148 réponses à ce sujet

[2Pac]

IT = Bullshit

[AlanC9]

Essentially what it boils down to is, the naysayers don't want to participate in the story in any way, and would rather sit around for 2 years and wait for the devs to just say the ending was indoctrination, than actually try and figure it out. Not really being constructive here. It's the constructive fans like us that thought about the story analytically and put the pieces of the puzzle together, constructively. Instead of the other ones who would rather just demand retcons and sit around waiting for answers and not be constructive or willing to participate in the story. In addition, bury their heads in the snow and not listen to anything anyone has to say.

 

I believe the actual naysayer position is that IT was always ridiculous nonsense and that there never was any puzzle. So there's nothing to wait around for.

[von uber]

The dreams as ptsd make perfect sense when viewed through the thessia mission.
I certainly don't have a problem with shep breaking down; I'd be slightly worried if she didn't in some way.

Who knows what Anderson said to himself alone in the dark?

[SwobyJ]

The problem to me is that knowing war PTSD in my family (for example grandfather was a WWII sniper who expressed his own emotions through poetry), these dreams seem almost nothing alike, even as an artistic representation. Especially him just 'waking up' literally still holding a datapad in front of his face.

 

Just doesn't work. Or rather, it works enough at face value for enough people, so maybe that's enough. It's not enough to have me just declare it as or assume it is 'just PTSD' though.

 

I know most counters to this btw. I'm just saying my piece.

[noobcannon]

Except you can't resist Indoctrination through will power because it is a physical effect on the brain. Plus, the stuff in the dream has plenty of other reasonable explanations for things besides Indoctrination.

the leviathans did say shepard was an anomaly though. just sayin

[SwobyJ]

Oh I love the anomaly stuff! *rubs hands together*

 

I've ranted about it before, but I'll see what Bioware has next because I get all declarative about things.

[2Pac]

Guys, The ending was confirmed as real. I wish the bioware forum wasn't in such a **** storm about it. #Falsehope to people who believe in IT.

[noobcannon]

...

[ImaginaryMatter]

So you only believe whatever Bioware says? Come on, make a decision yourself. Don't rely on others to make it for you. Was the ending real? You decide. Don't let others tell you what to think.

 

So if they came out and said EDI and the Geth were indeed dead in the destroy ending, you wouldn't question that? You'd just take their word for it and believe it? Sorry man, indoctrination got to you.

 

Hate to say it, this day and age, anything that requires any real thought, any serious mental effort, people resort to plot holes, bad writing, or rushed ending. They've reduced people's attention span to the length of a sound bite so that sooner or later our ability to think will be as extinct as the dinosaurs.

 

Yes, and the world is ran by a secret organization of lizard people. Reality may be boring but it is based in fact. There is no deeper meaning to the ending that can be explained by IT as it itself falls victim to the very same sort of contrivances and plotholes that plaque the actual ending. That's why most people disagree with IT, that's why many who use to support it as a viable ending have left its dreamy pastures because it can not hold up to scrutiny. And while authorial intent isn't the most influencial source when it comes to interpretation, it is important to note that the authors of ME3 never intended for IT to the actual state of the ending and that those who assign importance to the various ambiguities and surrealness are just arbitrarily assigning value to non-related points.

If IT floats your boat and you find the plotholes and contrivance there more tolerable than the actual ending, then all the more power to you. Just don't come around here criticizing people for not sharing in your own head-canon.

[SwobyJ]

IT is interesting and I agree with at least its basics (that Shepard is under Reaper influence to at least a minimal degree). I just don't think that's all there is. I do think there's something else going on, but that the planning and implementation of it is an ongoing process with many iterations. Like anything creative.

[AlanC9]

So if they came out and said EDI and the Geth were indeed dead in the destroy ending, you wouldn't question that? You'd just take their word for it and believe it? Sorry man, indoctrination got to you.

 

This is exactly the sort of post that gives IT a bad name, you know.

 

If you're going to say that the word of an author should automatically be disbelieved, you're going to have to come up with a better reason than "marburg says you're indoctrinated."

[AlanC9]

IT aside though, do you really believe that a group of fans can write a better ending than a company who hired professional writers who studied at university on how to write? Or they pretend to know how the lore and story works than the writers themselves. People call me arrogant and such, but I'm seeing that same kind of arrogance in the fans here.

