447 réponses à ce sujet

[KaiserShep]

TheBlackBaron wrote...

The Levithans will probably come up in the next Mass Effect trilogy. Having saved the galaxy from the mecha-cuttlefish, we'll now need to save the galaxy from their organic predecessors. The first task will be to discover what a rogue Spectre is doing hanging out with the Leviathan scout known as Suzerainty.

The Leviathan would pretty much sign their own death warrants if they picked a fight with the rest of the galaxy.

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

[Dubozz]

You are not alone OP.

[HooblaDGN]

We're just going to have to find satisfaction in the good parts of the journey. ME3 was a deeply flawed game. Kai Leng was an awful writer's pet villain, we were constantly fighting Cerberus instead of Reapers, the arbitrary multiplayer campaign cap on your single player story, and of course that butchered monster of an ending. But that is, much as I despise it, the horrible ending they pulled off. It felt rushed, it felt out of series, it made no sense, and the EC only alleviates some of that. But it's what they gave us and what we bought. Am I sad that the game will never have an end or even a vast variety of different ends worthy of the rest of the series? Yes. I will always be sad about that. But you can still take satisfaction in the phenomenal moments from the trilogy and the phenomenal characters. And ignoring the ending helps, too.

EDIT: Here are some Mass Effect trilogy things to be super satisfied about:

1. Liara
2. Garrus
3. Legion
4. Wrex
5. Grunt
6. Miranda
7. Grunt's 'last stand' scene against the Rachni in ME3.
8. The ME2 suicide mission.
9. Lair of the Shadow Broker.
10. The conversation with Vigil.
11. The Vigil music piece.
12. The piano version of the Vigil music.
13. David Anderson.
14. The Normandy.
15. Joker.
16. Liara's Time Capsule scene.
17. Shooting bottles with Garrus.
18. Emergency Induction Port.
19. Drunk Ashley.
20. I should go.

And, of course, so much more. But just to present some of the best pieces of this wonderful trilogy, warts and all. There is plenty to be satisfied about.

Modifié par HooblaDGN, 01 novembre 2013 - 09:32 .

[liggy002]

- Illusion or reality? I know IT is not to be talked about, but I can't understand why. It has such a big place in the whole trillogy. Everywhere you look there are people being indoctrinated. Hell, the most powerfull weapon of the Reapers is indoctrination. And now there is another group (Leviathans) who also can manipulate. But I think there is more then only that. Especially in ME3 you are constantly reminded, that you died and resurrected. Many times the question comes up if you are actually the real Shepard. There are questions if we can 'trust' the crucible plans. There are questions if we would know if this was a virtual world. Dreams that don't make sense. And I could go on. I have tried to understand, but it can't be more than 'speculation'.


Ding Ding Ding!  We have a winner!!!


And I agree that the ME3 story is very much incomplete.

[liggy002]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

It isn't certain if Cerberus is under reaper control. Because there are some contradicting statements. On the one hand, you have Javik who talks about a same type of splinter group in his cycle that obstructed them in fighting the reapers. So this infers they are actually under reaper control.

But on the other hand, you have Reapers also fighting Cerberus at sanctuary. Probably because they have found a way of controlling people themselfs. And so are getting near a Reaper controlling device (I think). So that means they aren't under their control.

And the 'husk' you see on mars isn't a husk made by reapers, but by Cerberus themselfs.

This is because Cerberus isn't yet under direct Reaper control.  Cerberus are just pawns being used by the Reapers to obstruct Shepard.  Only at the end when Cerberus is all but finished does TIM fall under Reaper control.  At that point, before the Crucible was even attached to the Catalyst, does a fully indoctrinated TIM (aka) the Reapers, attempt to convince Shepard that controlling the Reapers is the way to go.  TIM (The Reapers) NEED Shepard to believe.

[69_Gio_69]

AlanC9 wrote...

Only on BSN would Refuse not be enough of a Reaper win.

Anyway, Shepard doesn't win in Refuse. Liara does.

