Destroying the chain from the source... the original Reaper artifact. Being within such close proximity to it must certainly have done something to Shepard.
Destroying the chain from the source... the original Reaper artifact. Being within such close proximity to it must certainly have done something to Shepard.
I would really encourage people to view not just the video I'm linking, but the website itself as well. There's alot more to it, but I think it should suffice to say the Indoctrination has always been the accurate one, and I'm pretty sure that' exactly what Bioware is unveiling at PAX in april. Even Bioware staff has been hinting regarding the Indoctrination thing in bit's and
From that thread, but if it means that Mass Effect 3 never happened, i support it.I would negate that though since the circular disk of the Milky Way can be rotated in a way such that the cluster position is rotated some degrees clockwise/counter-clockwise...but then again, the radial distance from the galactic center is an issue. If you look back to where Haelstrom was in ME2 and ME3, it's totally different places and also if you compare the position of Horsehead Nebula in ME1 and ME3 (not sure if ME2 is the same), it's different.
Caeltos, the reason a lot of people don't believe in the Indoctrination theory is that Bioware themselves admitted that they had planned it, but that it was dropped. Why do you keep ignoring that? For all we know they're just bits and pieces that were kept in the game.
The indoctrination thing is wishful thinking, and circular symmetry would indeed want a word with you, Caeltos. That's not proof, even less fact, it's conjecture and speculation.
That too. Hell, considering how bad this stuff is written i bet you could come up with a thousand different theories that would make just as much sense.
And, this cannot be overstated enough, the "IT WAS ALL A DREAM" ending is still fucking retarded, and is as far as i know, one of the most reviled possible things a writer could do.
The only thing was dropped was the mechanic of losing complete control. It's a vaste difference, and the evidence supporting Indoctrination is just ridicilous. Please watch the videos and the website.Caeltos, the reason a lot of people don't believe in the Indoctrination theory is that Bioware themselves admitted that they had planned it, but that it was dropped. Why do you keep ignoring that? For all we know they're just bits and pieces that were kept in the game.
It's not a dream however, so I don't see where you're going. It's a trial of weither you fall into Indoctrination or not. The evidence supporting this is way to much.And, this cannot be overstated enough, the "IT WAS ALL A DREAM" ending is still fucking retarded, and is as far as i know, one of the most reviled possible things a writer could do.
It's not tho. If you take the time to play through Mass Effect 1 + 2 (and it's DLC content), you're going to see this pretty fairly evidently. Watch the entire youtube clip, check the website- and read the in-game Codex. Bioware's intention of "indoctrination" is also there to support it all into a mixture. The fact of losing "complete control" was indeed removed, but not the initial trial of wiether failing or suceeding it. There's a good reason Destroy leads to Shepard waking up, and ... I don't know if there's any way to actually persuade people into believing this, but it's not a theory anymore, it's vivid fact en-masse.The indoctrination thing is wishful thinking, and circular symmetry would indeed want a word with you, Caeltos. That's not proof, even less fact, it's conjecture and speculation.
Also, the local cluster is not even located anywhere in the "outskirts" of the Milky Way. The location is completely off either way.
I want the indoctrination theory to be true, but the more I read from Bioware, the more I doubt it is.
Honestly, I've come to expect the April DLC talked about in that blog article will be the bare minimum they can do, just to shut us up. After that, it would be ridiculously easy to peg people who complain as whiny and unpleasable, saying "oh look, we made a new ending, and they're still not satisfied!"
I just finished it and can't believe they destroyed the mass relays. Doing that on its own is condemning any colony or planet that can't produce enough food to sustain its population to death. And no epilogue, even a text splash screen would have been nice. Just urgh.
Game itself was quality though. Enjoyed the ride. The last fights on Earth were hard. The Citadel was blarg.
I've seen them both, and the video in particular IS ridiculous, it's overly dramatic and edited in such a way to make the theory more credible than it really is. Now, i'll point out why i think so:It's a vaste difference, and the evidence supporting Indoctrination is just ridicilous. Please watch the videos and the website.
