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

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42821735]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] Yes. That's the "first place" problem I was referring to: your decisions don't matter. The IT theory doesn't fix that. It still takes control away from you.

There's plenty that makes the theory bad, because bad is a [B]subjective term.[/B] It's also shitty writing in and of itself, so saying shitty writing makes other shitty writing not as shitty is semantic circlejerkular argumentation at best. There's also a three hundred page thread punching a gaping hole in every point about Indoc on BWS, why in god's name would anyone want to drag all that shit out over what is entirely a moot point, a year later. Three hundred pages.

[QUOTE=Gar;42821833]Yes. That's the "first place" problem I was referring to: your decisions don't matter. The IT theory doesn't fix that. It still takes control away from you.[/QUOTE] Indeed, the IT's purpose is elsewhere. [QUOTE=27X;42821845]There's plenty that makes the theory bad, because bad is a [B]subjective term.[/B] It's also shitty writing in and of itself, so saying shitty writing makes other shitty writing not as shitty is semantic circlejerkular argumentation at best.[/QUOTE] Yes, they're both shitty endings. It's about which one makes the most sense, is plausible, etc. In other words, the IT is the least shitty ending out of the two. Well, it really depends on personal views.

[QUOTE=Gar;42821833]Yes. That's the "first place" problem I was referring to: your decisions don't matter. The IT theory doesn't fix that. It still takes control away from you.[/QUOTE] I figured the IT's purpose was to serve as the beginning of a twist where the extended cut would've totally revamped the ending, but they didn't, so now all I can argue is the plausibility of the theory in general, but I know that it doesn't fit anymore. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=27X;42821845]There's plenty that makes the theory bad, because bad is a [B]subjective term.[/B] It's also shitty writing in and of itself, so saying shitty writing makes other shitty writing not as shitty is semantic circlejerkular argumentation at best. There's also a three hundred page thread punching a gaping hole in every point about Indoc on BWS, why in god's name would anyone want to drag all that shit out over what is entirely a moot point, a year later. Three hundred pages.[/QUOTE] Source? To be fair, there are 1-2 hour long videos with points of the indoc theory that show an attempt at being unbiased, but I can't say that I expect an unbiased perspective from a bunch of angry rabid anonymous internet users.

[QUOTE=be;42821883]I figured the IT's purpose was to serve as the beginning of a twist where the extended cut would've totally revamped the ending, but they didn't, so now all I can argue is the plausibility of the theory in general, but I know that it doesn't fit anymore.[/QUOTE] So really you're just arguing your personal belief. That's all fine and dandy and I hate to break it to you but us guys who discount the ID do not care about your personal belief(especially one year later). For us it has been factually and literately discredited by the community and BioWare and that is all that matters. If you want to continue to believe that it's plausible or whatever then go right ahead but don't expect us to be receptive to this old news.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42821984]So really you're just arguing your personal belief. That's all fine and dandy and I hate to break it to you but us guys who discount the ID do not care about your personal belief(especially one year later). For us it has been factually and literately discredited by the community and BioWare and that is all that matters. If you want to continue to believe that it's plausible or whatever then go right ahead but don't expect us to be receptive to this old news.[/QUOTE] What the fuck do you think all this is about? You claimed that the IT is implausible and impossible with what we were shown in the game, and the rest of the thread has been dedicated to you saying absolutely nothing useful except for your condescending quips claiming it's "pants on head retarded" and calling people who disagree with you "conspiracy theorists" in the face of people positing some explanations for why the IT is plausible. Bioware's discrediting by not following the IT is irrelevant, everyone in this thread understands that the IT is not the canon, but we are arguing that it is plausible, do you understand? We aren't arguing that it is what is really happening in the end, we are arguing that it is totally possible and logically consistent. The claim that the interpretations of your side are "factually correct" and that those of those who disagree with you are "factually incorrect" is laughably childish. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Have you ever watched the hour+ long videos about the IT? You don't have to now, because I know you're lazy, but have you actually allowed yourself to get an unbiased education on this subject?