No, I don't think this is a 'reaper win'. First of all, this refuse ending wasn't in the original ending, so I always saw this more of a fan service and not a legitimate choice. Also if you should choose to refuse the catalyst it isn't that happy about it. "So be it!!" 

Second, I never said there couldn't be a 'bad ending', but what I meant was that every choice you make is essentially the right one. You can't go wrong with the choices. They won't backfire on you. The mission always was: 'stopping the reaper threat' and with every choice you do just that.  

I don't believe this actually to be true though. I cannot believe that 'so the illusive man was right after all', can be a legitimate conclusion to the story. In the end he shot himself for gods sake, because even he knew he was indoctrinated.

And synthesis is just Saren saying 'the combination of flesh and steel, the strenghts of both, the weakness of neither', or something like that. First time it wasn't that obvious for me, but when you replay the trillogy it is pretty clear that cannot be the right choice as well. Also Saren was indoctrinated. 

But all that is pretty much dismissed by the actions Bioware took after that. We got an extended cut, where you see that all the choices where actually the right one. 'Shepards story is over' and everybody lives happily ever after, the Reapers stop with their harvesting. Also IT is not to be talked about on the forums. Another indication that indoctrination isn't what they meant.
 
So what we got is a whole trillogy that is constantly reminding you that not everything is as it seems. Examples of leaders (Saren, TIM) who got indoctrinated and shot themselfs in the head. To in the end let all the choices be valid conclusions. 

And now we must go on to the next Mass Effect story (not ME4), while in my opinion this story, with these characters is long but over. 

[SwobyJ]

liggy002 wrote...

- Illusion or reality? I know IT is not to be talked about, but I can't understand why. It has such a big place in the whole trillogy. Everywhere you look there are people being indoctrinated. Hell, the most powerfull weapon of the Reapers is indoctrination. And now there is another group (Leviathans) who also can manipulate. But I think there is more then only that. Especially in ME3 you are constantly reminded, that you died and resurrected. Many times the question comes up if you are actually the real Shepard. There are questions if we can 'trust' the crucible plans. There are questions if we would know if this was a virtual world. Dreams that don't make sense. And I could go on. I have tried to understand, but it can't be more than 'speculation'.


Ding Ding Ding!  We have a winner!!!


And I agree that the ME3 story is very much incomplete.

One explaination, figuratively, comes from the Ex-Cerberus mission:

Personal Log: Damini Sengupta



Attempts are ongoing at figuring out what the end product of our
research was meant for. While it is obvious that the delivery system was
to be implant-reliant, with evident neurological applications, many
questions remain as of yet unanswered. The loss of Dr. Horace Armstrong
in particular is hindering our efforts to speedily reconstruct the
nature of the Illusive Man's goals. We have several parts of the whole,
which lead us to chilling conclusions. But we are nowhere near figuring
out what said whole might be--and that is what scares me the most.

That last line pretty much sums up ME3. They gave us a action pew pew game with a chilling possible undercurrent and an ambigious and curious ending.

So what are they NOT telling us?

(Personally I think the DLCs tell us a ton, but it's all implicit, and we've yet to see the explicit compenent)

[SwobyJ]

liggy002 wrote...

69_Gio_69 wrote...

It isn't certain if Cerberus is under reaper control. Because there are some contradicting statements. On the one hand, you have Javik who talks about a same type of splinter group in his cycle that obstructed them in fighting the reapers. So this infers they are actually under reaper control.

But on the other hand, you have Reapers also fighting Cerberus at sanctuary. Probably because they have found a way of controlling people themselfs. And so are getting near a Reaper controlling device (I think). So that means they aren't under their control.

And the 'husk' you see on mars isn't a husk made by reapers, but by Cerberus themselfs.