The idea that the whole thing with Sheppard, Anderson and the Illusive Man being just an illusion, a dream, or whatever is ridiculous and stems just from the fact that Tim can control you and Anderson, i don't understand why people are so shocked about it, you spent like half the game fighting Cerberus and the entire time you're being told that Tim is trying to find a way to control the Reapers, then in Miranda's dad's lab you learn that they managed to control Husks, it's no surprise that Sheppard can be controlled by Tim, he after all has Reaper implants(mind the eyes, same as Tim), Anderson on the other hand has spent the entire game under the legs of the Reapers, of course he has traces of indoctrination and of course he can be controlled by Tim's powers, and those black shadows and reapers sounds could be just there to represent Tim's manipulation.
Sheppard bleeding from his torso after the event, you got blasted by a beam capable of crack a starship in half, of course you're bleeding all over the place.
The color of the eyes and the Star child's smile when you pick the control ending and synthesis ending, you always had the implants, and they glow red when you are renegade, maybe synthesis and control ARE the good ending, and those your eyes are blue in that ending, just like how the Star behind the Illusive Man changes color at the end of Mass Effect 2 depending on whether you allowed the Cerberus to get the Collector base or not, was the star also an illusion? The Star child could simply be smiling because Sheppard made the good choice.
Tim and Anderson being up there, and how Anderson got there before you, he himself said, and you saw that the place re-arranges itself, for all we know there simply was another entrance to the room that had closed by the time you got there, Tim being there is not strange at all, he's indoctrinated and he told the Reapers about the crucible, maybe like with Saren he was there to stop you from activating the crucible.
The nightmares, hell this is explained by the game, Sheppard is now suffering from PTSD.
The kid, saying that he was never there is grasping at straws, the Reaper "growls" that people keep referring to is also not shocking or surprising, Reapers growl all the time, and on Earth, you're surrounded by them, was Palaven's moon all an illusion? Reapers never shut up when you're there, what about Thessia? Was it also just an illusion? The part where he gets up in the dropship and no one notices him is not weird at all, it's hectic and chaotic and there's only one soldier helping people up, and he's helping people near him get up in the shuttle already, of course he's not going to notice the little midget.
Sheppard being indoctrinated, the theory claims that Sheppard was indoctrinated since the end of Mass Effect 2, he's been hallucinating, having nightmares, hearing voices and been shaky during the entire duration of ME3, yet near the end of the game, the Prothean VI doesn't notice that he's indoctrinated just because he hasn't gone completely bonkers? Yet he notices that the ninja is indoctrinated even though the ninja isn't completely bonkers yet either? The Prothean VI doesn't say anything at the Cerberus base either, in fact he says "are you trying to rescue me from indoctrinated forces?" or something along those lines, so he can still recognize what is indoctrinated and what isn't, otherwise he wouldn't have said that. And the only "explanation" for this is that "sheppard isn't as indoctrinated as the bad guys!"
Hacket, and Coats bullshitery over the radio in the end, we don't know where Coats was, but expecting him to see Sheppard and/or Anderson crawling towards the beam when he was at the very least, kilometers away from there or in the air is retarded, all he saw was Harbinger land, and blast everything sky high, not to mention that when he says everyone is dead you're still only barely getting up the ground, all he saw for all we know was a small dot squirming around, now, the whole retreat thing when there were no Reaper forces left there, there were Reaper forces left there, hell, you shoot some of them, for all we know there was a bunch of Husks converging on the beam, hence the retreat order, hell, that's assuming there was anything left to retreat, we don't know, we're not told, no one says anything. Hacket speaking to you, first than all, the only "plothole" pointed out by the indoctrination theory is "how did he know that you were on the citadel when coats said everyone died?" how did he know? You opened the damn citadel so that the crucible could dock, obviously he assumed it was Sheppard who did it, even if he heard Coats say that you died, the opening of the citadel's arms could easily make him think that Coats was wrong, the radio working? Maybe it was just luck that your radio worked, or hell, maybe it was Anderson's radio, or maybe Anderson radioed Hacket "i'm on the fucking citadel, but the damn thing wont open, Martin Sheen is fucking controlling my mind Jesus Christ!"
