166 réponses à ce sujet

[Codename_Code]

Indy_S wrote...

I'm going to point out that the literal interpretation is more common than the Indoctrination Theory. These two are rather conflicting and if we're going by the majority, the literal one will win out.

Im talking about true mass effect fans, people in love with this lore, that would know that shepard is indoctrination target number 1 for the reapers. Obviously, most people jumping on 3 or skipping dialogues and not paying attention to details would go literal on everything, 3 games of " destroy the reapers" to then go and pick synth, nuances and logic are really not for everybody but yet still we are many ... of course, I wont get any support now, since all IT supporters are kicked by master troll moderation.

Why are you saying bioware is copying indoctrination on shepard from the fans ? have you not played ME1 ? did you skipped dialogues on ME2 ? are you ignoring the clues on ME3 just because ?. IT is not fan written, this is an interpretation of what is there. Ugh, At this point I just want the dlc to be released, all that had to be said about indoctrination theory is said, is up to bioware to reveal it, not up to you haters, get a clue about nuances in stroytelling, not everything is literal like in your call of duties.

Sorry for double post, wrong button.

Modifié par Codename_Code, 25 février 2013 - 01:35 .

[GiarcYekrub]

Codename_Code wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

I'm going to point out that the literal interpretation is more common than the Indoctrination Theory. These two are rather conflicting and if we're going by the majority, the literal one will win out.

Im talking about true mass effect fans, people in love with this lore, that would know that shepard is indoctrination target number 1 for the reapers. Obviously, most people jumping on 3 or skipping dialogues and not paying attention to details would go literal on everything, 3 games of " destroy the reapers" to then go and pick synth, nuances and logic are really not for everybody but yet still we are many ... of course, I wont get any support now, since all IT supporters are kicked by master troll moderation.

I've played 4 Trilogy runs, and 100% Achevements on all 3 games and I pick Synthsis, Destroying the Reapers isn't Shepards goal, "Stopping" the Reapers is, Destroy is an option but for me the price is too high, I will not commit Genocide. Personally if the catalyst wanted to influence Sheps decision why offer the other options in the first place

[Lefardo]

Bio listens, they just ignore anything that includes the word "ending".

[Nerevar-as]

Kataphrut94 wrote...

Is a post-ending DLC really necessary at this stage? With the Extended Cut you have everything wrapped up and all the closure you could possibly need.

Will the galactic goverments try to destroy ShepAIrd? Was that Shepard´s last breath? How could a machine perform a miracle but not distinguish different types of AIs? Why is Javik still alive on synthesis? What do husks think of what was done to them (especially cannibals)? Why is everybody happy after being forced to mutate?

And so on.

There´s no closure. And because of the tone of the ending ***pull, most especulations are of the bad kind. Compare to the ending of The Wheel of Time, which manages to both close the main conflict and launch a thousand especulations and do it right.

[Uncle Jo]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

When I heard that there was controversy arround the ending my biggest fear was that it was all a dream, I find it funny that this what IT'ers actually want.

Yeah, people having different opinions can be quite funny.

On another note, still hoping for an ending fix after one year really baffles me.

Eight months ago the EC showed clearly the line Bioware took: "We'll bring clarity and closure (naturally their understanding of) but we won't change the endings". Since then they considered their job done.

If there was any doubt left, it was destroyed with Leviathan.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 février 2013 - 01:39 .

[Xellith]

A few things I often hear;
1. Bioware listens but does not have to do anything.
2. Bioware makes DLC and games that will make money since they are a business.

I mean we are often told that they are listening. We do see that reflected in dlc to some extent, however they dont have to make anything that they do not want to make. Thats fair I guess. However on the flipside we are constantly told (by people like the BSN mods) that Bioware is a business and they care about the bottom line. I really cannot reconcile those two points together without coming to the conclusion that either Bioware does not think post ending is something that will sell, or they know that post ending content will sell, however its easier to just make other things that will bring in more money. 

Correct my reasoning if its flawed.

Modifié par Xellith, 25 février 2013 - 01:49 .

[iorveth1271]

Codename_Code wrote...

Why are you saying bioware is copying indoctrination on shepard from the fans ? have you not played ME1 ? did you skipped dialogues on ME2 ? are you ignoring the clues on ME3 just because ?. IT is not fan written, this is an interpretation of what is there. Ugh, At this point I just want the dlc to be released, all that had to be said about indoctrination theory is said, is up to bioware to reveal it, not up to you haters, get a clue about nuances in stroytelling, not everything is literal like in your call of duties.

You're childish, you know? Calling people haters for disagreeing with your opinion, assuming I play Call of Duty and presuming to know the way I played the ME series.

