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

[QUOTE=Swilly;42831056]He also had no idea how to end Mass Effect 3.[/QUOTE] To be fair, he wasn't given the opportunity to try either.

[QUOTE=G3rman;42831660]To be fair, he wasn't given the opportunity to try either.[/QUOTE] Well in some interview (which I can't be arsed to find, if someone else will, props) he said they worked on an ending to trilogy, specifically, on Reapers motivation. And quite sadly, the "logical" loop we got in the end was one of the more viable variants. Yeah, that one. Reapers are synthetics who destroy organics so organics wouldn't create sythetics who would destroy organics. The actual endings were created by that... team... One who came up with Synthesis deserves to be, I don't know, awarded with something very bad, like, dog shit, or something. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Loadingue;42828078]If I'm not mistaken, the whole IT debate is the following: the ME3 ending is inconsistent with the rest of the series, from an outside/video game perspective (EMS alone determines how well it ends, etc) as well as from an inside/scenaristic perspective (the Catalyst, the uncomprehensible choice between the three ways to save the galaxy). Then the IT comes in, and while it makes the ending even less consistent from the outside perspective (no choice given to the player at all), it does make the game more consistent from the inside perspective (endoctrination was always a possibility, also explains Shepard's dreams, etc). It's that even greater lack of consistence from the outside perspective that some people don't like. Am I right? And there's also the Extended Cut, which adds a bit more consistence on both the outside perspective (EMS not as important, possibility to say "no" to the Catalyst) and the inside perspective (the Catalyst explains pretty much everything to Shepard). What makes things more complicated though, is that the EC can be seen as confirming that the IT is false in an outside perspective (why didn't they change the ending if the IT is true?) but also that it is true in an inside perspective (adding more "signs" towards it, not removing any). Did I get this right?[/QUOTE] Nope. IT doesn't make anything more consistent neither from the "outside" perspective, nor from the "inside" perspective. It's just what it is, a piece of fanfiction dissapointed fans came up with. And it contradicts a lot, for example, entire concept of Indoctrination. It's worst sin, however, is that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do - it doesn't explain anything at all. It does less for that than original ending. And no, EC doesn't fix anything at all, it opens some more cans of worms. - Shuttles from ME2 - Normandy is so big and massive that it can't go into the planets' atmosphere. ME3 forgets about it at the start of the game, and then devs go nuts with it LANDING on the surface in EC; - Synthesis ending, they would've been better off not trying to expand upon that at all. Because new DNA from merge of organics and synthetics was bad as is, but the visual representation of it was just mindnumbingly awful and cringeworthy, guy who was responsible for it doesn't even know how DNA molecule looks like; - Control ending: Shepard is now the ultimate god-dictator enforcing his will upon everything and everyone, regardless of was he/she a Paragon or a Renegade. Visuals show us Reapers standing around on surface of the Earth. Indoctrinating people: Bioware forgot their own writing. Again; - "Normandy getting stranded on an unidentified planet" scene makes even less sense across all endings; - btw Syntesis on the line again, how do husks and all the reaper forces feel being alive again? It's all garbage. Across the board and beyond, it's very bad. It's possibly the worst ending of a series in videogame history. And from my point of view, apparent IT populatiry (which died down, fortunately) just shows how bad it is, so the contrived fanfic fans came up with seems more believable for a lot of people.

[QUOTE=gudman;42832271]Nope. IT doesn't make anything more consistent neither from the "outside" perspective, nor from the "inside" perspective. It's just what it is, a piece of fanfiction dissapointed fans came up with. And it contradicts a lot, for example, entire concept of Indoctrination. It's worst sin, however, is that it doesn't do what it's supposed to do - it doesn't explain anything at all. It does less for that than original ending.[/QUOTE] I don't understand. How does it contradict the entire concept of indoctrination? Someone said earlier that Shepard couldn't be endoctrinated for 10 minutes just like that, but the whole series shows it is absolutely possible. Rana Thanoptis, the Illusive Man... They were all exposed to endoctrination devices. The Illusive Man for a short, intense moment (and only started to become obvious many years later), while Rana Thanoptis was exposed passively for a long time, and it also took a few years to get a hold of her. Shepard was exposed, sometimes intensely, to an endoctrination device quite a few times. If Shepard had never shown signs of indoctrination before the ending, I could believe the IT is a meager attempt at explaining all the crap in the ending. But it happens Shepard has had recurrent nightmares that show many signs of indoctrination before (which you do not need to know about the IT to recognize).