Harbinger leaving, nothing out of the ordinary, as far as he knows, he killed everyone on the ground, and the husks or whatever can protect the beam, he has to get back up there and kill your fleet and/or protect the citadel, if we're talking about "plotholes" like these we would be here all day, why was only one reaper protecting the beam to begin with? Why did Cerberus blow up the tram on mars, and then bring another tram, park it right besides yours, and let you board it, kill them, and steal it? Why did Sheppard not shoot Eva when she was holding Ash by the throat? Etc, etc, etc.
If the game didn't end, if Bioware intended for this to happen, why are we given an ending with the grandpa and the kid?
Sheppard waking up in the rubble on London, if we're talking about tiny tiny bits like "those bushes weren't there before!" then i think i'm allowed to say that there was no ruble anywhere near where Sheppard was blasted or where he woke up, so the explosion would've flung him into a building or something hundreds of meters way, or you know, since the destruction ending is the only one that has you blowing shit up in the citadel, maybe the ruble is in the citadel.
If Harbinger was trying to indoctrinate Sheppard, why the fuck did he blow him with a weapon that can rip through a capital ship? Did he hold back? Even though he has been trying to kill Sheppard for 2 games? Hell, WHY is he trying to indoctrinate Sheppard when he could've just killed him?
The tree and the bushes, when Sheppard wakes up, he's not at the same place where he was hit, he's closer to the beam, now you can argue that well, that's because it's all an illusion, but i for one believe that it's just a gameplay element, it would be pretty boring if you had to waddle all your way towards the beam from that far back, so they just put you closer, maybe the tree and the bushes were already there and you just can't see them from so far back.
And at no point does Sheppard see the Starchild thing with "superstitious awe" it's not even implied.
And finally but not least, the fact that Bioware has defended their current ending at every single turn and that the behind the scenes "The Final Hours of Mass Effect 3" heavily indicate that what we got is in fact, the ending, even the latest blog post by the founder of Bioware says and i quote:
They're still defending their original ending. And the next lines:Building on their research, Exec Producer Casey Hudson and the team are hard at work on a number of game content initiatives that will help answer the questions, providing more clarity for those seeking further closure to their journey. You’ll hear more on this in April. We’re working hard to maintain the right balance between the artistic integrity of the original story while addressing the fan feedback we’ve received.
Heavily implies that this is something new, it's a "new" plan. If they had intended to do a DLC ending from the very start, and that was their big plan, they would've hinted at it, instead they heavily hint at the opposite. And one last thing.This is in addition to our existing plan to continue providing new Mass Effect content and new full games, so rest assured that your journey in the Mass Effect universe can, and will, continue.
If it's not a dream, then you're saying that everything that happens after Harbinger blasts Sheppard, does happen, the Indoctrination theory says that it's all a dream, or illusion, or something.It's not a dream however, so I don't see where you're going. It's a trial of weither you fall into Indoctrination or not. The evidence supporting this is way to much.
And hell, i could think of more stuff that contradicts the indoctrination theory that's in the game itself, or give other valid explanations for other things that "don't make sense", this is just off the top of my head.
Shepard is a leader of the resistance against the reapers, him dying turns him into a martyr for the galaxy. Him being indoctrinated turns him into a weapon for the Reapers, he knows everyone in the chain of command with regards to Earth and has contacts with all the important races. Him being a Reaper agent would allow the Reapers to effectively take down everything from within, ala what happened with the Protheons.If Harbinger was trying to indoctrinate Sheppard, why the fuck did he blow him with a weapon that can rip through a capital ship? Did he hold back? Even though he has been trying to kill Sheppard for 2 games? Hell, WHY is he trying to indoctrinate Sheppard when he could've just killed him?
"WHY DID HE SHOOT HIM WITH A GOD DAMN LASER BEAM THAT CAN CRIPPLE A GOD DAMN SPACE SHIP?"
"BECAUSE IT WASN'T THE SAME BEAM, IT WAS ANTI-INFANTRY BEAM AND HE NEEDED TO DAMAGE SHEPARD TO GET A CHANCE TO GET INTO HIS MIND""WHY DID HE SHOOT HIM WITH A GOD DAMN LASER BEAM THAT CAN CRIPPLE A GOD DAMN SPACE SHIP?"
