252 réponses à ce sujet

[4stringwizard]

I know I'm going to get a ton of flak for this and get called lots of unflattering names, but here it goes. 

So I haven't posted any of my thoughts about this DLC but considering all that's been coming up lately about it, I decided to finally voice my thoughts.  I strongly believe that this final DLC will contribute significantly to the story, and it will give us the "true" ending to the trilogy.  Why do I think this?  Let's look at the facts:

1.  There are still unanswered questions.  For example: we still don't know where the crucible came from, how it works, etc.  You could say it's lazy writing, but I believe it was kept vague on purpose.  I believe the Crucible itself is more than we were led to believe, whether it's a Reaper trap, etc.  These questions will be clarified.

2.  Indoctrination theory is still alive.  Although it's been picked apart, IT has never been completely ruled out.  Bioware has never come out and said that IT is an invalid interpretation of the ending.  And there are still plenty of clues in the game that seem to imply the ending was not all as it seemed.  Even with the EC, certain things are fuzzy, such as the timing of Shepard's "breath scene" coming after the epilogue slide show.  (It could just be because there was no other good place to put it, but it still raises questions.)

3. The next DLC will be Citadel-related.  Where does the ending take place?  The Citadel.  And it has a high potential for tears.  What else could a high potential for tears mean?  Aside from the ending, I can't think of other meaningful ways the Citadel could be involved that would also give us a "high potential for tears."  

4.  Bioware said it will not be a post-ending DLC - and they're telling the truth. This DLC won't have post-ending content, rather it will ADD to the existing ending.  They also said they won't change the endings, and again they're telling the truth.  Because we haven't gotten the true "ending" yet.  (Semantics, I know, but still.)

5.  Marketing-wise, the current endings would make a sequel practically impossible.  For example, synthesis changes literaly every being in the galaxy - and the effect is implied to be permanent.  It's a lore-changing event that would make sequel-writing a living hell.  As a developer, how would you make a sequel that accomates for this, and the other endings, even if it's not a direct tie-in?  I doubt Bioware would do this.  They won't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs, nor would they write themselves into a corner that only lets them do a prequel. 


And that's just off the top of my head.  However, I don't think the DLC will be strictly ending-related.  I believe it will incorporate other gameply and story elements into ME3, with the ending content tied-in.  There's no other way Bioware could justify charging for it if it's just ending content.  But the ending will be influenced in some way.  If anything, it may serve as a "bridge" that opens up the storyline for a sequel. 

Of course, I could be wrong about the whole thing, and if that's the case, I will gladly eat crow, take any rotten tomatoes thrown my way etc.  But had to get that off my chest.  *ducks behind flame shield*  

[vware]

No it won't.

[Denethar]

You could just use on of the other 100 topics about the same thing.

Also, no, it won't be.

[Dragoonlordz]

I agree with the two people above myself in here, no it won't be (imho).

[Liamv2]

 https://encrypted-tb...2oANEJ_ee_JyVqx

[J0HNL3I]

Nope, but people will keep saying it is anyway and rage when it isnt

[abch4]

The problem is, most of the points you raise are community created and not by Bioware. Therefore in their eyes those points are invalid. Therefore these points don't need to be addressed. Like above, it won't be ending related.

[string3r]

Bu...bu...the speculations!!!

[in it for the lolz]

Were's a good facepalm meme were you need one?

[AlexMBrennan]

1. There are still unanswered questions. For example: we still don't know where the crucible came from, how it works, etc. You could say it's lazy writing, but I believe it was kept vague on purpose. I believe the Crucible itself is more than we were led to believe, whether it's a Reaper trap, etc. These questions will be clarified.

"X is desirable" does not imply "X is true". At best, you are saying that Bioware intentionally shipped an incomplete product.

IT has never been completely ruled out

IT is non-falsifiable, so you might just as well demand that we disprove the existence of cod. It's not possible to disprove it - that's what non-falsifiable means.

Btw, IT threads are not allowed.

What else could a high potential for tears mean

Literally anything - my money's on Onion DLC. Your lack of imagination does not magically force Bioware to make ending DLC.

4. Bioware said it will not be a post-ending DLC - and they're telling the truth. This DLC won't have post-ending content, rather it will ADD to the existing ending. They also said they won't change the endings, and again they're telling the truth. Because we haven't gotten the true "ending" yet. (Semantics, I know, but still.)