[QUOTE=be;42822106]What the fuck do you think all this is about? You claimed that the IT is implausible and impossible with what we were shown in the game, and the rest of the thread has been dedicated to you saying absolutely nothing useful except for your condescending quips claiming it's "pants on head retarded" and calling people who disagree with you "conspiracy theorists" in the face of people positing some explanations for why the IT is plausible. Bioware's discrediting by not following the IT is irrelevant, everyone in this thread understands that the IT is not the canon, but we are arguing that it is plausible, do you understand? We aren't arguing that it is what is really happening in the end, we are arguing that it is totally possible and logically consistent. The claim that the interpretations of your side are "factually correct" and that those of those who disagree with you are "factually incorrect" is laughably childish. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Have you ever watched the hour+ long videos about the IT? You don't have to now, because I know you're lazy, but have you actually allowed yourself to get an unbiased education on this subject?[/QUOTE] I watched everything related to the IT a year ago just like everyone else. By the way you're the one who called me "pants on head retarded" I don't recall saying exactly that myself.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42822178]I watched everything related to the ID a year ago just like everyone else. By the way you're the one who called me "pants on head retarded" I don't recall saying exactly that myself.[/QUOTE] I did not call you pants on head retarded, I called your only argument (that you repeated despite being argued against[without arguing back might I add]) pants on head retarded because it is literally wrong.

[QUOTE=be;42822188]I did not call you pants on head retarded, I called your only argument (that you repeated despite being argued against[without arguing back might I add]) pants on head retarded because it is literally wrong.[/QUOTE] That's not the issue. You quoted me as saying that when it was you.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42822206]That's not the issue. You quoted me as saying that when it was you.[/QUOTE] You are correct, that was another person and I apologize, but what is the issue here anyway? So what if I called your idea pants on head retarded, and so what if I confused you with someone else who is arguing the same point as you? The point I was making was that you were talkin fuck about the IT and people who believe it, which you were. Unfortunately I used a phrase that someone else used and incorrect attributed it to you, my bad, and again, I apologize, but that is a tiny detail that doesn't detract from my purpose.

[QUOTE=be;42822245]You are correct, that was another person and I apologize, but what is the issue here anyway? So what if I called your idea pants on head retarded, and so what if I confused you with someone else who is arguing the same point as you? The point I was making was that you were talkin fuck about the IT and people who believe it, which you were. Unfortunately I used a phrase that someone else used and incorrect attributed it to you, my bad, and again, I apologize, but that is a tiny detail that doesn't detract from my purpose.[/QUOTE] No, but I don't like it when people put words in my mouth. It's a huge pet peeve of mine that pisses me off to no end. I'm sure you can understand.

Yo I still wanna know the fuck the end scene of the destroy sequence was supposed to be, with Shepard breathing in a pile of rubble? That seems like 100% proof that he was simply asleep during the ending, because otherwise would literally not make sense (he survived re-entry without a helmet on? please, he couldn't survive it with a full-suit on in ME2's opening)

[QUOTE=be;42822354]Yo I still wanna know the fuck the end scene of the destroy sequence was supposed to be, with Shepard breathing in a pile of rubble? That seems like 100% proof that he was simply asleep during the ending, because otherwise would literally not make sense (he survived re-entry without a helmet on? please, he couldn't survive it with a full-suit on in ME2's opening)[/QUOTE]That's supposed to mean that Shepard survived and wakes up on the citadel in a pile of rubble after the explosion. I think Bioware said it themselves.

[QUOTE=laarg;42822430]That's supposed to mean that Shepard survived and wakes up on the citadel in a pile of rubble after the explosion. I think Bioware said it themselves.[/QUOTE] Apparently all they've said about it is: "You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together." So I dunno what to do anymore, it doesn't confirm it was the citadel. At some point at comicon a fan asked a developer why Shepard is able to breath during the Starchild scene, and he says "because he's covered in rebar". The fuck does that mean?

Shepard's survival scene doesn't make much sense (without the IT anyway): if I remember correctly, it looks like concrete rubble. There is absolutely no concrete on the Citadel; besides, how could he have survived the Citadel destruction? The only solution is that he stayed on Earth the whole time. Why? Endoctrination Theory. I know this has been said times and again, but I really don't see any other explanation. If I show Mass Effect 3 to someone, they'll eventually ask one or more questions about the ending, and some logical answers can be found in the Indoctrination Theory. I won't tell them that BioWare debunked it though, because that would ruin it.