This is because Cerberus isn't yet under direct Reaper control.  Cerberus are just pawns being used by the Reapers to obstruct Shepard.  Only at the end when Cerberus is all but finished does TIM fall under Reaper control.  At that point, before the Crucible was even attached to the Catalyst, does a fully indoctrinated TIM (aka) the Reapers, attempt to convince Shepard that controlling the Reapers is the way to go.  TIM (The Reapers) NEED Shepard to believe.

Yeah ok, that TIM that appeared out of nowhere and killed himself with the same gun as Saren (pretty sure).

[dorktainian]

cerberus? reaper control? are you sure?

[3DandBeyond]

StreetMagic wrote...

Bleh. The more I think about Indoctrination, the more I get pissed off. As if giant robots weren't bad enough. There's brainwashing to boot.

We're all in trouble before the story even begins. This is why I like the Dr. Manuel conversation in ME1. He knows we're screwed. This enemy has few parallels in literature. Other than ****ing Satan or something.

Yeah, as a writer whoever creates a story where there are near invincible creatures eating whole planets and over the eons they've never lost, has backed themselves into a corner unless they clearly acknowledge real vulnerabilities and also clearly show that difficult though it may be they can even in individual cases by destroyed.  If that's the case then that is something that could be built off of, but maybe only if in the story there are clearly people that are trying to find new ways of destroying them and having some success and only if there is proof that past civilizations also had some success in destroying some of them.  Those kinds of things can form the basis of good and imaginative writing that in some fun way disproves the idea of something being impossible.

Too bad in MEgames, BW never stated the reapers had vulnerabilities, never found ways to shut down rogue AIs, never showed any reapers ever being destroyed in the past or present, never told tales of some groups of people actually studying reapers to learn of ways to destroy them, and always when they said something was impossible they meant it.

[AlanC9]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
Only on BSN would Refuse not be enough of a Reaper win.

No, I don't think this is a 'reaper win'. First of all, this refuse ending wasn't in the original ending, so I always saw this more of a fan service and not a legitimate choice. Also if you should choose to refuse the catalyst it isn't that happy about it. "So be it!!"

Pre-EC Shepard could just stand around and let the Crucible be destroyed. So it's not that Refusing itself was added, they just put Stargazer 2 in to show that even if Shepard derps Liara will save the next cycle. And added a pretty good speech for Shepard to derp with.

Second, I never said there couldn't be a 'bad ending', but what I meant was that every choice you make is essentially the right one. You can't go wrong with the choices. They won't backfire on you. The mission always was: 'stopping the reaper threat' and with every choice you do just that.  

(Except Refuse, right? That decision doesn't stop anything.)

Yeah, the other choices are all wins. In the same way that all the DA:O endings are wins, no matter who kills the Archdemon or whether or not the DR was done. The same way that both the LS and DS KotOR endings are wins for the PC. As Alex pointed out a few posts back, this is What Games Do. You get to the end, you win.

But you're right. Refuse is an organic loss but not a Reaper win, since Liara has already defeated the Reapers.

I don't believe this actually to be true though. I cannot believe that 'so the illusive man was right after all', can be a legitimate conclusion to the story. In the end he shot himself for gods sake, because even he knew he was indoctrinated.

And synthesis is just Saren saying 'the combination of flesh and steel, the strenghts of both, the weakness of neither', or something like that. First time it wasn't that obvious for me, but when you replay the trillogy it is pretty clear that cannot be the right choice as well. Also Saren was indoctrinated.

Your belief is not required.

(That's turning out to be my favorite ME3 quote.)

Those things simply are true. Saren and TIM were right all along. And they were also indoctrinated stooges at the same time.

Note that this sort of thing seems to have been on Bio's mind the whole time. In the Dark Energy plot the Reapers were the good guys all along, trying to save the universe. Shepard was the villain who might have destroyed the universe by stopping them.

Modifié par AlanC9, 01 novembre 2013 - 05:33 .

[SwobyJ]

Yes. Order vs Chaos.