Let me tell you then. I played ME1 5 times, made 5 different characters, ALWAYS chose every single possible dialogue option and roleplayed every single character - no pure Paragon, no pure Renegade. I skipped no dialogues, and yes - I can see hints at Indoctrination on Shepard. I played Arrival - I fought Object Rho, on Insanity, and lived. Three times.

I know there are things in ME3 that *could* be interpreted as hints at Indoctrination, like the dreams, or certain design oversights. And yes, I'm calling it design oversights, and do you know why? Because that's also an interpretation and unlike you, I don't presume everyone has to see it the same way. IT is ultimately fan-written, because there are several things in IT that, all writing skill on the Youtubers part considered and respected, do not make sense to me, sorry.

For me, Bioware has absolutely nothing to reveal. I'm wondering how often they need to tell the community that "post-ending content will NOT be released" before the fans shut it. I love nuanced storytelling, but frankly?

A theory, as well thought-out as it may be, is still just a theory.

[Ieldra]

liggy002 wrote...
Asking for Harbinger to be included in a DLC was also pretty reasonable considering that he was the primary antagonist and Mass Efffect 2 and was evidently supposed to represent Sovereign's successor.

I concur that it's not unreasonable, but this may be an example of "it's not that easy". You'd have to fit Harbinger into the story somewhere and give him an identity distinctive from the Catalyst. Unfortunately, the way ME3 was written made the Catalyst subsume Harbinger's role, so that any distinctive identity would run the danger of appearing out of character with the established personality of ME2 - which, may I remind you, a great many people didn't like and/or couldn't take seriously.  

As I see it, Harbinger was burned as an antagonist by his trash talk in ME2. The decision to keep him out of ME3 as a main antagonist appears reasonable to me. 

[Indy_S]

Nerevar-as wrote...

There´s no closure. And because of the tone of the ending ***pull, most especulations are of the bad kind. Compare to the ending of The Wheel of Time, which manages to both close the main conflict and launch a thousand especulations and do it right.

I was so happy with what The Wheel of Time did. The author managed to tie together so many over-stretched plots together and resolve them beautifully. The climax was actually climactic. And enough was shown of 'after the war' that you had an idea of what was going on.

Poor Hurin. Died in a single line. #notspoilerishspoiler

[Codename_Code]

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I've played 4 Trilogy runs, and 100% Achevements on all 3 games and I pick Synthsis, Destroying the Reapers isn't Shepards goal, "Stopping" the Reapers is, Destroy is an option but for me the price is too high, I will not commit Genocide. Personally if the catalyst wanted to influence Sheps decision why offer the other options in the first place

Thats the beauty of the ending, at the end shepard is not shepard, it is you standing there, and the ending does not care if you payed attention all along or not. Oh, you dont want to kill EDI, even when she told you specifically that her life was on your hands with the only porpuse of killing the reapers ?, well let me show you some happy hug synthesis, asencion is not that bad after all if a kid is the one talking and not a repaer.

Anyways, Back to the topic, the DLc is closed and bioware took their desicion to who are they really listening, or if they are really not listening at all. We all want a satisfiying ending, we all hate the nonsense ending, and we all want something that allow us keep loving mass effect. Thats it, is up to bioware to shine or fall.

[Legbiter]

Gangnam Style wrote...

David7204 wrote...

That was a single sentence in a fairly long conversation with Merizan and that's it...How about we stop acting as if she consulted with twenty writers beforehand to carefully craft a public statement on BioWare's writing practices?

Also, I'm fairly sure she clarified it immediately afterward.

fans are retarded

I used to resent statements like these.

Now I see them as simple truths.

[Berty213]

Codename_Code wrote...
 we all hate the nonsense ending

Actually I liked the EC.

[iorveth1271]

Codename_Code wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

I've played 4 Trilogy runs, and 100% Achevements on all 3 games and I pick Synthsis, Destroying the Reapers isn't Shepards goal, "Stopping" the Reapers is, Destroy is an option but for me the price is too high, I will not commit Genocide. Personally if the catalyst wanted to influence Sheps decision why offer the other options in the first place

Thats the beauty of the ending, at the end shepard is not shepard, it is you standing there, and the ending does not care if you payed attention all along or not. Oh, you dont want to kill EDI, even when she told you specifically that her life was on your hands with the only porpuse of killing the reapers ?, well let me show you some happy hug synthesis, asencion is not that bad after all if a kid is the one talking and not a repaer.