"THAT IS AN ILLOGICAL ASSUMPTION, THE BEAMS ALL LOOK THE SAME, AND HE APPEARS TO SHOOT THEM FROM THE SAME PLACE AS ALL THE OTHER REAPERS DO EVEN THOUGH HE LOOKS DIFFERENT THAN ALL THE OTHER REAPERS"
Harbinger was shooting through his eye balls, the anti-ship weapon seems to be house in underneath.
Even if the indoctrination "theory" is true, which I don't think it is (explain in a minute), how do you explain what is shown after the "ending" is chosen? If I'm understanding the proposed theory correctly, what happens after the blast by Harbinger is actually happening inside of Shepard's mind, and what you're seeing as the player is Shepard's (your) attempt at fighting the indoctrination. This is all well and good, and most of the evidence presented in support of the indoctrination theory is hard to dismiss, but where it all falls apart for me is after you make a choice.
Why would I be shown, as a player, exactly what the star-child said would happen if the entire thing were simply a battle in Shepard's mind? Is that for Shepard's benefit as a character, or mine as a player? Once Shepard makes a choice the indoctrination is either successful or unsuccessful, yet we're shown the exact same images regardless. This makes very little sense, especially when you consider that if the indoctrination were a success the Reapers have complete control of Shepard and wouldn't care enough to put up a charade of him succeeding. If Shepard ended up resisting it, why would he have visions of demolishing the Reapers when in fact all he did was beat the indoctrination process? And again, regardless of the outcome you're shown the exact same images which makes very little sense. This actually hurts my head.
I have tried so hard to see where the writers were trying to go, but the only logical conclusion in my mind is that they royally fucked up. What we're now left with is a bunch of intelligent individuals filling in the blanks to a completely illogical ending hoping that the entire thing was something more than it really is. It feels very similar to when Inception came out, you had people writing essays on how the entire movie was a dream in Cobbs mind, and that at the end he finally succumbed to the very same fate that Mal did.
Not to mention that if you look at the width of the beams, the real anti-ship beams are a lot bigger than the ones Harbinger's shooting, and they (anti-ship) appear to have a much longer cycle time, judging by the cinematics.
And considering a Reaper's main guns are generally understood be be comparable in power to dreadnought mains, a shot from one of those would have probably blown up Hammer, Shepard, and the tower.
dd14, the answer is simple. It's not just Shepard being indoctrinated... but the player as well...
I think more than half of the thread is about the ending, just shows how much BioWare can't write a decent ending these days. I think as graphics got better and better, the newer BioWare people showed they couldn't really write worth a damn. The twists in Mass Effect all of the major ones? I pretty much guessed what they were. Jade Empire's big twist caught me offguard. Oh well, hopefully they'll change ME3 to not require Origin because ugh, I use Steam, Direct 2 Drive, and I think Atari's webstore among a few others, plus the previously mentioned irrational disdain of Origin in the first place.
Speaking of Jade Empire/DA:O/NWN: HotU/BG2, I think the epilogue that describes what happens to each companion (and in ME's case, other major choices) would make for a good ending. On top of fixing everything about the whole catalyst and such.
Thank goodness for YouTube.
A better ending would have been stills/pictures of various victory parties of the people you help celebrating the way ended the Reaper threat. The at the end, fades to a Shepard memorial with your Love Interest laying flowers.
Haha, very funny Ark. I mean come on, indoctrination through a video game? That's ridiculous...dd14, the answer is simple. It's not just Shepard being indoctrinated... but the player as well...
Harbinger also shoots them from underneath, look carefully at 6:46:Harbinger was shooting through his eye balls, the anti-ship weapon seems to be house in underneath.
Compare it with this at 3:40:
Only difference is that Harbinger can shoot 2 beams at the same time. And the only reason that it looks like he fires them from a different position is because Harbinger himself looks different than the other Reapers.
Actually, in the second video you can see a Reaper at around 3:55 on the right of the screen shooting 2 beams at once like Harbinger, and then almost at 4:00 seconds the exploding Reaper on the middle shoots his left beam on dreadnought and destroys it in one blow.