Order:
-they know more
-they constrain horrific possibilities (on this ME1-3 wasn't as good in explaining, imo next game will bring on the CHAOSSSS)
-they advance but at a regulated pace, or they 'protect' the others from the dangers of their heightened place
-they have less issue with manipulating or controlling others for their greater good (honestly remember the rewrite geth action - a 'terrible' act if you view the Geth as fully sapient, even if your enemy)

Chaos:
-they hold more potential in the longest run
-they open up the world to freedom with all its benefits and ills
-they advance in a survival of fittest fashion (remember that Citadel Council is an Order system), with apex eventually on top by whatever means
-they have less issue with destroying or devouring those who stand in their way

And honestly, Reapers and Leviathans are both. It's a bit of a false dillemma. However, "We represent order, you represent chaos." says it all. They fight for ideology in the end, and even individual Reapers, while all following the Cycle, likely have their own views. Harbinger, most likely, is VERY pro-synthesis and may see Shepard as a means to that as long as we survive in battle. I mean listen to his battle quotes. (But in ME2 he probably was more wanting Sheaprd to be a capital Reaper and leave it at that)

They indoctrinate because they care. Well not really 'care', but they have an agenda and us tiny beings better not stand in the way of it. For the most part, I'm sure the Reapers don't give a damn if we suffer or not as long as organics keep existing in the cycle. Maybe Harbinger takes a sadistic pleasure but that's because he's made of Leviathans.

On the other hand, we can fight for freedom because we care. And in this case, REALLY care, because chaos is more usually emotionally passionate. The 'care' that indoctrinated avatars may feel is far more utilitarian and often detached than one fighting for chaos, as the one fighting for chaos is fighting for specific attachments (friends, families, loves, species). Even 'fighting for a united galaxy' is a 'specific' attachment, as it neglects taking into account the Reaper AIs themselves, and the larger universe. But that's OK. All of them are OK. Destroy is only the most 'core Shepard' that they most likely built the original script drafts around before branching out.


TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

However, there is a chance for the next game to fix that; by that I mean they may make a game that addresses the ME3 topics in a way that we'd want to go back to ME3 and change from Synthesis to Destroy, or Destroy to Control, etc. We'd be out of the 'little context' bubble.

Modifié par SwobyJ, 01 novembre 2013 - 06:45 .

[HooblaDGN]

SwobyJ wrote...

TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

That's because doing it at the end of a pulp space opera hero story series is completely inappropriate and out of place.

[Mcfly616]

69_Gio_69 wrote...

I finished ME3 last year and still to this day I am not satisfied.

there's your problem, right there. Get over it.....


If you aren't satisfied by now, you never will be.

[Mcfly616]

HooblaDGN wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

That's because doing it at the end of a pulp space opera hero story series is completely inappropriate and out of place.

Completely false. Maybe the only space opera you've experienced is Star Wars? Clearly, you don't read much sci fi literature.

[Mr.House]

HooblaDGN wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

TLDR; the ME3 story and ending seemed designed to get us to broaden our minds about the Mass Effect universe, but because of pacing and several other issues, that all fell flat on most people playing.

That's because doing it at the end of a pulp space opera hero story series is completely inappropriate and out of place.

You never watched Star Trek TNG have you?

[Tsunami Chef]

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

I think the biggest annoyance as someone who doesn't believe in the IT is people who put me in the "anti-IT" camp. Most people who don't believe that the IT was intended do not say because htey think it doesn't fit into the game, but because business wise, and practically it makes absolutely no sense for Bioware to have ended their game like that....I love the idea of IT, and would prefer it if bioware fleshed it out to a full ending.,...but it is so freaking obvious that Bioware didn't intend it.

If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

Modifié par Tsunami Chef, 01 novembre 2013 - 09:45 .

[AlexMBrennan]

don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it

It is not falsifiable, and you can explain away everything you don't like by invoking IT - it's just like "goddidit"; as such, there is no point in having a discussion about it: Followers of IT will never be able to convince rational people whilst rational people will never be able to convince followers of IT (you know, much like religious debates )
[Although arguably IT followers made one testable prediction - that Citadel DLC would reveal that IT is true... but of course that is no reason to reject IT]

Since there is no hope of discussions ever settling that matter, it's not unreasonable to disallow discussions.

