Mass Effect 4's first screens glimpsed over BioWare Montreal's shoulders; promise "new worlds" - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Novangel;42815594]I think the best ending was not to give the Reapers a logical motive, they were supposed to be things beyond our comprehension.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people are so obsessed with finding out why the Reapers do what they do. You can even ask Vigil at the end of the first game about their motives and his response is "In the end what does it matter? You're survival depends on stopping them, not in understanding them."

[QUOTE=27X;42814838]DUDE. TWO PEOPLE WHO WROTE THE STORY SAID IT IS BULLSHIT AND DOES NOT EXIST. ONE OF THEM SAID IT WITH CASEY HUDSON SITTING NEXT TO HIM. CASEY HUDSON NODDED. THE END.[/QUOTE] This: [QUOTE=be;42815055]I don't think either of us are claiming that the IT is true, it clearly isn't, I just think we're arguing that the IT was logically coherent and plausible.[/QUOTE] (To 27X) Again, it's not about what is real or not, it's about what's plausible/logical. After all, who are BioWare to tell us that the IT is false, when they are the ones who wrote such a bad ending in the first place? [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42814831]And people who defend this theory aren't doing the exact same thing? You guys are the ones drawing connections and excuses, and stuff based on shit that is the result of nothing but poor writing. everything in the game can be taken at face value because there is no hidden way of looking at anything in the game. I fail to see how me believing that crappy writing is indeed crappy writing makes less sense than believing in some half-cocked theory about mind control that people are pulling out of their ass just to make a bitter pill less bitter. I dunno why I'm still going on about this. It's like trying to tell a conspiracy theorist that 9/11 wasn't an inside job or that there are no aliens at Area 51.[/QUOTE] You are apparently forgetting one thing: the IT is not a crazy theory to make the bad ending better than it is; Shepard's endoctrination was a serious possibility from the beginning of the series. Just understand the way I see it: the ME3 ending? Far-fetched, ridiculous. The IT? Logical, plausible. Both are overwhelmingly disappointing anyway.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42820536] You are apparently forgetting one thing: [B]the IT is not a crazy theory to make the bad ending better than it is[/B]; Shepard's endoctrination was a serious possibility from the beginning of the series. Just understand the way I see it: the ME3 ending? Far-fetched, ridiculous. The IT? Logical, plausible. Both are overwhelmingly disappointing anyway.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure it was since it was never brought up before the shitty ending and then all of a sudden people crawl out of the woodwork with this crazy bullshit trying to ease their pain and make BioWare seem super clever when they aren't.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42820536] After all, who are BioWare to tell us that the IT is false, when they are the ones who wrote such a bad ending in the first place? [/QUOTE] Death of the Author is load of shit.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42820705]I'm pretty sure it was since it was never brought up before the shitty ending and then all of a sudden people crawl out of the woodwork with this crazy bullshit trying to ease their pain and make BioWare seem super clever when they aren't.[/QUOTE] Listen here; the IT is not crazy, it's plausible; the IT was not invented to ease anyone's pain, it's still a bad ending; the IT does not aim at making BioWare seem clever, they still fucked up really bad. Why do I believe in the IT? Because it makes the ending (and the series) better in my opinion. Whether it does it for you too, is nothing else than personal taste, and is therefore a sterile debate.