Anyways, Back to the topic, the DLc is closed and bioware took their desicion to who are they really listening, or if they are really not listening at all. We all want a satisfiying ending, we all hate the nonsense ending, and we all want something that allow us keep loving mass effect. Thats it, is up to bioware to shine or fall.

My Shepard was still my Shepard, sorry. Pulling the Refusal through dialogue and having Shepard say EXACTLY what I would've said... Why is it not my Shepard again? Oh right, because you said so...

When did EDI tell you that her life was on your hands for killing the Reapers? How can she do that when she's dead, again?

Once again, you presume, presume and presume. Bioware listening does not equal they'll grant your every wish, I never get tired of quoting the devs on that. I personally have my satisfying ending in Refusal, so saying "we all hate the nonsense ending" is BS - again presuming, are we?

Your problem is that you're letting 10 minutes ruin a 500+ hour experience. I'm wondering, how much do you really love Mass Effect?

[De1ta G]

It isn't like they ignored the fans and just made up a random dlc to throw at us. They know that a lot of fans wanted the endings changed, and yes post-ending content counts as changing, but that was nonnegotiable. So they made dlc filled with other things a lot of fans were asking for. I've seen plenty of topics on these boards asking for me content with your ME2 squad.

[Rotacioskapa]

Numbers Don't Lie: Bioware's Fan Majority Still Upset

[iorveth1271]

Rotacioskapa wrote...

Numbers Don't Lie: Bioware's Fan Majority Still Upset

Posting someone's youtube video isn't really a good way to prove your point, ya know. Especially when it's been discussed before.

[spirosz]

Codename_Code wrote...

Indy_S wrote...

I'm going to point out that the literal interpretation is more common than the Indoctrination Theory. These two are rather conflicting and if we're going by the majority, the literal one will win out.

Im talking about true mass effect fans, people in love with this lore, that would know that shepard is indoctrination target number 1 for the reapers. Obviously, most people jumping on 3 or skipping dialogues and not paying attention to details would go literal on everything, 3 games of " destroy the reapers" to then go and pick synth, nuances and logic are really not for everybody but yet still we are many ... of course, I wont get any support now, since all IT supporters are kicked by master troll moderation.

Why are you saying bioware is copying indoctrination on shepard from the fans ? have you not played ME1 ? did you skipped dialogues on ME2 ? are you ignoring the clues on ME3 just because ?. IT is not fan written, this is an interpretation of what is there. Ugh, At this point I just want the dlc to be released, all that had to be said about indoctrination theory is said, is up to bioware to reveal it, not up to you haters, get a clue about nuances in stroytelling, not everything is literal like in your call of duties.

Sorry for double post, wrong button.

You're hilarious, people who disagree with your interpretation are not wrong, they just don't view it as you do, not calling them "true fans" is just as disrespectful.

[Asch Lavigne]

There's a difference between listening and doing.

Also, they never said "we listen to everything ever said."

Plus, with so many people saying so many different things how can they listen to it all? How do you keep everyone happy when there are so many opinions? Take the ending for example, some people think a happy ending would fix it while others say fixing Starbrat would.

[Codename_Code]

iorveth1271 wrote...

When did EDI tell you that her life was on your hands for killing the Reapers? How can she do that when she's dead, again?

Your problem is that you're letting 10 minutes ruin a 500+ hour experience. I'm wondering, how much do you really love Mass Effect?

It is really hard to miss, I think you will need to do another playtrough , Ill give you a clue, she talk about this really clear, and really honestly before she is "dead ".

We are talking about how much is bioware listening to the fans, and I must say, they have it really hard when so many players have so many interpretations of this confussing dreamy mess of an ending/cliffhanger. A guy up there even likes the EC, you love to refuse, and my shepard rejected an indoctrination attempt and is waking up in some ruble in london.

People REALLY want something that have to do with the ending, and if they dont touch it they are in absolute denial, and make this " we are listening" statement really confusing.

About me calling literalist "not fans", sorry but we IT supporters have been called fan faction writers for so long Im starting to get the Hate mood, we are all equal here discussing this matter. Lets just wait for the DLC to settle it, I hope.

Modifié par Codename_Code, 25 février 2013 - 02:12 .

[spirosz]

Well of course they listen, but most of the time, the feedback they get, is nothing more than "I don't like this", instead of giving constructive ideas on how to improve for future content. The ending specifically, I have rarely heard any good ideas that would establish a better executed ending, there are some good ideas, or overhauls, especially one written by drayfish, but it's easy to write something well, when you're not thinking about animation, budget, VA, etc.

[Uncle Jo]

Ieldra2 wrote...