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 01 novembre 2013 - 10:10 .

[3DandBeyond]

Tsunami Chef wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

I think the biggest annoyance as someone who doesn't believe in the IT is people who put me in the "anti-IT" camp. Most people who don't believe that the IT was intended do not say because htey think it doesn't fit into the game, but because business wise, and practically it makes absolutely no sense for Bioware to have ended their game like that....I love the idea of IT, and would prefer it if bioware fleshed it out to a full ending.,...but it is so freaking obvious that Bioware didn't intend it.

If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

I agree with you in part and it's a fairly small part to be exact.  I've never been attacked nor called an anti-ITer but I didn't feel like BW had pulled IT off nor did I feel they could do it justice given all I had seen and knew about what they'd said.  Personally I felt had they done a good job with it it could have been far better than anything we got-the operative part being they'd have to do a good job.

When the original endings were being loudly discussed and there was not yet a mention of any EC or alteration, the biggest complaint about IT was that it did not provide an ending-it left Shepard if indoctrinated in a state of indoctrination.  Speculation (even some of my own) was that BW could do a great thing and show the Shepard was fully capable of throwing off that indoctrination and destroy the reapers.  The idea was that Shepard and even players sort of, was indoctrinated into believing there was no way to destroy them, but that it could be done.  All of the things in game that had said they were near invincible were wrong.  But again, that meant the game was shipped without an ending and people were appalled at that idea.

What people often failed to recognize is the game was shipped without an ending as it was and with the announcement of the EC BW tried to tiptoe around the idea that the game had no ending by saying they were going to add clarity and closure and not fundamentally change anything or even add an ending.  Funny how refuse totally refutes that claim--and refuse sans the total galactic annihilation is basically what some had hoped would be part of a Shepard wakes from indoctrination ending--also the Shepard regrows a spine adherents' wish.

The other point of disagreement I have here with what you posted is that BW never intended indoctrination.  Ok, I fully believe they never intended it as an ending but in the Final Hours app they stated that they had intended to use indoctrination as a big part of the ME3 plot but abandoned it because it became too complicated.  We'll get back to that idea as ridiculous, but what does this mean?  Well, it's just possible that BW had already began to create the game and had done a lot of the story, a lot of the rendering, the voice actor's dialogue, before dropping the indoctrination story line.  This seems all too likely given that there is a lot of nonsense within the game-stuff that sometimes almost makes you laugh out loud but that is not meant to be funny.  Or that leaves you scratching your head.  It's likely some of it is laziness and crappy Quality Control, but hard to believe all of it is due to that.

For instance, there are real references to things that have been said to be signs of indoctrination-that's not lazy writing, but likely indoctrination story stuff left in the game because it was too expensive to redo voice acting, CG rendering, and all of that.  There are instances where characters repeat dialogue-Vega is met by Shepard on the Citadel and talks about it just not being right, and then talks about it going badly with the council.  Then back on the Normandy, Vega again talks about it going badly with the council, like they've never discussed it before.  The kid in the vent is just plain dumb.  It's more authentic for a kid in that situation to ask for help then to say, "you can't save me", so what did that mean?  Minor points but there are many more of them.

As for the fact that BW abandoned the indoctrination story line as too complicated, that's ridiculous.  I think they abandoned it in part in order to put it into DLC, so they used it sort of with Leviathan as enthrallment.  But the other thing is it need not have been complicated at the end because it could have led to a really amazing ending that didn't have to evolve out of all the stuff that had happened under indoctrination, and Shepard didn't need to be indoctrinated fully throughout the whole thing.  In fact, they could have made it clear that it was happening slowly so as to be less destructive than it was to Saren, and more prolonged and that it fully took over at one point, leading to a belief like TIM's but with 3 or more things that could be done and not just control.  Refuse could have led to an ending that showed Shepard had been resisting indoctrination all along, tie it in with the Prothean beacon incident in ME1 to explain that it had helped Shepard avoid indoctrination because Shepard got understanding of what the reapers were trying to do, and then have Shepard go on to destroy the reapers that were sidetracked by the human on the Citadel.  Shepard could have become their weakness and what made them vulnerable.