It's a crackpot theory that holds about as much water as a broken glass.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42813122]And I'm saying it doesn't fit and isn't better. It's basically conspiracy theory tripe on the level of people who think 9/11 was an inside job. It's that retarded. Shepard being indoctrinated would not makes sense because it goes against his character that has been established and developed over the course of three games. Having him suddenly be so weak willed that he gets mind controlled is beyond silly and an insult to his established character quite frankly.[/QUOTE] lol WHAT? Shepard just couldn't resist the urge anymore, especially after being heavily damaged by Harbinger's beam (who, might I remind you for the trillionth time, is standing right over him), it wouldn't make him weak, it would mean that 3 games of contact with reaper shit finally had its effect on him. Once again, it doesn't break the lore, what does break the lore is Shepard's invulnerability to indoctrination for such a long time despite his ridiculously long exposure to reapers. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821077]It's a crackpot theory that holds about as much water as a broken glass.[/QUOTE] You really have yet to give reasons besides that it "goes against the lore", and I have to wonder how the reaper's most important ability being used against the main character is "going against the lore". [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42810601]It's worse in pretty much every way but the main one being it basically turns the plot into a "but is was all a dream!" which is just fucking terrible. And no he didn't, any "signs" you see of him being indoctrinated are just you looking for anything possible to justify the horrible ending.[/QUOTE] I dunno, bad dreams are a common literary device used to represent mental instability or whatever, it all just makes sense to me. Honestly I think you just want to talk shit so you can feel better than others.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821077]It's a crackpot theory that holds about as much water as a broken glass.[/QUOTE] Can you explain or link to something that shows why it is a bad theory? What parts of the indoctrination theory don't make sense? I know it has been confirmed false, but i haven't seen anything that means it isn't plausible if you just take what is shown in the game. Things such as the illusive man controlling Anderson and Shephard, black edges around the screen, multiple voices heard at the same time, reaper growls, Shephards dreams etc can all be explained by the indoctrination theory. I don't think anyone is saying it is definitely true, as much as people would like it to be, Bioware aren't that good writers and clearly didn't think things through at all considering how the rest of the game is. Bioware have said it isn't true, but that doesn't mean the theory itself make no sense. The real reason for it all is just bad writing, but i haven't seen anything wrong with the the evidence for the theory. The things used to support it actually do seem to make sense and can be explained by Indoctrination.

[QUOTE=nightlord;42821137]Can you explain or link to something that shows why it is a bad theory? What parts of the indoctrination theory don't make sense? [/QUOTE] Someone already posted a video in this very thread.

[QUOTE=Novangel;42813959][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5qPIcuMZA[/media] Why the Indoctrination theory is bad.[/QUOTE] Ok so after watching this video the most I learned was that this guy is a horrible attempt at copying Plinkett, he did not really explain why the indoctrination theory was bad, he didn't explain why it was not plausible, in fact he even said it was plausible. His focus in this video is a fight against the theory because it would be a bad choice from Bioware, which is not really relevant to the discussion we're having. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821194]Someone already posted a video in this very thread.[/QUOTE] Did you yourself watch the video? As I explained, he does not go against the IT in itself, he goes against the usage of it by Bioware, but that has nothing to do with the theory itself. The entire discussion we're having right now spurred from you claiming that the IT is implausible and makes no sense, but the Plinkett-clone himself said that it is plausible, and you have yet to give much explanation as to why you yourself believe the IT to be implausible, besides that it "breaks the lore" which I have already dealt with, but you have yet to actually reply to that either. Really, why are you even arguing? You show no attempts to learn anything or adapt your position, or to even share the specifics of your position, it seems to me you are arguing just to be an asshole to others, because not agreeing with people on this subject gives you the ability to call people conspiracy theorists in a bid to paint yourself superior. tl;dr, i hate you

You watched a 12 minute video in 5 minutes?

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821292]You watched a 12 minute video in 5 minutes?[/QUOTE] Well to be fair, he posted it like, yesterday, so I have had a lot of time to watch it. Yes, I did watch the video in the last 17~ minutes, I don't know where you got 5 minutes from anyway. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Oh, because the post was posted 5 minutes ago, what? How does that make sense? I made the post after I finally finished the video...wtf

[QUOTE=be;42821301]Well to be fair, he posted it like, yesterday, so I have had a lot of time to watch it. Yes, I did watch the video in the last 17~ minutes, I don't know where you got 5 minutes from anyway.[/QUOTE] I subtracted the difference between our post times under the assumption that you watched the video just 11 minutes ago.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821319]I subtracted the difference between our post times under the assumption that you watched the video just 11 minutes ago.[/QUOTE] Oh, no, I went to go watch it because I finally felt like dealing with this argument once and for all, coincidentally about when you brought it up a few mins ago. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Alright, I'm going to watch [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck[/media] and jot down some of the main points that I'd like to see you debunk, and we can go from there, unless you don't even want to bother, in which case ok.