[QUOTE=be;42822540]Apparently all they've said about it is: "You may notice that in the “Shepard lives” ending, the love interest hesitates to place Shepard’s name on the wall, and instead looks up as though deep in thought. This is meant to suggest that the love interest is not ready to believe Shepard is dead, and the final scene reveals they are correct. As the Normandy lifts off, there is hope that the love interest and Shepard will again be together." So I dunno what to do anymore, it doesn't confirm it was the citadel. At some point at comicon a fan asked a developer why Shepard is able to breath during the Starchild scene, and he says "because he's covered in rebar". The fuck does that mean?[/QUOTE]Seeing as the citadel isn't fully destroyed in the destroy ending, it's likely that Shepard still is on the citadel. As for how Shepard can breathe, that response sounds stupid, if I was in Bioware's place I would rather say emergency mass effect field or something.

[QUOTE=laarg;42822818]Seeing as the citadel isn't fully destroyed in the destroy ending, it's likely that Shepard still is on the citadel. As for how Shepard can breathe, that response sounds stupid, if I was in Bioware's place I would rather say emergency mass effect field or something.[/QUOTE] Well they didn't, so yeah. As Loadingue said, the rubble was more concrete like, which the citadel has none of, which means that he would be on Earth, but even Bioware wouldn't make it so that Shepard survived a re-entry, that would be stupid as fuck, especially when Shepard already went through re-entry, and died pretty hardcore then too. Plus, during the destroy ending the citadel is destroyed, it explodes many times with a large explosion in the center (which would've engulfed Shepard). Also, I have looked for information on disproving the indoctrination theory, but I have been unable to find any videos, and have found very short threads that did not come even close to disproving the IT. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Oh and did I mention that because Shepard is partly synthetic he could not have survived just because of the destroy ending's nature?

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42797208]I like Mass Effect 1, but it's still the worst game in the series in my opinion. Why? Because of the terribly unrefined gameplay, awful sound management and clumsy quests. People tend to complain about ME3's plotholes, but let's not forget ME1 had a couple of them too. My favourite is ME2 still.[/QUOTE] I had to play through ME1 on the 360, how do you think I feel?! Still found it really fun though even though I still hadn't entirely gotten used to the controls by the time I finished it.

[QUOTE=be;42822994]Well they didn't, so yeah. As Loadingue said, the rubble was more concrete like, which the citadel has none of, which means that he would be on Earth, but even Bioware wouldn't make it so that Shepard survived a re-entry, that would be stupid as fuck, especially when Shepard already went through re-entry, and died pretty hardcore then too. Plus, during the destroy ending the citadel is destroyed, it explodes many times with a large explosion in the center (which would've engulfed Shepard). Also, I have looked for information on disproving the indoctrination theory, but I have been unable to find any videos, and have found very short threads that did not come even close to disproving the IT.[/QUOTE]The citadel is very damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Where does it say what the citadel is build of? Is it in some codex entry? Have no memory of that. [thumb]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/ivan_k/MassEffect/Slides/D-CitPieces-2.jpg[/thumb]

[QUOTE=laarg;42823136]The citadel is very damaged, but not entirely destroyed. Where does it say what the citadel is build of? Is it in some codex entry? Have no memory of that. [thumb]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v26/ivan_k/MassEffect/Slides/D-CitPieces-2.jpg[/thumb][/QUOTE] Yeah but if you watch the destruction ending [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnyPIV0jS5M[/media] (2:45) you see a massive explosion that engulfs the enter center of the citadel, which is where Shepard is. [img]http://i.imgur.com/gSzH0i5.png[/img] There is no chance. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] The fact Shepard couldn't survive either the destroy ending due to its nature or the explosion that the destroy ending causes is undeniable proof that Shepard never made the choice, and was never on the citadel in the first place.

[QUOTE=be;42823241]The fact Shepard couldn't survive either the destroy ending due to its nature or the explosion that the destroy ending causes is [b]undeniable proof[/b] that Shepard never made the choice, and was never on the citadel in the first place.[/QUOTE] Undeniable proof? Are you crazy? "It doesn't LOOK like concrete, therefore he was dreaming." "The explosion was BIG! No way he could have survived!" The other two endings involve mind controlling the Reapers, and fundamentally altering the DNA of every organic and robotic being in existence, with no downside. You're telling me the same people who wrote those endings, wouldn't write an ending where Shepard survives a big explosion? Shit, he's already survived worse. Come on, the ending was bad. It was BAD. The Indoctrination Theory only exists because it was SO BAD, fans couldn't believe the same people who wrote the previous two, mostly solid, games could possibly write something so bad. But see, that's all it is.