 

 

 

I don't have any problem with a group of fans theoretically coming up with something better than the staff came up with. I just haven't seen it happen. Most of the fan ideas I see here are worse than what we got, and most of the ones that are any good would have been unfeasible. Plus that ridiculous manifesto discussed in your link, which was both unfeasible and awful.

 

Having said that, I've seen good ideas posted here too: Dean_the Young and Ieldra2 come to mind.

[AlanC9]

 

Endings are hard to write. Especially a three part game series that has been in the works for a while. Writing an ending which caters to millions of people with their own individual characters and beliefs is even harder. As many people have essentially been arguing over what the themes are, what the ending was, and essentially trying to declare one true meaning for the ending. Be it IT, or whatever else people come up with (conventional victory, or something similar to that ending mod that people created).

 

Lots of games have bad endings though. No way that people could say this game had to have a good ending as one thread stated a while back.

 

 

I don't think you followed erezike's point in that thread. (His English isn't all that easy to follow sometimes.) He wasn't using "had to" to indicate that it was simply impossible for ME3 to have a bad ending; in fact, a quick glance at his sig would show you that he thinks the ending was indeed bad.

 

What is it you want, marburg? For literalists to respect your interpretation?  You could probably get that if you stopped being concerned with whether or not it's true, or whether Bio intended it. (Notice that SwobyJ doesn't generally get involved in this sort of thing; he's got positions, but he doesn't get into fights about them.) If someone says "believing IT makes the game more fun for me," that pretty much wraps things up unless some idiot wants to have an argument about personal taste.

 

But you don't do that. You keep saying stuff like "You'd just take their word for it and believe it? Sorry man, indoctrination got to you." What sort of response do you expect to receive after that? If you want to take the position that Bio really did intend IT and anyone who doesn't believe it is just too stupid to follow the argument, you're going to get into a fight.

 

If you want such a fight, go for it.

[NeonFlux117]

The "Catalyst" is Shepard. It always was. 

 

 

Shepard is that "Agent of Change", both literally and symbolically throughout the series. And only in one of the choices (destroy). Does the agent of change (Shepard/Catalyst) not physically alter it's state after implementing change (this is what a "catalyst" is defined as).

 

In a nutshell-

 

Control- Shepard disintegrates his/her physical presence to become the new "intelligence", Shepard is now in "control" of the Reapers. Shepard is dead. Reapers survive. 

 

Synthesis- Shepard's essence is absorbed by the crucible and merged with the Mass Relay network, to unify ALL of the Galaxies inhabitants into ONE DNA. The pinnacle of evolution. An alliance between man and machine. The strengths of both, the weaknesses of neither. Shepard disintegrates. Shepard is dead. Reapers survive. 

 

Refuse- Shepard fails to pass the test (crucible). Shepard does not pick one of the "paths". Shepard loses. All is lost. Shepard dies. Reapers survive.

 

Destroy. Shepard destroys the Reapers. Shepard survives. Reapers are destroyed.

 

The "intelligence" was the first "Reaper" in terms of what "Reapers" do.... Or do we not believe the Leviathan??? 

 

It reaped up the Leviathan. And created the first "Reaper" (Harbinger). It is all about the "chaos" and it's mandate-

 

The goals for every harvest are:

 

1) Self Preservation of the Reaper species through the harvest of advanced civilizations. 

 

2) The creation of a new Reaper (a "sovereign class" one) at the end of each cycles harvest. Perfect in it's design. Humanity was the "chosen" species to be a "ascended" for this cycles new Reaper. 

 

 

 

Reapers, like all Apex or "top of the food chain" species are very easy to predict as are their motives and desires (and yes they have "desires", *Sovereign, Virmire Circa 2183, "paths we DESIRE*) the pattern is this: 

 

Procreation and preservation. All apex species do it too the degree better than the other "lesser" species. This is proven in the real world through Natural Selection. 

 

Reapers want to survive. But not only JUST survive. They wish to flourish and multiply. They want to continue to be the apex race. They DESIRE the lesser races to develop along certain paths, in order for THEIR preservation and procreation too maximize it's potential. 