How does the IT break the lore?.. It's more lore-friendly than the actual ending. Like, in every way possible. Besides: if you think the IT is kinda insulting to Mac Walters and the ME3 ending, then I tell you that Mac Walters and the ME3 ending are definitely insulting to Drew Karpyshyn and his original Mass Effect vision.

[QUOTE=be;42821336]Oh, no, I went to go watch it because I finally felt like dealing with this argument once and for all, coincidentally about when you brought it up a few mins ago. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Alright, I'm going to watch [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ythY_GkEBck[/media] and jot down some of the main points that I'd like to see you debunk, and we can go from there, unless you don't even want to bother, in which case ok.[/QUOTE] I'd rather not even fucking bother since this was all shit the community debunked a year ago.

I love how every major franchise that plans a trilogy always ends up making another game.

Actually maybe it'd be easier if you simply explain why you think it's false, you're the one making the claims anyway. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821400]I'd rather not even fucking bother since this was all shit the community debunked a year ago.[/QUOTE] Okay, I definitely expected that, I knew you wouldn't be able to support your own beliefs, as you have yet to do so here anyway.

The first, and biggest, mistake Bioware made in the Mass Effect series was making the Reapers into an incomprehensibly powerful lovecraftian force of (un)nature in the [I]first[/I] game of a trilogy. That shit with Sovereign should've been drawn out over the course of the entire series. Your struggle should've been entirely to stop Sovereign and his pawns from getting to the Citadel and opening the Relay. Literally everything after ME1 was a constant downgrade in power for the Reapers, from them having conveniently vulnerable crab-walkers to their leader being a nefarious thumb-twiddler with hammy dialogue and a deep, meaty voice.

[QUOTE=be;42821493]Actually maybe it'd be easier if you simply explain why you think it's false, you're the one making the claims anyway.[/QUOTE] I think it's false because it has been debunked by everyone and their mother. It's really that fucking simple. That simple fact invalidates it and it should be chucked away for that reason alone and as such it also should no longer have any relevance in discussions about the ME3 ending. I have NOTHING else to say on the matter. Oh and what the guy below me said.

What I don't like about the indoc. theory is that it undermines the player, and one of the main ideas of the game itself. How am I supposed to care about any decision I make when it can all be handwaved as a hallucination? It's lazy. Instead of coming up with something solid, a piece of writing you can actually be proud of, you resort to "fixing" all your problems by saying it was a dream. And that's supposed to be satisfying? As a fix for a subpar ending, it all feels like a cheap bandaid compared to actually fixing the problem in the first place.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821545]I think it's false because it has been debunked by everyone and their mother. It's really that fucking simple. That simple fact invalidates it and it should be chucked away for that reason alone and as such it also should no longer have any relevance in discussions about the ME3 ending. I have NOTHING else to say on the matter.[/QUOTE] Well, okay, it's too bad that your only actual attempt to prove the IT wrong is pants on head retarded, with your claim that it goes against the lore of ME, I really have to question how sound your judgement is, as it also seems you are attempting to force yourself into disbelieving the IT. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Gar;42821560]What I don't like about the indoc. theory is that it undermines the player, and one of the main ideas of the game itself. How am I supposed to care about any decision I make when it can all be handwaved as a hallucination? It's lazy. Instead of coming up with something solid, a piece of writing you can actually be proud of, you resort to "fixing" all your problems by saying it was a dream. And that's supposed to be satisfying? As a fix for a subpar ending, it all feels like a cheap bandaid compared to actually fixing the problem in the first place.[/QUOTE] Well it would fix the problem in the first place, it would make the ending an internal struggle. The hope I had at least was that the IT meant that at some point Shepard would be woken up to continue his fight after defeating the reaper's attempt to indoctrinate him. Unfortunately, that never happened, but I think that with what the IT posits, it is possible as fuck, and would have been, imo, a very good idea.

