sequels was a massively costly mistake, it might be more profitable to fix the ending so you can actually have sequels.

Modifié par PinkysPain, 06 décembre 2012 - 10:04 .

[hukbum]

@Maxter_
So whatever they do it's doomed?
So why bring up (or in your case confirm/approve whatever) that argument anyway?
Doesn't really matter or fit at this point.

[Maxster_]

Ithurael wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

hukbum wrote...

@ Fingertrip and Maxter_
Stupid question: What more can BW loose atm to say this would be a bad business plan?
It would be a DLC, not a game. And it would also work towards a sequel, because it would create some sort of canon ending.
To see how devided the fanbase is atm something like "bad business plan" doesn't really fit to prove anything imo.

Bad business plan - is making game with no ending, and then release ending after a year. It makes absolutely no sense from business perspective.
And this means, IT was never planned. Or EA is insane and don't like money.
I'll go for former. It is hard to believe that company that ripped off game content to sell it separately(from ashes) will suddenly lose taste for money.

As for release of DLC with a new ending - why they should care? ME3 is a lost cause, they changed target audience - there is no reason to bring back former fans : ME3 was a financial success, ME3 DLCs is a success(although not even close to ME1 and ME2 dlcs), garbage stand-alone shooter does not require same effort like rpg(on lore, on coherent writing, on dialogues), thus you can cut development time and expenses.

with respect I know that blizzard is doing this with WOW expansions. They tell the story via the patches to each expansion. The patches are 'free' because you pay the service and have - of course - bought the expansion

You know, WOW is an MMO. With a subscription.
And as for MMO EAWare's style - we have a gigantic failure called SWTOR.

Comparing MMO with a singleplayer game... You really have no idea what MMO is, and what MMO is about. 

[Fawx9]

Ithurael wrote...

Maxster_ wrote...

hukbum wrote...

@ Fingertrip and Maxter_
Stupid question: What more can BW loose atm to say this would be a bad business plan?
It would be a DLC, not a game. And it would also work towards a sequel, because it would create some sort of canon ending.
To see how devided the fanbase is atm something like "bad business plan" doesn't really fit to prove anything imo.

Bad business plan - is making game with no ending, and then release ending after a year. It makes absolutely no sense from business perspective.
And this means, IT was never planned. Or EA is insane and don't like money.
I'll go for former. It is hard to believe that company that ripped off game content to sell it separately(from ashes) will suddenly lose taste for money.

As for release of DLC with a new ending - why they should care? ME3 is a lost cause, they changed target audience - there is no reason to bring back former fans : ME3 was a financial success, ME3 DLCs is a success(although not even close to ME1 and ME2 dlcs), garbage stand-alone shooter does not require same effort like rpg(on lore, on coherent writing, on dialogues), thus you can cut development time and expenses.

with respect I know that blizzard is doing this with WOW expansions. They tell the story via the patches to each expansion. The patches are 'free' because you pay the service and have - of course - bought the expansion

Oh come on, that's not a fair comparison at all.

As shaky as Blizzard lore can be at times (they have no fear of retconning things) a game like WoW needs to have some reason for each patch/new content. And the best way to do that is leverage the giganctic world they have built and add new stories to it. 

It's slightly different than the ending of a trilogy of mainly SP games.