57139 réponses à ce sujet

[SS2Dante]

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

posted from another thread because this is how I see the fundamental divide.

ZajoE38 wrote...

So.. the ME3 has turned to religion. Two dogmatic sides. And dogmatic because Bioware haven't explained the ending properly, so we can't get the conclusion.

religion requires no proof, only faith.

Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

The fundamental argument is " Bioware just wrote a bad ending and everything at face value just proves that and I refuse to question my own assumptions" ("God is real and I'll believe it no matter how much evidence you show me") and " IT seems logical based on evidence collected from the game, however we can't completely prove it but it seems to make sense. Until further evidence is aquired or we have a true confirmation of proof, it's up in the air. However, a conclusion follows logical evidence used to prove a hypothesis and slowly make it a theory." (like scientists and others who have a more analytical viewpoint and don't take the world at face value and strive to make logical sense of the universe. If they did take the world at face value, the Earth would still be rotating around the sun and the body would be sustained by humors in our modern textbooks).

So either you take life at face value without questioning your assumptions, or you choose to investigate something that doesn't make sense to you. Again, I ask you sincerely, which one of these really sounds like religion and which one sounds like someone taking a more analytical approach?

You know, it'd be interesting to find out the number of athiests and religious types on each side

I'd say it's the other way around.  IT theorists are trying to prove that there is a God, give sense to chaos by imposing an unseen, all powerful force that is guiding things.  Atheists are the ones who take things as they are, without looking deeper.   Evolution happened by chance, 1 out of billions of stars.

The only way you could say that those who oppose IT are the religious is because of one's upbringing, that everything about God is how it is and not to question it.

You can look at it both ways.

I happen to be against IT theory.  The starchild in the vent theory means nothing.  To implant thoughts in someone's mind is powerful technology, and they surely can read those thoughts as well.  They would know that Shepard has been tormented by the death of this boy, so in this climactic moment he chose that form to throw him off more in order to believe the lies about the only ways to resolve things.

Indoctrination did happen, but only slightly, to convince Shepard to go for the control or synthesis endings, for self preservation.  Otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have been an option, because Shepard knew he could destroy them, and they couldn't change that at the level of indoctrination they were able to get him to.

It's true you can look at it that way, but Athiest accepting things the way they are doesn't mean blind acceptance. They need to know why. Similarly, we need to know why all these strange occurences happen at the end. The explanation offered (lazy or bad writing) has been rejected for various reasons, none faith based.

Wait, I'm confused, you say you aren't for IT but then you are? Also, I'm not sure you understand the idea of "indoctrination" completely. It's stated over and over that it is not hypnosis, it cannot "force" you to do anything. That is why you are given the red option at all times (unless you have low EMS, in which case you get the red option if you destroyed the Collector base (chose to fight) or the blue if you kept it (already fallen).

I wrote a post about not that long ago (maybe half a page up?) about why this choice is so important to Mass Effect, considering it's a video game. The interactivity is crucial.

[RaidShock]

Orkfaeller wrote...

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is  limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

I tend to agree that the pistol having unlimited ammo is not a valid clue for the indoctrination theory. However, I would like to point out that you CAN reload while limping with an animation and everything. You just don't have to.

[SS2Dante]

Orkfaeller wrote...

So many hints. Unlimited ammo and botomless magasines for teh pistol. The trees from dreams, the overall ambiance that just screams "dream".
Not a coincidence for me, just artistic crap from BW ?!

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is  limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

I definitely agree that this is not "proof" and could simply be for the reasons you give. However, foreshadowing is a legitimate storytelling technique, so a lot of this stuff could be hints. None of us claim that individially these prove anything at all. The OP does point  out though that the sheer number of these odd occurences are a bit odd if they are just coincidences.

[SS2Dante]

EpyonX3 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

That part from 3 to A looks like a mass relay, the lower portion looks like a turian head. But you're right too, does look like a Reaper.

Well that would suggest that the reapers have had that form since the beginning. Now is that they decided to build a human reaper?

it was said that each species harvested is formed into a larva and placed inside the reaper form with the lesser species forming the destroyer design (which suspiciously, have a body form that looks like Keepers in a way)

If you look up the concept art of the human reaper in the mass effect wiki it does actually look more Reaper like. Apparently they build a "core" of the target species then build on that. The human reaer was never going to have legs or a torso or anything.

