StarCraft II Artwork Thread

[DemolitionSquid]

Yeah, there are holes. Stupid ones. But if Shepard lies dying on Earth, why put the effort into the whole charade in the first place? Talk about plot holes, IT.

This is the only thing I'm going to address here, because its the only relevant point - even if its been explained before. Why the breathing scene?

From the moment Shepard gets hit by the beam, he's dreaming. The Reapers are making another attempt to control him. He fights it. Everything he does is a choice to either give in to the control, or fight it. Ignoring the DLC for now, we still know the only way Shepard survives multiple gunshot wounds, massive explosions, and a possible fall to earth with no parachute and no helmet is if the entire thing is a dream. At multiple points throughout the series we have heard that the Reapers do not want to kill Shepard if he can instead be indoctrinated. Harbinger literally tells him this in the ME2 Arrival DLC. The ending where he is breathing is the part where we finally revert back to reality. Shepard did not give in to the Indoctination by choosing control or synthesis. He chooses destroy, the option the Star Child wants least even though the Star Child claims he is there to protect Organic life from the Synthetics (right after he refers to himself and the Reapers as "us," meaning he's nothing by a lying sack of shit). By choosing destroy, you pass the final indoctrination attempt. The Normandy retreat, the crash, the Buzz Aldrin Stargazer, its all a dream. When Shepard breathes in the rubble, he's waking up. He never left London. It was all a dream.

So again, why the breathing scene? Why lead the player on, and let the Reapers win in 2/3 of the choices?

EA. Money. DLC.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind the plan was to release a REAL ending eventually. There may even still be. The game did not end with the choice in the dream. It is merely delayed. The controversy surrounding the ending has helped to market the game, and while some people didn't buy it, like me, they will eventually make more money by selling DLC. The original ending wasn't good enough for EA, because if the game conclusively ended all DLC would be pre-ending single player stuff, which is nice but not necessary. By teasing the possibility of a real unambiguous conclusion in DLC, it encourages the memory and talk of the game to stay alive, and for people to buy the new single-player DLC to see how it might affect the real ending. The entire thing is a corporate ploy.

[Hawki]

It is just you, because after close examination the ExDLC does in no way provide closure on the IT issue, only a more positive ending to Shepard's Indoctrination-induced hallucination. Seriously.

And everyone else nowdays. I remember back when the original ending was released, how the ME Wiki (among other sites) was filled with IT theorists. Now, they come across as nothing but trolls.

Believing in the IT theory now is like trying to write off Alien 3 as nothing more than a dream of Ripley's that she had while in stasis. It's concievable for awhile, but then the universe moves on (Resurrection, Colonial Marines, etc.), and those who cling to the theory are left trying to fill in every hole in their theory over time. Sooner or later, the ship has to sink.

Edit: Concerning the breathing scene, perhaps it was meant to lead to something. But of the four endings, "destroy" is the only one Shepard can concievably survive in, and concievably survive the destroyed Citadel/Crucible, and conceviably wake up among the rubble. It's a stretch, but there's lots of stretching in the IT theory as well.

Fact is, like I said, there's no more ME3 DLC coming bar the March release, which is set during the game. So the only way the IT theory could possibly be validated would be ME4 beginning where ME3 left off. With a different protagonist.

Oh, it bothers me alright. So does all the Reaper logic. "Organics must be saved from synthetics or they'll bring destruction upon themselves. So let us synthetic Reapers save them... by destroying organic life."

Yeah, there are holes. Stupid ones. But if Shepard lies dying on Earth, why put the effort into the whole charade in the first place? Talk about plot holes, IT.

Actually that didn't bother me too much because the Catalyst's logic, while flawed, is the type of flaw I can see existing as per an AI with limited capabilities. Like HAL-has a problem, but due to said limited capabilities, deals with it in a horrible way.

[Visions of Khas]

I kept hearing about some DLC in March but haven't been able to get details about it beyond that. Anything like the Leviathan Rising thing?

I just hope you know, Demo, I'm not picking a fight or anything. I'm just trying to puzzle out the IT thing. I thought the ending to ME might have been too conclusive; what more was there to talk about? It was nonsensical but abrupt. IT at least keeps up some conversation. And I agree it's all a corporate ploy.

I always liked the Synthesis ending; it was a subtle throwback to Saren, and forced everyone to adapt to something new while giving everyone something in common. But really, I just hated the Destroy option because it destroyed my Geth pals, who disproved the Catalyst's logic utterly. RIP L egion.

[DemolitionSquid]

My final word on this matter will be the links to these 3 videos dissecting everything to explain IT, including the ExDLC. This is what I believe, and why I no longer buy games without reading many, many reviews.

IT Doc 1 - Catalyst
IT Doc 2 - The Reapening
IT Doc 3 - Extended Cut DLC

[Hawki]

I kept hearing about some DLC in March but haven't been able to get details about it beyond that. Anything like the Leviathan Rising thing?

This and this hold info.

I always liked the Synthesis ending; it was a subtle throwback to Saren, and forced everyone to adapt to something new while giving everyone something in common. But really, I just hated the Destroy option because it destroyed my Geth pals, who disproved the Catalyst's logic utterly. RIP L egion.

Prefer control myself. Dislike destroy for the reasons you mention (is selfish on Shepard's part), and synthesis feels too...clean? Mass Effect extols the idea of "unity through diversity" or "unity, not uniformity," so synthesis feels like a contradiction of that theme to me. Refusal has some appeal to it, but again, it comes across as being selfish on Shepard's part, to refuse to save organic life because of his principles. There's a limit to how far that can go.

[Existor]

*Gabriella Daniels = Anabelle Thatcher

Annabelle Thatcher is dead in Flashpoint

[Hawki]

We were never forbidden from going past WoL.

[DeltaCadimus]

I had to come back two pages just because I thought I landed on the wrong thread, or maybe it was screwed up.

Serious, can we stop the philosophical debates here? I thought this was an artwork display.

[Hawki]

Seeing that kickass artwork?

Yes. Yes we can.

[Visions of Khas]

Guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Until we come to another off-topic debate, here is some more art I found. A lot of the images in this gallery are fairly blurry, so I don't know if some of these were photographed, or are meant to be background art behind a score screen, or what. But there's a couple nice skylines from Korhal, plus a very interesting, floating colossal structure among clouds.

http://starcraft2.judgehype.com/image/324471/#img