937 réponses à ce sujet

[ZerebusPrime]

I seem to recall a variant of IT where the Decision Chamber is just an overlay of the beam on the ground at London (someone posted a nice pictorial comparison earlier in this thread).  In that case, if your goal is still to get to the beam then only the Synthesis choice has you jump into it.  But then what?  I mean, in that version you're basically going into the same beam twice and no, the second time sure doesn't look like a return trip.  

 

The crux of the problem comes with the realization that Shepard's experiences have become an unreliable narrator in terms of how the rest of the world is moving along.  And once the train leaves the rails, you can't trust it to come back on its own.  My favorite moment in the Extended Cut comes in the moment after Shepard calls down the Normandy, and no, it's not the simple fact that the Normandy can pull off an extraction in front of Harbinger.  Shepard calls down the Normandy and Joker replies, through quite a bit of static, "We're taking heavy casualties up here, Commander!"  And then a split second later, with no static at all, "On our way, Commander" as the Normandy magically flies in as though it had been staying near the ground fight the entire time.  Even if you allow the Normandy to be one of the ships sent to delay the group of Reapers that were descending on London, placing the Normandy close enough to pull off this little rescue, the two communications from Joker are a stark mismatch.

 

So how hard is it for a Reaper to hack a person's comm unit?  How hard is it for a Reaper to cause a waking hallucination?  Do we all at least agree that both of these things are potentially in Harbinger's bag of tricks as it towers in front of Shepard?

 

 

 

(oh, and my second favorite thing about to the EC beam run is what happens when you run the whole thing facing backwards, but that's neither here nor there)

[Farangbaa]

There's only one wrong choice in the decision chamber.

 

It's not refuse.

[Farangbaa]

(oh, and my second favorite thing about to the EC beam run is what happens when you run the whole thing facing backwards, but that's neither here nor there)

 

I gotta youtube this

 

edit:

 

Anyone got a vid of this?

[Hanako Ikezawa]

I see the Indoctrination Theory as valid an ending interpretation as any other.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

IT worked fine with the Original Ending because the OE was very badly written and not foreshadowed. Like I've said, about as much attention was paid to the ending as was paid to a pizza delivery order. The ending made no sense. People were trying to make sense out of it. So Indoctrination theory came into being and it somehow made sense with that ending. Then Bioware writers retconned a bunch of stuff and explained their lame attempts at symbolism in the ending.... "no, this is literal." Then Leviathan foreshadowed the ending. Nothing like doing it after the fact gang. Buy DLC if you want this charlie foxtrot of an ending to make any sense. Bioware couldn't do anything as sophisticated as indoctrination theory. Not with those writers, and not with the limited resources of the consoles.

[ZerebusPrime]

I gotta youtube this

 

edit:

 

Anyone got a vid of this?

 

Heh.  The streams of soldiers, Makos, hoverchoppers, etc are dependent upon Shepard looking forward (facing Harbinger).  Turn away and approach the beam walking backwards and that stream of soldiers stops.  Harbinger quickly runs out of things to shoot and you can basically run down the hill with next to no casualties... or military support.  It's either an unintentional bug or another sign that something about this whole beam run situation is very wrong... and hilarious both ways.

 

There are some who think that the "IT" hallucination starts at the moment Shepard's transport truck gets blasted and that the rubble we see in the breath scene is actually Shepard lying amidst the wreckage of that transport.  I'm not so sure.

 

It's also circumstantially implied that Harbinger fired a shot right in front of the truck before landing by the conduit beam, halting that vehicle's advance and forcing Shepard to proceed on foot... which would mean that Harbinger near-missed Shepard not once but twice. And this is the same Reaper that will easily bulls-eye all your beam run allies en masse, too, unless of course you do it backwards!

 

EDIT: Relevant quote from Steve Cortez in the Citadel DLC: "When you're on the ground, weapon in hand, you're invincible.  But when we're approaching an LZ, you're just another soldier.  Vulnerable.  Nothing you can do if we're shot down."  Now apply that to a transport truck.

[SwobyJ]

Actually, as an ITer (but I suppose other things as well), I love Extended Cut. It told me a lot that I needed to know, Leviathan told me most of the rest, and Citadel DLC gave me most of the emotional resolution (but not all of it), as well as tasty bits to look forward to in the future.*

 

But even some ITers consider me totally wackadoodle, so yeah.

 

 

 

(*Omega DLC was also good, but more in terms of thematic messaging than anything more logical.)

[Farangbaa]

Heh.  The streams of soldiers, Makos, hoverchoppers, etc are dependent upon Shepard looking forward (facing Harbinger).  Turn away and approach the beam walking backwards and that stream of soldiers stops.  Harbinger quickly runs out of things to shoot and you can basically run down the hill with next to no casualties... or military support.  It's either an unintentional bug or another sign that something about this whole beam run situation is very wrong... and hilarious both ways.

