Many of the adherents are indeed in denial, because the ending (I won´t use the plural) was so incredibly bad that it seemed more like a stick joke, specially considering that bioware had a reputation for good stories and satisfying conclusions.
I think ME3 should had been release in chapter forms. You could purchase the whole game main story arc, or one bigger version with dlcs. With each chapter, you would obtain one prioritary mission, a few side-quests, and a dlc released that same month. I would have close to no motivation to going back to the game and playing a dlc chapter after knowing how it ends. That way, when they released the ending, it would really be THE END.
Refuse-as it played out--was asked for by more than one person. People wanted a chance to defy the Catalyst, even if it led to defeat. And they actually did a pretty good job. I felt terribly proud of my Shepard for sticking to his principles and didn't reload.
It was always going to be the Crucible or nothing from the moment it was introduced. Refuse could not have a different outcome than it does without rewriting large sections of the entire trilogy. That you don't like the side effects of Destroy doesn't change that.
Why all the "eww"s? What's wrong with wanting a better ending?
If you like the existing endings and think they work thematically, that's great for you and I won't belittle you for liking them. I on the other hand didn't like the endings and think it would be cooler if IT was true. I don't understand all the hate against people who like the idea of IT.
EDIT: Failed getting quotes from AlanC9 and Invisible Man on page 2.
Refuse-as it played out--was asked for by more than one person. People wanted a chance to defy the Catalyst, even if it led to defeat. And they actually did a pretty good job. I felt terribly proud of my Shepard for sticking to his principles and didn't reload.
It was always going to be the Crucible or nothing from the moment it was introduced. Refuse could not have a different outcome than it does without rewriting large sections of the entire trilogy. That you don't like the side effects of Destroy doesn't change that.
Understood, as far as that goes.
But the other endings played out exactly as before. Just with more details. As I've said before, the EMS system was practically designed to have a multitude of possible outcomes. Which Bioware absolutely refused to implement.
But if you're not happy, go on, shoot the Catalyst's hologram. It's not like anything bad could happen, right? ::trollface::
I felt terribly proud of my Shepard for sticking to his principles and didn't reload.
It was always going to be the Crucible or nothing from the moment it was introduced.
Just to make this absolutely clear: you are proud that Shepard convinced everyone to divert resources away from the fight to build a super weapon which he was not going to use because he didn't feel like it on the day... So what exactly is Shepard's great achievement? All Shepard managed to do is make victory easier for the Reapers.
Refusal might have worked (I don't see how, but it could be possible to come up with something that doesn't suck) but having Shepard unilaterally decide at the last minute to not use the device that everyone has sacrificed so much to build is not the way.
I don't think Refuse was ever meant as a comment on player unhappiness. It was meant as a roleplaying tool for people who have Shepards who found all three choices morally unacceptable and refused to cooperate with evil. What happened next was up to God/the author.
@Alex
Yes, I was proud. Shepard found all three choices evil. So he didn't choose. And yes I do believe it's better to let all life in the galaxy die than to do evil. I just happen to find the choices acceptable.
Apparently and that's their personal beef, I personally never bought into it, and when Bioware said it was BS I was relieved if anything, the existing endings were meh but at least they weren't subpar deus ex delusion like that crap.
I don't think Refuse was ever meant as a comment on player unhappiness. It was meant as a roleplaying tool for people who have Shepards who found all three choices morally unacceptable and refused to cooperate with evil. What happened next was up to God/the author.
Afraid I have to disagree. No way shooting the Catalyst automatically triggering Refuse was a coincidence.
One quick thing: IT is not about wanting a better ending. It is about understanding the existing narrative and applying basic literary analysis to the story. Some people expected an IT - themed expansion, yes, but that's not what the theory is about.
Why all the "eww"s? What's wrong with wanting a better ending?
If you like the existing endings and think they work thematically, that's great for you and I won't belittle you for liking them. I on the other hand didn't like the endings and think it would be cooler if IT was true. I don't understand all the hate against people who like the idea of IT.
And I think it would be far worse if IT was true. Therefore, "eww."
I've got no problem with a sequel that doesn't utterly rule IT out; say, canonized Destroy with no further discussion of what happened to Shepard. If you people want to believe this junk it's your business. But if Shepard wakes up in the rubble, IT has become my business. Again, eww.
One quick thing: IT is not about wanting a better ending. It is about understanding the existing narrative and applying basic literary analysis to the story. Some people expected an IT - themed expansion, yes, but that's not what the theory is about.
I think it can be about either. Or even both.
I think Bioware made such a horrible ending to the trilogy that people are simply unwilling to believe that such a popular developer could have done it. By that logic, there must be a deeper reason for it. What we saw isn't really what we saw. It's not as tragic as it seemed. It's not as illogical as it seemed. It's not as railroaded as it seemed.