[QUOTE=Gar;42823543]Undeniable proof? Are you crazy? "It doesn't LOOK like concrete, therefore he was dreaming." "The explosion was BIG! No way he could have survived!" The other two endings involve mind controlling the Reapers, and fundamentally altering the DNA of every organic and robotic being in existence, with no downside. You're telling me the same people who wrote those endings, wouldn't write an ending where Shepard survives a big explosion? Shit, he's already survived worse. Come on, the ending was bad. It was BAD. The Indoctrination Theory only exists because it was SO BAD, fans couldn't believe the same people who wrote the previous two, mostly solid, games could possibly write something so bad. But see, that's all it is.[/QUOTE] It's funny you describe IT fans that way because that's exactly what you're doing, you're so hardwired on believing that Bioware is incompetent that you think they'd allow you to survive a dozen megaton explosion, the destroy ending's synthetic destruction (along with the parts of your body that rely on synthetic thingies), and the bleeding that Shepard is experiencing as a result of...whatever. [editline]10th November 2013[/editline] Also I didn't operate under the assumption that rubble was that of London, I know that I can't say that for sure so I ignored it and instead used the explosion + destroy ending's nature as my proof which I can say for sure happened.

[QUOTE=be;42823657]It's funny you describe IT fans that way because that's exactly what you're doing, you're so hardwired on believing that Bioware is incompetent that you think they'd allow you to survive a dozen megaton explosion, the destroy ending's synthetic destruction (along with the parts of your body that rely on synthetic thingies), and the bleeding that Shepard is experiencing as a result of...whatever.[/QUOTE] Hey, his meat and tubes survived long enough to sustain brain function for Cerberus to revive. And [I]that[/I] sounds even crazier than just surviving an explosion. [QUOTE=be;42823657]Also I didn't operate under the assumption that rubble was that of London, I know that I can't say that for sure so I ignored it and instead used the explosion + destroy ending's nature as my proof which I can say for sure happened.[/QUOTE] Fair enough on the rubble. As for the synthetics keeping Shepard alive, they opted for complete...I dunno, "re-growth" for a while before resorting to cybernetics. (In ME2) Given Bioware's past views at what Shepard can survive, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for them to say he survived that.

[QUOTE=be;42822994]Oh and did I mention that because Shepard is partly synthetic he could not have survived just because of the destroy ending's nature?[/QUOTE] Like someone said in a video related to IT, Shepard could survive without his synthetic systems... barely. Maybe he's brain-dead, maybe it's his last breath, no one knows. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Gar;42823698]Hey, his meat and tubes survived long enough to sustain brain function for Cerberus to revive. And [I]that[/I] sounds even crazier than just surviving an explosion.[/QUOTE] It's different. Shepard really did die in ME2, and it was a unique and extremely expensive project which managed to bring him back after 2 years. In ME3, Shepard is supposed to survive a colossal explosion (practically) in space? It's much harder to believe in my opinion.

I will never forgive Mac Walters for his display of complete literary incompetence with Mass Effect 3. And thanks to how badly they wrote themselves into a corner, I can't say I'm excited for Mass Effect 4.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42823781]It's different. Shepard really did die in ME2, and it was a unique and extremely expensive project which managed to bring him back after 2 years. In ME3, Shepard is supposed to survive a colossal explosion (practically) in space? It's much harder to believe in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Well, the point was the fact that he died and was resurrected in ME2 makes it just as plausible that he survives at the end of ME3. It doesn't change the fact that it's still bad writing all around.

Everything can be explained by BioWare's utter incompetence.

[QUOTE=chunkymonkey;42824693]Everything can be explained by BioWare's utter incompetence.[/QUOTE] Of course, but to believe that is the case is a bias in itself, but it is at least somewhat reasonable.

[QUOTE=be;42824758]Of course, but to believe that is the case is a bias in itself, but it is at least somewhat reasonable.[/QUOTE] I used to really like BioWare but then they started producing dog shit and ruining my favorite series. First they killed Dragon Age with DA2, then they killed KOTOR with TOR, and finally they killed Mass Effect with ME3.

I hope that they revamp the whole formula. Me1 was great, Me2 was decent but I never got around finishing Me3. The dialogues were so restricted and black and white, the combat wasn't really fun either. It felt dull, also the animations and level design sucked. The universe of Mass Effect is really amazing and has a lot of potential but the games are not that great, I don't even know why it got so much hype.