@Akranadas - I think if a perfect/near-perfect run is done, then Shepard can live. The hero dying to somehow make a point about sacrifice gets old, especially in a trilogy. Did Luke Skywalker die at the end of Jedi? Nope, he lived just fine and I'll happily ignore that Expanded Universe crap. I mean if Shepard screwed up a lot, then him dying makes sense, but sacrificing for the sake of it is pointless. Hell, look at DA:O, either Alistair/Loghain/The Warden had to sacrifice their very soul to kill the Archdemon... or one of the three just bones Morrigan for The Dark Ritual to just be all 'lolno' towards the forced sacrifice.
I don't remember if this was posted in this thread or not, but:
Huh, funny. I would've preferred the Dark Energy ending, much better than "Yo Dawg we heard you don't like being killed by synthetics..." Of course, the stupid, stupid Reaper motivations are just one tiny aspect of what makes the ending so bad, but the dark energy thing would've been an improvement.Mass Effect 3's script was leaked last November along with an unfinished Xbox 360 build. According to studio boss Dr Ray Muzyka, BioWare altered the story following the leak. "The script, frankly, has changed a little bit from what was released, too. It's been edited. They're always tuning it. They're always making it better."
I like that ending better as well.
There's actually a moral choice/dilemma there. It also makes sense in that Reapers are harvesting the human race for a reason...
There was plenty of foreshadowing on Haestrom in the previous mission.
Still, I would have like the Reapers motivations to be more complex and unknowable. Perhaps we didn't need to understand them, perhaps the dark energy would be a result of something else... we could see the effects on the galaxy but the true causes would be beyond us.
The Reapers as galactic pruning shears ending was completely out of left field and utterly stupid considering everything that came before.
2012 40K Throne of Skulls Doubles - 3rd Place
2012 40K Throne of Skulls - 2nd Place, best Blood Angels Player
@Fixer - That's my biggest problem, as someone quoted the video I posted of the conversation with Sovereign and then pointed to what Kaiden Alenko said about wondering why they harvested people. I prefer for questions like that to go entirely unanswered as before I stated Reaper-babies is creepy, but they lose a lot of the fear in the process. By leaving the motivations entirely unanswered and the Reapers only responding with killing things and such, it keeps them terrifying.
"Real terror is not the sight of death, it is the fear of death. What is the fear of death? Terror of the unknown."
From good old Pisha in VtM: Bloodlines, putting it best how to make a great enemy terrifying, by being unknowable in their motivations and causes while they simply destroy for whatever ends they pursue.
Smaller villains and such I like having some questions answered, but don't take away all the terror and mystery to try and make them creepy, it doesn't work, and if it does, it still doesn't make them nearly as terrifying as a truly evil enemy with say it one more time! Unknowable motivations. Beyond comprehension, so on and so forth. That's why Sovereign was so scary (for a given definition of scary in the ME franchise) compared to say, Harbinger or the Reaper-baby in the collector base.
The leaked script still had the endings we got. Dark Energy wasn't in it.
The only tweaks done to the script were the addition of the kid (the script seemed to imply it was just a bodyless voice talking to Shep originally) and alterations around how Javik was tied into the overall plot.
About this whole dark energy business. I hadn't even heard about it before Mass Effect 3. Now I've played Mass Effect 1 & 2 in marathon with all the side quests dark energy is mentioned a grand total of two times during the games, both in a throw-away line of dialogue. Why is this considered a major plot point? If anything, the fact that Elkoss Combine is run by assholes got more foreshadowing than dark energy being really dangerous.
I just don't understand why some people are making a big deal out of it when a guy wanting a refund gets more attention than dark energy.
People generally aren't making a big deal of it, they just think the 'dark energy' ending would have made more sense/been better than the one we got.
For my part, I always thought the 'dark energy' bit was going to be the Reapers somehow turning Haestrom into a massive mass relay to get them into the galaxy from dark space.
This was posted on one of the ME3 writer's blogs, but taken down quickly. I'm going from memory, but it shows that budget or time cuts killed the ending. The other idea I've seen brought up is that Bioware wanted to leave things more open for a sequel.
Uncut ME3 ending
1) Your decisions and war assets would heavily affect how the events at London unfold. Groups you'd sided with would have a better chance of surviving with a higher war asset score.