[QUOTE=G3rman;42831660]To be fair, he wasn't given the opportunity to try either.[/QUOTE] Although, to be fair, this is still partly Drew's fault for making the Reapers so goddamn powerful. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] Seriously, they were writing themselves toward a corner from day 1. They could've gotten themselves out of the mess, but he jumped ship by then.

[QUOTE=wraithcat;42829022]Honestly my most favourite theory still is, that mass effect 2 and 3 never happened. It's all just Shephard's imagination from a lack of oxygen, pain and heat as she's slowly burning up on the descend at the beginning of ME2. It's the best thing to explain the sudden changes to a lot of the characters. And how suddenly Shephard is much more of a superhero like figure in the eyes of the population. It's all a delirous dieing dream Shephard is having.[/QUOTE] You realize that's the same damn thing, right? hahahahaha... wow. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=The_J_Hat;42832822]Although, to be fair, this is still partly Drew's fault for making the Reapers so goddamn powerful. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] Seriously, they were writing themselves toward a corner from day 1. They could've gotten themselves out of the mess, but he jumped ship by then.[/QUOTE] There's still plenty of ways to get around stuff like that. There have been closer scraps and more robust villains in scifi for decades. What you need is cleverness and and deep understanding of context. Neither Walters nor Hudson have that. Hudson's goal was to create a branching flag-collector that would dynamically alter current circumstance by taking flag resolves and forging narrative paths. This was never anything more than an engineering project based on 80s scifi to him. That part happened, the context in which it happened is why we are where we are. Walters is an entirely different rant, and there's no use in spelling it out anymore. Also saying Karpyshyn was just as stuck is theorizing at best. [editline]11th November 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Loadingue;42828078]If I'm not mistaken, the whole IT debate is the following: the ME3 ending is inconsistent with the rest of the series, from an outside/video game perspective (EMS alone determines how well it ends, etc) as well as from an inside/scenaristic perspective (the Catalyst, the uncomprehensible choice between the three ways to save the galaxy). Then the IT comes in, and while it makes the ending even less consistent from the outside perspective (no choice given to the player at all), it does make the game more consistent from the inside perspective (endoctrination was always a possibility, also explains Shepard's dreams, etc). It's that even greater lack of consistence from the outside perspective that some people don't like. Am I right? And there's also the Extended Cut, which adds a bit more consistence on both the outside perspective (EMS not as important, possibility to say "no" to the Catalyst) and the inside perspective (the Catalyst explains pretty much everything to Shepard). What makes things more complicated though, is that the EC can be seen as confirming that the IT is false in an outside perspective (why didn't they change the ending if the IT is true?) but also that it is true in an inside perspective (adding more "signs" towards it, not removing any). Did I get this right?[/QUOTE] There is no debate. IT is hilariously terrible and juvenile, and would get you laughed out of most venues for being the TVT slashfiction it is.

Why is the IT even considered better anyways? There's no ending. It's just "shep was indoctrinated at the end", and then... What? It doesn't close anything.

[QUOTE=Skyward;42835442]Why is the IT even considered better anyways? There's no ending. It's just "shep was indoctrinated at the end", and then... What? It doesn't close anything.[/QUOTE] Supposedly the IT was setup in hopes that Bioware pulled a fast one and the extended cut would offer that finishing closure of Shepard breaking free of indoctrination. They defend it for what it could have been, even though its completely pointless now.

If IT was really the extended cut for ME3, it would look like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufzJM7T36RA[/media] Nobody wants that.

[QUOTE=Skyward;42835442]Why is the IT even considered better anyways? There's no ending. It's just "shep was indoctrinated at the end", and then... What? It doesn't close anything.[/QUOTE] Well, there was one cool idea with the IT. Basically, if Shepard was getting indoctrinated throughout the trilogy and it was coming toward its peak through ME3, picking Destroy shows how Shepard defeats the reapers because they couldn't defeat him. But everything else about the IT is such bullshit, it really doesn't matter at that point.

I still disagree with you boys about the IT, but we're never gonna get anywhere. Point is: the ME3 ending is bullshit, for some the IT is too, for some it isn't. The end.

While the indoctrination theory is definitely NOT what bioware in mind, they could totally play off of it.