If you got a few hours you can watch this "documentary" in twoparts. Iirc CN have a forum just for discussing IT
Sorry I am not that active on these forums so I respond pretty slowly. I've seen every documentary about IT. Some even multiple times. I think I have a pretty complete image of all the information regarding Mass Effect now, but still cannot find 'the hidden storyline' through it all. There are people like Clevernoob who, in my opinion. ruin it for other IT'ers, because he speaks of it like it is HIS theory. And when people defend IT the literal group references him on how we are wrong and delusional.
I believe in IT, but for me IT is just the idea that Shepard is indoctrinated in the end of ME3. Nothing more, nothing less. I know almost certainly that the things that happen in the ending cannot be real. Clues like Andersons shot wound, the huskification when you choose Control or Synthesis, the kid being the ultimate reaper, the similarities between Leviathans mind control and the end sequence with the kid. In my opinion it has always been obvious.
What the writers want to tell us with the three choices, the indoctrination, the kid etc. I don't know. In that sense I do believe in the 'bad writing' theory, because I am missing some serious context. At the moment I believe they wanted us to doubt everything through a totally incoherent ending, with serious clues that it is all a illusion. However, I really hope it is more of course.
There are still people who see a bigger picture unfolding and that it is not yet finished. I saw videos on YouTube of 'Choose Wisely', that claim that there is much more happening that we still not know. But in their video's didn't give a concrete interpretation and are still just formulating vague interpretations with no connection to eachother. Although they said that one more episode will be made.
One interpretation they talked about was very interesting, about the QEC system and how Leviathan uses same kind of technique to communicate/mind control. Its interesting because the QEC system in ME3 totally contradicts the lore established in ME2. To the point that TIM's QEC just comes straight out of the ground on mars. Of course it is a long stretch, but why would the writers give QEC extra attention in the DLC, if they F'ed the lore up about it?
Here's a quick one.
(Hints: logos, colors, Cat6)
I don't understand what you mean with these images. Only the top one with the RGB system. A system to represent virtual images. Yes I believe that this is also a clue. If you type in 'Red, Blue, Green' on google that is the first thing that pops up. So a connection is easily made and not that far fetched. Like I said above, I also see the similarities between the ending and Leviathans mind control. But those can be easily explained through what Leviathan said, that Reapers perfected the method so it is obvious there would be similarities. Only the Reapers could do it more realisticly.
Could you elaborate some more on the other ones, and how they tell something about a bigger story?
Afraid I have to disagree. No way shooting the Catalyst automatically triggering Refuse was a coincidence.
I think the writers made that particular change because they didn't want to trivialize the cooperative action taking place between Shepard and Catalyst, not out of offense over players shooting him or disliking the ending. Shepard's personal organic-synthetic conflict is himself vs. Catalyst/Reapers, so Shepard turning physically hostile towards the Catalyst (as opposed the verbal hostility that triggers Refuse) should really be met with the same response from the Catalyst. You don't make progress on organic-synthetic relations by repeating the mistakes of past organics -- trying to pick fights with those far your superior.
On-topic, this is yet another out-of-world issue where I've found no good IT explanation: Refuse. They insist that Destroy is a rejection of the Catalyst, but to choose Destroy, you have to -- at bare minimum -- believe that the Catalyst indeed willfully points you to his and the Reapers' end, for whatever reason. That's still influence, from him to you. Refuse, on the other hand, is 100% rejection of Catalyst's influence. If there's any truth to the notion that indoctrination is taking place onto Shepard through the Catalyst, then Shepard should not accept anything from him, not even the promise of destroying the Reapers. And, also as of EC, Shepard cannot choose anything but Refuse if he/she remains hostile towards the Catalyst throughout the conversation. In the end, there's no way to choose Destroy without being at least slightly influenced by and cooperative with the Catalyst, no matter what one's motivations are. It's literally impossible.
And the IT explanation is "Well, you can't give up," but that again already assumes that any action by Shepard in that moment will change anything, an idea only planted in your head by the Catalyst (again, influence). It also assumes Refuse leads to failure, but what if BioWare decided to let it *somehow* result in victory, feasibly following the lore or not? Let's not kid ourselves: IT would be singing a VERY different tune.
So yeah, that's another out-of-game hole in IT, I haven't even dug my nose into all the in-game material that works against it...
The thing is, why should IT be a coherent whole, while the literal ending is just as illogical and strange? How do you activate the crucible by shooting on its wires? How does throwing yourself in the beam activate anything? How do you explain the shotwound on the left side of his stomach? How can TIM control your body? Why is the ultimate reaper the glowing child? etc. It is just as incoherent and needs a hugh suspension of disbelief.
Some say it is 'bad writing'. I say: Why couldn't they write a bad story and include IT? That is just as possible and supports the weird ending much better.
That's the great thing about IT. It only has to explain stuff the believers want to explain.
It doesn't have to explain anything. The images in themselves contain enough clues that what you see isn't real. Why should it be more than that? Like I said before, people like Clevernoob ruined it for others, because he thought he could connect the indoctrination theory to all the faults that are in the ending and make them better. He could not and the whole theory is now mocked at. While, in my opinion, IT is much more senable than a literal ending where you shoot a tube to active the crucible, while talking to a child that you see in your dreams.
Retour en haut