EDIT: here

 http://images1.wikia...7/7d/Wcb6ug.png

But I think that art is assuming it wasn't completed since they never do finish it in the game. It would have been awesome to fight a human reaper in Mass Effect 3. Would have been an epic boss battle on earth.

From this article - interview with ME3 lead writer
http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=1 

"Why do most of the Reapers we’ve seen so far have similar insect-like appearances? The human Reaper looked different, but otherwise it seems like the Reapers mainly build themselves out of bugs. Is that correct?"

"The exterior of the Reapers does follow a similar pattern, an efficient design for the purpose they were created for. However each Reaper is created from a unique species, and as we saw at the end of Mass Effect 2, the core of each Reaper is designed in the likeness of that species. "

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[Spectre-61]

RaidShock wrote...

Orkfaeller wrote...

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is  limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

I tend to agree that the pistol having unlimited ammo is not a valid clue for the indoctrination theory. However, I would like to point out that you CAN reload while limping with an animation and everything. You just don't have to.

Exactly. On my first playthrough I didn't even noticed that I have unlimited ammo. I reloaded out of reflex when a husk was down.

[AresCrusader]

SS2Dante wrote...


Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

Somebody else here stated that it is the other way round, and that's how I see it.  Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you can believe whatever tickles your fancy.    But to me, IT people are like truthers or 9/11 conspiracy  theorists -seeing meaning in each and everything when there is really just coincidence and no greater "master plan". Human beings are really good at that. For instance, the art book states that the child represents everybody who couldn't be saved - that's also evident in the re-occuring dreams. THis symbolism is quite obvious, rather than soemthing related to IT. Something else that has been discussed concerned similarities in graphics (e.g. bushes) across different game sequences. Ever considered that re-using such "items" in the game just makes it a bit easier to create the finished product?  After all, this is just a computer game sold for profit. 


Kind regards,
Me (Atheist & very scientific indeed)

Modifié par AresCrusader, 18 avril 2012 - 03:43 .

[EpyonX3]

SS2Dante wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

That part from 3 to A looks like a mass relay, the lower portion looks like a turian head. But you're right too, does look like a Reaper.

Well that would suggest that the reapers have had that form since the beginning. Now is that they decided to build a human reaper?

it was said that each species harvested is formed into a larva and placed inside the reaper form with the lesser species forming the destroyer design (which suspiciously, have a body form that looks like Keepers in a way)

If you look up the concept art of the human reaper in the mass effect wiki it does actually look more Reaper like. Apparently they build a "core" of the target species then build on that. The human reaer was never going to have legs or a torso or anything.

EDIT: here

 http://images1.wikia...7/7d/Wcb6ug.png

But I think that art is assuming it wasn't completed since they never do finish it in the game. It would have been awesome to fight a human reaper in Mass Effect 3. Would have been an epic boss battle on earth.

From this article - interview with ME3 lead writer
http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=1 

"Why do most of the Reapers we’ve seen so far have similar insect-like appearances? The human Reaper looked different, but otherwise it seems like the Reapers mainly build themselves out of bugs. Is that correct?"

"The exterior of the Reapers does follow a similar pattern, an efficient design for the purpose they were created for. However each Reaper is created from a unique species, and as we saw at the end of Mass Effect 2, the core of each Reaper is designed in the likeness of that species. "

I get that but that reaper o the collector base had all of the features of a human but with some added parts like extra eyes.

Ahh well it doesn't matter. They passed up a great opportunity.

[BatmanTurian]

AresCrusader wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...


Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

Somebody else here stated that it is the other way round, and that's how I see it.  Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you can believe whatever tickles your fancy.    But to me, IT people are like truthers or 9/11 conspiracy  theorists -seeing meaning in each and everything when there is really just coincidence and no greater "master plan". Human beings are really good at that. One of the examples given here were for instance similarities in graphics (e.g. bushes) across different game sequences. Ever considered that re-using such "items" in the game just makes it a bit easier to create the finished product?  After all, this is just a computer game sold for profit. 