"X is possible" does not imply "X is true"

5. Marketing-wise, the current endings would make a sequel practically impossible. For example, synthesis changes literaly every being in the galaxy - and the effect is implied to be permanent. It's a lore-changing event that would make sequel-writing a living hell. As a developer, how would you make a sequel that accomates for this, and the other endings, even if it's not a direct tie-in?

I'm not sure Bioware is thinking that far ahead - they seem to be making up a lot of stuff as they go along (e.g. Scrapping dark energy)

Regardless, there are numerous options - making a prequel or a game happening in parallel (e.g. DA2), or retconning the ending, or doing a Bioware retcon (e.g. Udina/Anderson councillor choice).

[Linkforlife]

B..bu...but the artistic integrity ...

[Brhino]

Upcoming forum thread title WILL contain speculation stated as fact.

[Reth Shepherd]

1: If you look at the development timeline, particularly at how late the ending was written, it becomes more likely that it was written so vaguely because they had no clue what it was going to do.

2. IT has been effectively ruled out by the dev's recent efforts to squash out all threads concerning it and confining discussion to a frickin' group. Yeah, there are clues galore, but it doesn't look like IT was the intended answer. Unfortunately.

3: Bailey is aboard the Citadel, as is Aria, Conrad Verner, the Council, Khalissa, and lots of other characters. Any of their deaths would easily qualify for "high potential for tears". Also, and please bear in mind that I haven't been able to confirm this, I've heard that the datamined Citadel level was used in the Omega DLC. So we don't know for sure where this DLC will take place.

4. I hope you're right, but statements like 'I know I've sometimes played fast and loose with the truth, but in this case telling yourself that I'm lying is only settting yourself up for disappointment' (paraphrase because I can't remember exact line) isn't exactly a good sign.

5. It currently sounds like they're trying to write a story that happens concurrent with ME1-3.

TL:DR, it would be lovely, but I wouldn't get my hopes up. Find an alternate ending you like and go with that instead. (I personally recommend the excellent Marauder Shields comic, linked in my sig.)

Modifié par Reth Shepherd, 06 février 2013 - 07:46 .

[Brhino]

4. I hope you're right, but statements like 'I know I've sometimes played fast and loose with the truth, but in this case telling yourself that I'm lying is only settting yourself up for disappointment' (paraphrase because I can't remember exact line) isn't exactly a good sign.

Did Priestly or one of the other bioware guys actually admit somewhere that they've made statements in the past that have been untrue?  I haven't seen that, and I'd sure like to.

[CPTHughJardon]

Sion1138 wrote...

Now you will be insulted multiple times by a bunch of a-holes.

very true

[Liamv2]

in it for the lolz wrote...

Were's a good facepalm meme were you need one?

Have 2

*meme image deleted as spam per Site Rule #6*

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 06 février 2013 - 11:39 .

[Maxster_]

What a pathetic thread.

[in it for the lolz]

Liamv2 wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

Were's a good facepalm meme were you need one?

Have 2

*meme image deleted as spam per Site Rule #6*

Do you have one that says "not this again"?

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 06 février 2013 - 11:39 .

[archangel1996]

I like these truth "No, it won't cuz i said so" "Yes, it will"
Wait

[Bendigoe]

You open the thread with your opinion stated as a fact.

You closed your post on the second to last line by contradicting your thread title.

[adam32867]

CPTHughJardon wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Now you will be insulted multiple times by a bunch of a-holes.

very true

and its usually by the same people who complain about how hostile bsn is...

[CPTHughJardon]

in it for the lolz wrote...

Liamv2 wrote...

in it for the lolz wrote...

Were's a good facepalm meme were you need one?

Have 2

*meme image deleted as spam per Site Rule #6*

Do you have one that says "not this again"?

how about one that says "its not compulsory to reply to every thread"?

Modifié par Selene Moonsong, 06 février 2013 - 11:40 .

[StElmo]

If you have a source, I'm happy to listen, otherwise I'm sorry but it's just hype

Hope you have a nice day mate, but lay off the wild imagination

[CPTHughJardon]

adam32867 wrote...

CPTHughJardon wrote...

Sion1138 wrote...

Now you will be insulted multiple times by a bunch of a-holes.

very true

and its usually by the same people who complain about how hostile bsn is...

im glad im not the only one to notice that.