 

And like ALL apex species. They are carnivorous in nature. 

 

 

Why did Harbinger lead the invasion of Earth?

 

Why did the Reaper armada bring the Citadel to Earth space?

 

Why did the Reapers attack sanctuary? 

 

Why did the Reapers "believed the plans (of the crucible) had been lost cycles ago??? 

 

When their "indoctrinated agents"(who argued for controlling vs. destroying the reapers no less) sabotaged the Prothean's "crucible". (javik convo about crucible)... Did they (Intelligence and 'Reapers') just "forget" about it??? 

 

Great manipulators and liars mix some truths with their lies. 

 

The intelligence is a master at deflection and gas lighting. A truly expert liar.

 

But go ahead. 

 

Believe it. 

 

As TIM say's- 

 

"I need you to believe."

 

 

 

side note. You would assume that with the intelligence being, well, so "intelligent" that it would have some relatively rudimentary understanding of the usage of correct pronoun implementation and sentence structure.....

 

Cause it sure is confused by using "us" and "we" and "our" when talking about itself and the Reapers.... 

 

 

I wonder why that is?

 

I guess it just failed basic composition back in the day when it was just 'a wee lad'

[Eurhetemec]

I don't have any problem with a group of fans theoretically coming up with something better than the staff came up with. I just haven't seen it happen. Most of the fan ideas I see here are worse than what we got, and most of the ones that are any good would have been unfeasible. Plus that ridiculous manifesto discussed in your link, which was both unfeasible and awful.

 

Having said that, I've seen good ideas posted here too: Dean_the Young and Ieldra2 come to mind.

 

I've seen a significant number of alternate ending proposals, here and on other forums (moreso on other forums) that would both be:

 

Viable budget-wise

 

and

 

More compelling emotionally and intellectually (I think for pretty much everyone, including people who liked the ending)

 

Your blanket suggestion that all ending proposals are either "bad" or "unfeasible" is I think a product of thinking only of BSN endings and focusing on the ones which got argued about a lot, not the good-but-uncontroversial ones. The big problem with the ending is that it was clearly, exactly as related by BioWare, put together by two people in a very short period of time with basically zero input from the rest of the team, and doesn't fit the "style" of the ME series as a result. That is really not hard to fix. Even BioWare got about halfway there, even after the fact!

 

As for the IT, we know for a fact that indoctrination was, at one point, intended to be part of the end of the game, and the leftovers from that are almost certainly what lead to people perceiving the theory. The idea that the dreams are "PTSD" is ill-formed. PTSD just doesn't work that way, to put it simply. The child being the same is clearly meant to be a "thing" to do with the Reapers. That doesn't mean IT is real, but it opens the door and this whole "Literalist vs IT" thing is pretty silly, because clearly neither has strong support.

[Renmiri1]

UGH, people still argue about the damn ending ? I hated it but moved on.. to Dragon Age.

 

As for reskinning the catalist model and replaying that scene it is pretty straight forward, just need to replace a skin in the 3D model. People put Thane's skin in Tali's 3D body and more so is no biggie. If I had the patience to actually play the ending once more I would even do it myself.

 

You can ask the ME3Explore modders if they want to try it.

http://me3explorer.freeforums.org/

[ImaginaryMatter]

Bottom line, people can't accept the fact that a game series like this can have such an unsatisfying ending. They did warn you though, but people bought the game regardless and are now upset even though the company gave you plenty of notice before hand (at least a month, going by that article) that the end may be unsatisfying.

 

Ironically, I think the only person that applies to is yourself. The rest of us have accepted the ending for what it is, whether we deem it bad, good, tolerable, or not worth discussing. Most of us discuss -- or whine and complain -- why it was terrible, that seems like acceptance. The only person here who doesn't seem to believe that the game can have an unsatisfying ending is you; after all, that did seem to be your general defense for the IT, that the writers wouldn't write something so contridictory and rushed.

[Invisible Man]

in my case it's more like my favorite restaurant served me a few meals that were sub par, I might go there a few more times hoping some constructive feedback would put them back on track. as I said elsewhere, I don't hate mass effect 3, I just feel that the high quality i had come to expect wasn't completely there.