Kind regards,
Me (Atheist & very scientific indeed)

you should be quoting me, not him.
I am also atheist and scientific by the way.

As for your opinion, that we are conspiracy theorists, stating so is a form of ad hominem and weakens your argument. You cannot provide sufficient proof that we are wrong, and so you resort to attacking the messenger instead of the message. It does your side no service to continue doing so.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 18 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[SS2Dante]

AresCrusader wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...


Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

Somebody else here stated that it is the other way round, and that's how I see it.  Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you can believe whatever tickles your fancy.    But to me, IT people are like truthers or 9/11 conspiracy  theorists -seeing meaning in each and everything when there is really just coincidence and no greater "master plan". Human beings are really good at that. One of the examples given here were for instance similarities in graphics (e.g. bushes) across different game sequences. Ever considered that re-using such "items" in the game just makes it a bit easier to create the finished product?  After all, this is just a computer game sold for profit. 


Kind regards,
Me (Atheist & very scientific indeed)

About your last bit - hey, me too! I have a funny feeling those who choose Salarians as their avatar...

I suppose from your vantage point this will sound silly, but I HATE conspiracy theories. Hate em. Mainly because they're so obviously flawed. Now, I won't go into why this idea has passed my test, but I would say if you haven't to give it a close look.

Anyway, about the bush thing, the problem wasn't that it was reused (it is not, it's a weird 2d sprite, not the bush in the dreams) but the fact that before you get hit by Harbingers beam, they are not there. They're not. And directly behind you are three trees that also were not there before you get hit by the beam. It's evidence of extra work, for no apparent reason. Lazy/rushed writing does not explain extra work. Especially since you can see the area while you run at it, and you get blasted by harbingers mega laser, so plants shouldn't be there. We wouldn't have missed them. Yet someone specifically put them there, only after you wake up.

Edit: spelling

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 03:48 .

[The Captainator]

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

posted from another thread because this is how I see the fundamental divide.

ZajoE38 wrote...

So.. the ME3 has turned to religion. Two dogmatic sides. And dogmatic because Bioware haven't explained the ending properly, so we can't get the conclusion.

religion requires no proof, only faith.

Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

The fundamental argument is " Bioware just wrote a bad ending and everything at face value just proves that and I refuse to question my own assumptions" ("God is real and I'll believe it no matter how much evidence you show me") and " IT seems logical based on evidence collected from the game, however we can't completely prove it but it seems to make sense. Until further evidence is aquired or we have a true confirmation of proof, it's up in the air. However, a conclusion follows logical evidence used to prove a hypothesis and slowly make it a theory." (like scientists and others who have a more analytical viewpoint and don't take the world at face value and strive to make logical sense of the universe. If they did take the world at face value, the Earth would still be rotating around the sun and the body would be sustained by humors in our modern textbooks).

So either you take life at face value without questioning your assumptions, or you choose to investigate something that doesn't make sense to you. Again, I ask you sincerely, which one of these really sounds like religion and which one sounds like someone taking a more analytical approach?

You know, it'd be interesting to find out the number of athiests and religious types on each side

I'd say it's the other way around.  IT theorists are trying to prove that there is a God, give sense to chaos by imposing an unseen, all powerful force that is guiding things.  Atheists are the ones who take things as they are, without looking deeper.   Evolution happened by chance, 1 out of billions of stars.

The only way you could say that those who oppose IT are the religious is because of one's upbringing, that everything about God is how it is and not to question it.

You can look at it both ways.

I happen to be against IT theory.  The starchild in the vent theory means nothing.  To implant thoughts in someone's mind is powerful technology, and they surely can read those thoughts as well.  They would know that Shepard has been tormented by the death of this boy, so in this climactic moment he chose that form to throw him off more in order to believe the lies about the only ways to resolve things.

Indoctrination did happen, but only slightly, to convince Shepard to go for the control or synthesis endings, for self preservation.  Otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have been an option, because Shepard knew he could destroy them, and they couldn't change that at the level of indoctrination they were able to get him to.