[Deathsaurer]

The overzealous IT fans aren't the only overzealous fans. The horrible, horrible back and forth between them proves, I think, going down that route would be very bad for the fanbase. It's already toxic, throwing fuel on the fire would be a terrible idea. At least for now.

Business wise it'd be a bit silly with all the PR damage ensued but you know artists. It's not something I'd say is impossible for them to plan. If they did I'd think they were insane but that's kinda beside the point.

I can see what they were trying to do, headcanon your own ending because we honestly don't think we can do everyone justice. Everyone wants something just a little different. I think this is the ultimate flaw in a branching import system. But gamers are a passionate lot and well that didn't go as planned.

[SwobyJ]

Tsunami Chef wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

I think the biggest annoyance as someone who doesn't believe in the IT is people who put me in the "anti-IT" camp. Most people who don't believe that the IT was intended do not say because htey think it doesn't fit into the game, but because business wise, and practically it makes absolutely no sense for Bioware to have ended their game like that....I love the idea of IT, and would prefer it if bioware fleshed it out to a full ending.,...but it is so freaking obvious that Bioware didn't intend it.

If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

It's honestly not that mysterious to me.

But incomplete? Um hell yeah, I'm with you there.

BTW while the basic idea behind IT is something I think (or rather speculate on, for funsies), I actually think about a hell of a lot more than that, to the point that ITers think I'm nuts . So yeah. While they and you got your incomplete story, I agree, but I also think I have the pieces for what they're heading into next. Could be wrong, even completely wrong, but this is my POV as opposed to the "Ok IT isn't true so we need to get closure now." or "Ok IT has gotta be true but we didn't get our closure!" POVs.

[SwobyJ]

StreetMagic wrote...

Tsunami Chef wrote...

SwobyJ wrote...

StreetMagic wrote...

I don't accept IT per se, but it's pretty strange that indoctrination is so looked down upon, considering how central it is to the Reaper story. Suddenly, we're all expected to not speak of it? I don't get it. Freaking BSN. Y'all are weird.

Obnoxious ITers + Obnoxious Anti-ITers + Obnoxious trolls in general + No clear admission of anything other than maybe "It's a valid interpretation" + content that appears to disprove IT = the current BSN attitude towards it

And well, yes, BSN being BSN. I remember back when this was all a separate Mass Effect 2 board. Yeah, people were always 'off'.

I think the biggest annoyance as someone who doesn't believe in the IT is people who put me in the "anti-IT" camp. Most people who don't believe that the IT was intended do not say because htey think it doesn't fit into the game, but because business wise, and practically it makes absolutely no sense for Bioware to have ended their game like that....I love the idea of IT, and would prefer it if bioware fleshed it out to a full ending.,...but it is so freaking obvious that Bioware didn't intend it.

If you believe the ME directors created IT you believe they made one of the mysterious, if not the most mysterious endings in gaming history....as well as basically the most incomplete ending in gaming history.

I always assumed if "IT" was valid, then it would follow that there'd be a sequel. But yeah, it makes zero sense as a final conclusive story.

It's pretty mysterious in gaming terms, but not necessarily in general. It's basically the plot of the Last Temptation of Christ (then again, I don't expect to see something like this in a game).

IT itself would have become a final conclusive story, with either a free or paid expansion-sized update to take place post-Earth.

Unless we got 2014 surprises, this isn't gonna happen. I kinda wish it did so my obsession about stories can give me a break for a bit!


And yeah the ideas honestly are not that mysterious or complicated in the grander literature scheme, but the implementation is different.