 

There are some who think that the "IT" hallucination starts at the moment Shepard's transport truck gets blasted and that the rubble we see in the breath scene is actually Shepard lying amidst the wreckage of that transport.  I'm not so sure.

 

It's also circumstantially implied that Harbinger fired a shot right in front of the truck before landing by the conduit beam, halting that vehicle's advance and forcing Shepard to proceed on foot... which would mean that Harbinger near-missed Shepard not once but twice. And this is the same Reaper that will easily bulls-eye all your beam run allies en masse, too, unless of course you do it backwards!

 

EDIT: Relevant quote from Steve Cortez in the Citadel DLC: "When you're on the ground, weapon in hand, you're invincible.  But when we're approaching an LZ, you're just another soldier.  Vulnerable.  Nothing you can do if we're shot down."  Now apply that to a transport truck.

 

http://en.wikipedia....il_Marksmanship

 

as for the whole walking back thing. That's just shitty programming + not caring about people who stand still and look backwards. They should've given you game over for that

[SwobyJ]

Yeah I can't take that beam run aspect as meaning anything at all but engine limitations/rushing?/etc.

[ZerebusPrime]

Yes, the backwards thing is silly, but why don't more people notice that comm thing I pointed out?

[von uber]

You can stop the soldiers rushing just by standing in front of them. It's just crap programming (seemingly done in haste - was PE the last thing worked on?).

 

[wolfhowwl]

I hope not. There isn't any reason now and there wasn't much when the game came out either.

 

This is a developer that has shown they do not do subtlety. But there's more to it than just "LOL Bioware isn't clever enough." 

 

Shortly after the game came out we had evidence piling up that pointed to a different conclusion than IT. There were interviews with writers, the alleged statements by a certain writer on a forum, the game OUTRIGHT telling you that you won at the end, the release of behind-the-scenes notes, and getting a feeling of the shitty way the narrative was patched together that indicated the ending was just a result of incompetence and should be taken at face value.

 

It's not like ME2 was a paragon of great writing either, if anything it should have warned us to lower our hopes for ME3. We have writers that delivered two hot messes in a row and we should think that their ending is somehow not the blunder it appears but instead a masterstroke? No.

[ImaginaryMatter]

I usually backflip down the hill, Zelda style.

[AlanC9]

Heh.  The streams of soldiers, Makos, hoverchoppers, etc are dependent upon Shepard looking forward (facing Harbinger).  Turn away and approach the beam walking backwards and that stream of soldiers stops.  Harbinger quickly runs out of things to shoot and you can basically run down the hill with next to no casualties... or military support.  It's either an unintentional bug or another sign that something about this whole beam run situation is very wrong... and hilarious both ways.

 

 

Of course, non-idiots will vote "bug." I presume the reason is that they don't want to spawn anybody in if Shepard's looking at the spawn point.

[EpicBananas70]

After gathering evidence myself and hunting theories on the internet, I have come to this conclusion: if the ending is just literally what you see and Shepard either dies for synthesis, survives and destroys the reapers, controls the Reapers or refuses to activate the crucible, then the ending is quite poor as many things happen that are unexplained. There is more evidence that proves that the indoctrination theory is correct, the most obvious being that the catalyst looks like the child in Shepard's dreams (the Reapers are in his head) and if bioware have intended for the IT to be what is going on, then it is very clever writing. I hope that this is the case as Mass Effect deserves more than a lackluster ending. In addition, I also think that the extended cut wasn't an attempt to close out the mass effect trilogy better (because there were still plot holes) but instead, as bioware continuously states, a way of giving people 'closure' perhaps until a new mass effect game. I'm trying to keep an open mind about all these theories because I could be wrong but it's just something I think people should consider.

[Cknarf]

I always enjoyed the thought of it.  Like a bonus alternate ending.  Thanks internet!

[Invisible Man]

I'm actually more or less a proponent of bad writing theory myself.

[Farangbaa]

I'm really starting to hope ME4 will canonize Destroy ending... and we end up fighting our new Synthetic Overlords.

 

The BSN will go nuts.

[geth47]

No way they can canonize destroy. There would be no more geth. My favorite type of enemy.

[Derpy]

Nope.

[Farangbaa]

No way they can canonize destroy. There would be no more geth. My favorite type of enemy.

 

Dude, you get to fight Super Geth. Stop whining

[marcelo caldas]

No way they can canonize destroy. There would be no more geth. My favorite type of enemy.

 

Quarians can recreate the Geth about 15 minutes after the red explosion if they want to.

[ZerebusPrime]

Quarians can recreate the Geth about 15 minutes after the red explosion if they want to.

 

This.  Except how long it takes is highly dependent on what the Crucible actually did or did not do, but recreating the Geth is not going to be difficult.

[themikefest]

I've seen posts and videos about it, but don't believe in it.

[AlanC9]

Quarians can recreate the Geth about 15 minutes after the red explosion if they want to.

Recreate new versions of the geth, that is. The original individuals will be wiped. Though I suppose that you could come up with adequate re-creations, in the same way that the Legion VI substitutes for Legion.