It's true you can look at it that way, but Athiest accepting things the way they are doesn't mean blind acceptance. They need to know why. Similarly, we need to know why all these strange occurences happen at the end. The explanation offered (lazy or bad writing) has been rejected for various reasons, none faith based.

Wait, I'm confused, you say you aren't for IT but then you are? Also, I'm not sure you understand the idea of "indoctrination" completely. It's stated over and over that it is not hypnosis, it cannot "force" you to do anything. That is why you are given the red option at all times (unless you have low EMS, in which case you get the red option if you destroyed the Collector base (chose to fight) or the blue if you kept it (already fallen).

I wrote a post about not that long ago (maybe half a page up?) about why this choice is so important to Mass Effect, considering it's a video game. The interactivity is crucial.

I'm against the IT in its fullest form, that the whole thing is a like a dream and Shepard wakes up and nothing happened.  But it's obvious they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard, it just didn't work.  That's why I said it only happened slightly.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing battle, that's the same fallacy that religion vs science poses, it's not all or nothing, but a combination of both.

Modifié par The Captainator, 18 avril 2012 - 03:50 .

[Dwailing]

variobunz wrote...

RaidShock wrote...

Orkfaeller wrote...

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is  limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

I tend to agree that the pistol having unlimited ammo is not a valid clue for the indoctrination theory. However, I would like to point out that you CAN reload while limping with an animation and everything. You just don't have to.

Exactly. On my first playthrough I didn't even noticed that I have unlimited ammo. I reloaded out of reflex when a husk was down.

I actually think that the pistol is a more valuable piece of evidence than many think.  For one thing, in the opening on Earth, the Predator pistol you have DOES have to be reloaded, it's just that it can be reloaded an infinite number of times.  The Carnifex you receive during the ending doesn't need to be reloaded AT ALL.  Also, the animation for reloading the pistol in the end sequence is the same animation that the Predator uses, even though you're using a Carnifex, which has a different reload animation.  I don't see why they gave this pistol completely infinite ammo with a completely inappropriate reload animation for the type of pistol you found.  They could have done what they did in the beginning with the infinite reloads with the appropriate animation, without needing to make it so that you didn't have to reload AT ALL.

Edit: This is an extension for the last bit.  

Modifié par Dwailing, 18 avril 2012 - 03:52 .

[Golferguy758]

Rofl at comparing it theorists to truthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or young earth people. Facepalm so hard that my arm is now through my head.

[SS2Dante]

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

The Captainator wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

posted from another thread because this is how I see the fundamental divide.

ZajoE38 wrote...

So.. the ME3 has turned to religion. Two dogmatic sides. And dogmatic because Bioware haven't explained the ending properly, so we can't get the conclusion.

religion requires no proof, only faith.

Both sides believe they have evidence or that the evidence can be interpreted differently. IT theorists try to take a more scientific approach while it sometimes seems the Anti-IT people just take it on faith that the ending is literal and don't want to think about it too hard.

The fundamental argument is " Bioware just wrote a bad ending and everything at face value just proves that and I refuse to question my own assumptions" ("God is real and I'll believe it no matter how much evidence you show me") and " IT seems logical based on evidence collected from the game, however we can't completely prove it but it seems to make sense. Until further evidence is aquired or we have a true confirmation of proof, it's up in the air. However, a conclusion follows logical evidence used to prove a hypothesis and slowly make it a theory." (like scientists and others who have a more analytical viewpoint and don't take the world at face value and strive to make logical sense of the universe. If they did take the world at face value, the Earth would still be rotating around the sun and the body would be sustained by humors in our modern textbooks).

So either you take life at face value without questioning your assumptions, or you choose to investigate something that doesn't make sense to you. Again, I ask you sincerely, which one of these really sounds like religion and which one sounds like someone taking a more analytical approach?

You know, it'd be interesting to find out the number of athiests and religious types on each side

I'd say it's the other way around.  IT theorists are trying to prove that there is a God, give sense to chaos by imposing an unseen, all powerful force that is guiding things.  Atheists are the ones who take things as they are, without looking deeper.   Evolution happened by chance, 1 out of billions of stars.

The only way you could say that those who oppose IT are the religious is because of one's upbringing, that everything about God is how it is and not to question it.

You can look at it both ways.