I concur that it's not unreasonable, but this may be an example of "it's not that easy". You'd have to fit Harbinger into the story somewhere and give him an identity distinctive from the Catalyst. Unfortunately, the way ME3 was written made the Catalyst subsume Harbinger's role, so that any distinctive identity would run the danger of appearing out of character with the established personality of ME2 - which, may I remind you, a great many people didn't like and/or couldn't take seriously.  

As I see it, Harbinger was burned as an antagonist by his trash talk in ME2. The decision to keep him out of ME3 as a main antagonist appears reasonable to me. 

1- Indeed. I personally am for Harby having somehow a role in the last dlc, but I understand that it could open even more holes in the story as there already are.

2- It isn't for me. Harbinger was set to be the main antagonist in ME3. Delete his trash talk and that's it. Don't reduce him to a mute cameo. You can't replace him by something the player never heard about and give it motivations that contradicts every single thing you saw in 99,9% of the three games.

Instead of enhancing things BW simply removed them (or eventually replace them by something even worse: Mako/planet scan, inventary, hacking, dialogue wheel, auto-dialogue...). This kind of attitude is responsible for ME evolving from an Action-RPG to a TPS with RPG elements. And partly of the ending debacle.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 février 2013 - 02:14 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Carger1887 wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...
You're a minority, BioWare even said so.

Get used to it.

And you are a blind follower.  Watch the video he posted.  Do a little research.  Look up polls, they aren't hard to find.  If Bioware really had numbers you think they wouldn't release them to justify thier assinine decisions?  They have misled and made false promises throughout this whole debacle.  Why would they stop now?  Every single friend I've talked to, every single person I've raised mass effect 3 with has talked about the ending.  And they are ALL dissatisified, even angry, a full year later.  When you establish trust and make a promise you have an obligation to those that relationship is with.  So cut your bull**** statements and find a little evidence before pretending you know anything.  

perfectly summed up, the drones defending bioware wont even acknowledge the proof in the vid let alone all the polls, they take biowares word as fact and are basically sheep and will swallow whatever biowares massive dong gives them, the proof is in the pudding and poll after poll show the ending is crap and needs rectifying. Other devs admit there mistakes and sorted it out so why dont bioware? Oh yeah i forgot they dont want to be a videogame, unless ofcourse they have dlc they want you to buy.

Modifié par clarkusdarkus, 25 février 2013 - 02:19 .

[Uncle Jo]

clarkusdarkus wrote...

Carger1887 wrote...

Jadebaby wrote...

You're a minority, BioWare even said so.

Get used to it.

And you are a blind follower.  Watch the video he posted.  Do a little research.  Look up polls, they aren't hard to find.  If Bioware really had numbers you think they wouldn't release them to justify thier assinine decisions?  They have misled and made false promises throughout this whole debacle.  Why would they stop now?  Every single friend I've talked to, every single person I've raised mass effect 3 with has talked about the ending.  And they are ALL dissatisified, even angry, a full year later.  When you establish trust and make a promise you have an obligation to those that relationship is with.  So cut your bull**** statements and find a little evidence before pretending you know anything.  

perfectly summed up, the droned defending bioware wont even acknowledge the proof in the vid let alone all the polls, they take biowares word as fact and are basically sheep and will swallow whatever biowares massive dong gives them, the proof is in the pudding and poll after poll show the ending is crap and needs rectifying. Other devs admit there mistakes and sorted it out so why dont bioware? Oh yeah i forgot they dont want to be a videogame, unless ofcourse they have dlc they want you to buy.

You don't know Jadebaby do you? Because if it was the case, you'd have understood that her post was sarcastic and that she's all but a drone.

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 février 2013 - 02:17 .

[clarkusdarkus]

Ieldra2 wrote...

liggy002 wrote...
Asking for Harbinger to be included in a DLC was also pretty reasonable considering that he was the primary antagonist and Mass Efffect 2 and was evidently supposed to represent Sovereign's successor.

I concur that it's not unreasonable, but this may be an example of "it's not that easy". You'd have to fit Harbinger into the story somewhere and give him an identity distinctive from the Catalyst. Unfortunately, the way ME3 was written made the Catalyst subsume Harbinger's role, so that any distinctive identity would run the danger of appearing out of character with the established personality of ME2 - which, may I remind you, a great many people didn't like and/or couldn't take seriously.  

As I see it, Harbinger was burned as an antagonist by his trash talk in ME2. The decision to keep him out of ME3 as a main antagonist appears reasonable to me. 

You do realise kei leng is the exact same thing in ME3? All he does is trash talk you so they did the exact same thing only this time coming from a space ninja with plot armor, At least having it come from Harbinger would have made more sense as he was in ME2.