2) Harbinger's attack happens, depending on war asset score Anderson and your squadmates live or die here. Low enough score and Shep dies here, Reapers win.
3) Shep makes it aboard the Crucible or Citadel (I forget which,) squadmates stay on Earth to defend the conduit used to access it.
4) Confrontation with TIM plays out pretty much the same except that if you fail to convince him to suicide, he attempts to control the reapers and fails due to his indoctrination.
This is where it gets better:
1) No stupid kid. Instead it's Harbinger who speaks to Shep.
2) The Reaper's motivation is simply self-preservation. They take out advanced life to prevent competition and see themselves as superior because they give other life a chance rather than taking them all out.
3) Harbinger gives Shep the choice to join the Reapers (it is implied that a human Reaper exists at this point and Shep would be its dominant will) as their new leader as Shep has proven humanity's superiority over the current generation. If Shep accepts this turns into the control ending (no relays are destroyed.)
4) Shep can refuse, whereup the destruction option becomes available. It's at this point, Harbinger offers the synthesis option (in desperation to preserve his race.) The relays are only destroyed in the destruction ending.
5) cue ending montage (not clear if this is stills, with or without voice over, or actual videos) showing what happens with the survivors of the conflict. With enough war assets, even the destruction ending shows the races beginning construction on new relays.
Wow that ending sounds so much beter, if they release that as DLC I'll be a very happy man. I would prefer if the synthesis option turns out to be some sort of trick where you become a servant like Saren, not a fan of the space magic in that particular ending.
@Fixer, your post where you detailed an alternate ending didn't actually have a single thing about the cruitable so I'm not too sure how I lied. If it was implied then my bad.
(Formerly "The Herald")
"The bible is like an EULA. People just scroll past everything and click "I agree" without reading it."
@Ewokz it was mentioned in the Paragon ending part, it was implied as part of the preparations you succeed/fail with before the end.
After all, the crucible is already in the game, the ending still would involve it someway.
Sorry about that, it seems I missed that part, bugger
Reaper goal pure preservation? Still lame, only because they foreshadowed that it's incomprehensible. Sex is something humanity and everything else can clearly understand though.
Though, why no explanation for idiot ball Normandy?
ANY Reaper explanation would sound lame. As soon as they're understood (and any explanation makes them comprehensible) they lose most of their menace.
As for the Normandy retreat, iirc the entire fleet pulls back once the Crucible's activated as a precaution.
Oh Mokino, that's far too sensible - you're just spoiling the fun of people who want to endlessly bitch!
Evolve or Die...I choose to evolve.
Steam: Ekko Tek
When you look out at space at the end, the fleet still seems to be battling the Reapers don't they?
ending, still necessary to spoiler this?It's funny, the more I think about it the more I like the ending, 3 choices+ organic vs AIs theme. Some people have complained WTF WHY THE KID but I just assumed that was because it was something familiar- similar to when Shepard had entered the Geth Hub. The final choice wasn't morally clear cut either. I have read that Control is deemed Paragon as there is acknowledgment that the Reapers must be kept in case the Catalyst's theories hold true. A Renegade would choose to Destroy because there's a desire to ignore the lessons of the past and an acknowledgement that the organics of this cycle are strong enough to continue without Reaper intervention.
On the other hand, I actually thought it was the other way around. I thought that it was my responsibility to destroy the Reapers after coming this far, and as such the Paragon choice. Control would be to follow TIM's path, and perhaps a Renegade might want to become a Reaper and control them ALL.
I also thought it was a difficult choice because after bringing the Geth to bear, and seeing how the Geth were helping the Quarians, I imagined Galactic peace. Destroying the Reapers would kill off EDI and the Geth, and I really like them. I wholeheartedly supported EDI in her argument with Javik. So, destroying the Reapers means destroying my allies too. That sucked.
I still think there needed to be more content to the ending, with decisions reflected and more about the characters. But the ending itself, I think it's a good conception poorly executed.
Originally Posted by Starblade
The more I think about the ending the more I think it was a deviously brilliant way to try and sell more dlc to give closure and fill plot holes (with maybe some underestimation of backlash though).