I happen to be against IT theory.  The starchild in the vent theory means nothing.  To implant thoughts in someone's mind is powerful technology, and they surely can read those thoughts as well.  They would know that Shepard has been tormented by the death of this boy, so in this climactic moment he chose that form to throw him off more in order to believe the lies about the only ways to resolve things.

Indoctrination did happen, but only slightly, to convince Shepard to go for the control or synthesis endings, for self preservation.  Otherwise the destroy ending wouldn't have been an option, because Shepard knew he could destroy them, and they couldn't change that at the level of indoctrination they were able to get him to.

It's true you can look at it that way, but Athiest accepting things the way they are doesn't mean blind acceptance. They need to know why. Similarly, we need to know why all these strange occurences happen at the end. The explanation offered (lazy or bad writing) has been rejected for various reasons, none faith based.

Wait, I'm confused, you say you aren't for IT but then you are? Also, I'm not sure you understand the idea of "indoctrination" completely. It's stated over and over that it is not hypnosis, it cannot "force" you to do anything. That is why you are given the red option at all times (unless you have low EMS, in which case you get the red option if you destroyed the Collector base (chose to fight) or the blue if you kept it (already fallen).

I wrote a post about not that long ago (maybe half a page up?) about why this choice is so important to Mass Effect, considering it's a video game. The interactivity is crucial.

I'm against the IT in its fullest form, that the whole thing is a like a dream and Shepard wakes up and nothing happened.  But it's obvious they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard, it just didn't work.  That's why I said it only happened slightly.  It doesn't have to be an all or nothing battle, that's the same fallacy that religion vs science poses, it's not all or nothing, but a combination of both.

If they were trying to indoctrinate Shepard then they simply needn't present the destroy option at all.

Also, religion versus science is mutually exclusive. Religion postulates a being outside of universal laws. This means it works by magic. If there were a great, powerful being, but its abilities could be explained by science, then it's not religion, it's science. It's either outside of science, or inside. Mutually exclusive.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 03:54 .

[BatmanTurian]

Golferguy758 wrote...

Rofl at comparing it theorists to truthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, or young earth people. Facepalm so hard that my arm is now through my head.

yeah, I think you grasp what I'm trying to say when I state the truth is actually the other way around.

[SS2Dante]

Dwailing wrote...

variobunz wrote...

RaidShock wrote...

Orkfaeller wrote...

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is  limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

I tend to agree that the pistol having unlimited ammo is not a valid clue for the indoctrination theory. However, I would like to point out that you CAN reload while limping with an animation and everything. You just don't have to.

Exactly. On my first playthrough I didn't even noticed that I have unlimited ammo. I reloaded out of reflex when a husk was down.

I actually think that the pistol is a more valuable piece of evidence than many think.  For one thing, in the opening on Earth, the Predator pistol you have DOES have to be reloaded, it's just that it can be reloaded an infinite number of times.  The Carnifex you receive during the ending doesn't need to be reloaded AT ALL.  Also, the animation for reloading the pistol in the end sequence is the same animation that the Predator uses, even though you're using a Carnifex, which has a different reload animation.  I don't see why they gave this pistol completely infinite ammo with a completely inappropriate reload animation for the type of pistol you found.  They could have done what they did in the beginning with the infinite reloads with the appropriate animation, without needing to make it so that you didn't have to reload AT ALL.

Edit: This is an extension for the last bit.  

Isn't it Andersons pistol, as well? Someone said it's not the usual pistol Shepard has, but the one Anderson is shown to have before you charge the beam.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 18 avril 2012 - 03:55 .

[Golferguy758]

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

[Rifneno]

Roxy Lalonde wrote...

Hm, I think the antennas could be explained by Bioware having to reuse models because of time constraints? Like how they recycled environments in DA2. They couldn't design different antenna for everything.

Makes sense*. I mean they didn't have any models without human writing on them.

*Doesn't make sense.

Big Bad wrote...

A while back I remember somebody stating that you can actually walk through the Keeper that is in the hallway after you take the beam to the Citadel. Is that actually true, or was that person wrong (or maybe nobody said it at all, and I'm just smoking crack!)?