[QUOTE=be;42821596]Well, okay, it's too bad that your only actual attempt to prove the IT wrong is pants on head retarded, with your claim that it goes against the lore of ME, I really have to question how sound your judgement is, as it also seems you are attempting to force yourself into disbelieving the IT.[/QUOTE] As opposed to the theory which is pant on head retarded. I guess I'm (along with everyone else who thinks it's a load of shit) a blithering idiot for not believing in a theory some fans pulled out of their ass. Like we're in the minority or something!

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821649]As opposed to the theory which is pant on head retarded. I guess I'm (along with everyone else who thinks it's a load of shit) a blithering idiot for not believing in a theory some fans pulled out of their ass. Like we're in the minority or something![/QUOTE] If the theory is so blaringly flawed, then why are you unable to fashion even a single reason (your "lore-unfriendly" claim is literally wrong) just off the top of your head?

[QUOTE=Gar;42821560]What I don't like about the indoc. theory is that it undermines the player, and one of the main ideas of the game itself. How am I supposed to care about any decision I make when it can all be handwaved as a hallucination? It's lazy. Instead of coming up with something solid, a piece of writing you can actually be proud of, you resort to "fixing" all your problems by saying it was a dream. And that's supposed to be satisfying? As a fix for a subpar ending, it all feels like a cheap bandaid compared to actually fixing the problem in the first place.[/QUOTE] If you're uncomfortable with the IT, you don't adopt it. Simple as that. The real ending also undermines the player anyway. "How am I supposed to care about any decision I make when it all comes down to EMS?"

[QUOTE=be;42821719]If the theory is so blaringly flawed, then why are you unable to fashion even a single reason just off the top of your head?[/QUOTE] Because I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. This whole fucking thing was (or should have been) put to rest a year ago and the fact that this is still being brought up a year later is baffling to me. It isn't even a theory anymore, it's a fantasy thanks to the DLC.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821736]Because I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words. This whole fucking thing was (or should have been) put to rest a year ago and the fact that this is still being brought up a year later is baffling to me. It isn't even a theory anymore, it's a fantasy thanks to the DLC.[/QUOTE] But I, at least, am not arguing that it is the truth, and I have continuously made this clear to you (but of course you ignore that), I have been arguing against you saying that it doesn't make sense/isn't plausible.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821194]Someone already posted a video in this very thread.[/QUOTE] I've just watched that video, and he doesn't really explain why it doesn't make sense, just that from the point of view of a customer there are issues with it and it raises a few more questions. He even says he doesn't find the theory terrible. If it was true, the ending would have some things which aren't resolved such as what really happened with the crucible and how much of the ending was real, but there aren't any large problems with it which completely invalidate it (at least no bigger problems than if it isn't true). Without the theory there is no explanation (other than just Bioware being terrible writers) for things like Shepard waking up in a pile of rubble, the illusive man controlling Shepard and Anderson, Anderson somehow getting to the control room before Shepard despite being behind him, multiple voices being heard at the same time, the reaper growls and all the other things which can be explained by the indoctrination theory. You can't explain them, not without just saying it's bad writing (which it is). You're saying the theory makes no sense, despite the ending itself making absolutely no sense anyway. Either way there are plenty of problems but the indoctrination theory solves quite a few of them, which is why it is plausible. People wanted an in-game explanation for why the ending is bad, and the indoctrination theory provided one. As much as i'd like the theory to be true i know it isn't, but even if it has been confirmed wrong by Bioware, there isn't anything in the game that makes the theory bad. From a writing point of view and from the point of view of a customer it might be bad, but if you only consider what is in game there isn't anything that makes it lore-unfriendly.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821736]Because I'm not very good at putting my thoughts into words.[/QUOTE] I can see that, it must be why you've been using words such as "fucking", "shit" etc. so much to convey your points. Also, you mean Extended Cut added more evidence that the IT is not believable? If you watch [URL="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeJkR683Sas"]this video[/URL], you might realize it's all the contrary. But I know you won't bother watching it.

[QUOTE=be;42821754]But I, at least, am not arguing that it is the truth, and I have continuously made this clear to you (but of course you ignore that), I have been arguing against you saying that it doesn't make sense/isn't plausible.[/QUOTE] Obviously you aren't going to change my views and the same goes for me. We are arguing about a topic that died a year ago. It should stay dead.