[QUOTE=Map in a box;42844527]While the indoctrination theory is definitely NOT what bioware in mind, they could totally play off of it.[/QUOTE] And it would still be shit so in the end we still don't get a good ending. And if you're talking about using it as a basis for ME4 then all I can say is that the game would be even worse then I thought.

[QUOTE=Loadingue;42832797] If Shepard had never shown signs of indoctrination before the ending, I could believe the IT is a meager attempt at explaining all the crap in the ending. But it happens Shepard has had recurrent nightmares that show many signs of indoctrination before (which you do not need to know about the IT to recognize).[/QUOTE] Take things at face value. These nightmares have nothing to do with indoctrination or else, they're there as an attempt to show that Shepard is somehow not a brick he/she always was. It has nothing to do with indoctrination, just because it doesn't enforce any belief at all. Reaper indoctrination is supposed to bring living sentient being into loyalty to Reaper's cause, whatever they hypnotize themselves into believing it is. Shepard's kid nightmares do nothing. Shepard is definitely not indoctrinated, not in any way, or else it would've been foreshadowed properly, as opposed to fans having to scrape the bottom of a barrel for "evidence".

[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;42836847]If IT was really the extended cut for ME3, it would look like this: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufzJM7T36RA[/media] Nobody wants that.[/QUOTE] Evangelion is actually a pretty good example for how to handle a shitty ending well. The deal with Eva was that at the end of the series the producers basically walked in and said "You won't get paid anymore". What exists was scraped together by the desperate skeleton crew that remained who wanted to give some small iota of closure to the series. It's complete nonsense and it doesn't answer anything, but it closes the whole character thing that Shinji was going through. So it was sort of related, as much as could be expected for something made for literally no money. Then Eva made a shitload of monies and they used those monies to create their own "extended cut" with End of Evangelion, the biggest most Evangelionest ending that you could ever possibly dream for, with monsters and swords and spears and Christian myth babble out the wazoo. Yeah it made no sense, but fuck it, Evangelion never made any sense. It was an emotionally logically consistent cap to the series. Whereas ME3 was the product of Lucas syndrome gone awry, with all later efforts concerned with polishing the unpolishable turd, Eva was a legitimate attempt to give the fans what they wanted. what im saying is that bioware needs to scrap the last ten minutes of ME3 and replace it with end of mass effect

Remember when we all praised Bioware? those were good days.

It's pretty fucked to think that I can see a glimpse of Mass Effect 4 and react with total indifference. This was my favorite series... Good job Bioware, it seriously takes a lot of effort to have driven a fan like me off.

[QUOTE=gudman;42848282]Take things at face value. These nightmares have nothing to do with indoctrination or else, they're there as an attempt to show that Shepard is somehow not a brick he/she always was. It has nothing to do with indoctrination, just because it doesn't enforce any belief at all. Reaper indoctrination is supposed to bring living sentient being into loyalty to Reaper's cause, whatever they hypnotize themselves into believing it is. Shepard's kid nightmares do nothing. Shepard is definitely not indoctrinated, not in any way, or else it would've been foreshadowed properly, as opposed to fans having to scrape the bottom of a barrel for "evidence".[/QUOTE] Maybe that's the problem, I'm seeing things at face value. I know (from ME1) that endoctrination causes the subject to hear voices and alien sounds; I know from ME2 and the novels (by Drew Karpyshyn) that endoctrination also causes the subject to have hallucinations and disturbing dreams; I also know that the subject is not always conscious of the endoctrination... I took things at face value, and this is where it got me. Don't be like most people and think I started believing in the IT because I wanted to; because it was convenient for a ME fan like me. It took me some convincing, a lot of it; and even when I try not to believe in it anymore, I can't help but see all the evidence. It just makes sense. I perfectly understand that it does not make sense to you equally.

I enjoy the indoctrination theory.

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;42848724]what im saying is that bioware needs to scrap the last ten minutes of ME3 and replace it with end of mass effect[/QUOTE] I really disagree with the last ten minutes. Everything from the return of the baby reaper and on really needs to be closely examined, and either logically repaired to a consistent level with the rest of the series (even though this is almost damming bioware with faint praise) or removed entirely. such as destroying the collector base but still having a babby, the citadel beam which turns itself on and off even though it is only during cutscenes for our eyes only, and the magic shit Joker pulls in five seconds in the EC being a few

I had this crazy idea for a better ending: What if Shepard went into the beam, activated the crucible, killed all the reapers, and everyone lives happily ever after? Except for Kai Leng, who reincarnates as a Vorcha sex toy.