@Logic_Bomb - Some undderestimation of backlash? The brilliant way to create dlc as a result of the ending being terribad is in no way brilliant. Full refunds from both Amazon and Origin in just 2 weeks of release, Microsoft is selling it at 40 bucks, Forbes and the like are defending the fans and attacking EA/BioWare.
As bad as Dragon Age 2 was, it was nowhere near this bad in terms of PR and financial backlash. How bad would the product and noise from fans/professional sites be for EA to up and go (in 2 weeks from release, again worth stating) "Hey, it's so bad and people are so angry, we'll allow full refunds and discounts!"
Keep all of that in mind when thinking about how monstrous the backlash would have to be to prompt that kind of response that quick after release from EA, the only company next to Activision run by Bobby Kotick least likely to give any kind of refund so quickly.
Yeah I was mostly being cynical/sarcastic - I think they must've planned dlc to in some way flesh out the ending and that fans would want it more to get closure - which is just an evil way to do dlc - as was the way they made the Prothean day one dlc. You shouldn't need paid dlc to get a complete experience. "Complete" is subjective but dlc to cap the ending and the Prothean dlc would be the biggest examples of integral dlc I can think of for any game I've played. I'm curious whether all the PR mess will be enough for them to offer free dlc.
Codex, there is one issue I have with the ending
EDI and the Geth PROVE that the Reapers' standpoint could be wrong and yet you have no way to contest the Catalyst's views using them as proof of it.
Logic, Microsoft will play a part in determining whether this is free DLC or not. They REALLY don't like free DLC content on XBL and if Xbox users pay, everyone will pay.
"Brilliant" huh? Bioware must have a very strange definition for that word. Not to mention that if the "fix" costs money, the shitstorm will just escalate more. I for one hope it costs money.
Exactly, it shouldn't have been explained at all. Would've been better than knowing that they're flying retards. And yes, the uncut ending sounds way, waaaay better than what we got, and i'd prefer it over the indoctrination theory and obviously over the stupid crap we have now, hopefully Bioware will go with that instead of "herp derp it was all a dream"ANY Reaper explanation would sound lame. As soon as they're understood (and any explanation makes them comprehensible) they lose most of their menace.
That uncut ending.... maybe that's why Reapers wanted Shepard so badly... to place his mind into the Human-Reaper.
Perhaps. His/her knowledge would be invaluable to them in regards to preventing another Sovereign incident.
I actually quite like that ending. Too bad they managed to mess it all up in favor of being "artsy" (in the worst possible manner).
They don't actually prove anything, the reapers said that at some point AI would become hostile, just because peaceful AI exist doesn't disprove the reapers prediction. EDI in ME1 and the Geth/human combo in ME2 do however provide proof of the reapers assumption, as they were examples of AI that tried to kill organics. The reapers kill organic life so they wont create AI that will eventually wipe out all organic life, until the universe ends and no AI have attempted this you can't actually disprove their point. Seeing as they are close to one billion years old I imagine they devised this cycle due to seeing the AI extermination act more than once.EDI and the Geth PROVE that the Reapers' standpoint could be wrong and yet you have no way to contest the Catalyst's views using them as proof of it.
@Ewokz - That is no excuse for having retarded motivations that even Xzibit can clarify in his own meme-picture way.
It doesn't make any sense from a story arc though.
SpoilerIn ME1 Shepard fights VIs and geth,
In ME2 despite his fears, he learns to trust EDI, and discovers the Geth's motivations, they're just defending themselves. You overcome your prejudices.
In ME3 the Geth can be saved, peace brokered at long last. EDI evolves and becomes more human, you practically bring them into galactic civilisation.
Then some creepy kid turns up and tell you that they're going to kill you, no evidence, no proof about it. If you don't have the Javik DLC you don't even have any talk of previous AI war trouble.
You've just to take his word for it!
I'm gonna take a little more convincing before I disregard all the evidence I've collected first hand entirely on the word of a genocidal AI that has taken the form of a child I've been having nightmares about.
SpoilerFor me it made sense that the AI presented the solutions that it thought could work. e.g. We need a new solution, and given these parameters, you can choose from the solutions I deem plausible. Shepard doesn't have to be convinced by these theories. His choices are nevertheless restricted by them.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)