No, it's completely true. IT opponents write it off as a bug and hope no one thinks about it for more than 2 seconds and realizes clipping would've had to have been manually turned off on those specific keepers.

Very interesting. I don't know jack about programming or image modeling, but to me that seems like something that would be hard to do accidentally!

And you'd be absolutely right.

SS2Dante wrote...

EpyonX3 wrote...

First play through with full paragon, I still hit the renegade option. Kai Leng was a guy you just couldn't wait to kill.

Same. And it was sweeeeeeet

"That was for Thane, you son of a ****." So. Very. Sweet.

It was also orgasmic to hit that renegade interrupt and shoot Udina after 6 years of waiting for it. I don't know how he died of a shot to the heart though. That'd be like having Ashley taken out with prostate cancer.

Orkfaeller wrote...

The pistol has unlimited ammo, because you would be in a stupid situation if you ran out of ammo when facing TIM or the destroy ending. Exactly like you had unlimited ammo in the beginning of the game.

You dont have to reload, because Shep is limping and they would have been forced to do a complete new reloading animation just for that few scenes.

I*d wish that people stop seeing "prooves" and "hints" in recycled models, textures and animations.

Uhh yeah. You should probably hit the reload button during that scene and see what happens before telling us such crap.

AresCrusader wrote...

Somebody else here stated that it is the other way round, and that's how I see it. Everybody is entitled to their opinion, and you can believe whatever tickles your fancy. But to me, IT people are like truthers or 9/11 conspiracy theorists -seeing meaning in each and everything when there is really just coincidence and no greater "master plan". Human beings are really good at that. For instance, the art book states that the child represents everybody who couldn't be saved - that's also evident in the re-occuring dreams. THis symbolism is quite obvious, rather than soemthing related to IT. Something else that has been discussed concerned similarities in graphics (e.g. bushes) across different game sequences. Ever considered that re-using such "items" in the game just makes it a bit easier to create the finished product? After all, this is just a computer game sold for profit.


Kind regards,
Me (Atheist & very scientific indeed)

And yet you named yourself after a deity. But no, you are not "very scientific". Someone that is actually scientific would make counterpoints to actual evidence instead of vomitting dimestore psychology that paints everyone who disagrees with you as an idiot.

[SS2Dante]

@Rifneno sick burn on Udina

But give AresCrusader a break, he seems at least willing to debate if we give him a chance.

[DirtyPhoenix]

EpyonX3 wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

That part from 3 to A looks like a mass relay, the lower portion looks like a turian head. But you're right too, does look like a Reaper.

Well that would suggest that the reapers have had that form since the beginning. Now is that they decided to build a human reaper?

That human-reaper was supposed to be the core, the outer structure of every reaper looks the same.

[SS2Dante]

Golferguy758 wrote...

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

Well, I think they are more believing "Bioware screwed up" than the godchilds powers. Not that I think that's much better, based on Bioware history, but...

[MaximizedAction]

Golferguy758 wrote...

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

^this. I quote this for it's truth!

[NoSpin]

There are times when the debates can get a little too heated, but let it be known that THIS is my favorite thread in Shepard's mind Citadel. Keep up the discussion guys.

[ExtendedCut]

Drift Avalii wrote...

Same, I find myself actively researching lore being brought up just so I feel I can understand on a similar level. Whether we will be right or wrong in the end is not the point of this discussion (for me anyway) - it is about making sense of a plot that initially didn't and coming to believe the theory, based on lore and evidence provided in-game.

Bioware are making whatever they're making. We're making an educated guess at what that might be. Shame it seems to provoke such anger in others, though it's lovely to see some anti-IT actively engaging in the debate.

Just wanted to re-post your excellent post.  Thanks.

[SS2Dante]

By the way, I wish so much this was in ME3. It was just released and it's so damn perfect for the end

[EpyonX3]

MaximizedAction wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

I'd also present the fact that people who take the endings literally are pretty much believing in a god that has the power to rewrite dna on a whim. A magic child in the sky that can teleport people, save someone from an explosion kilometers wide.

And you say the it theorists are taking things on faith? What?

^this. I quote this for it's truth!

We do realize that this is a video game we're discussing right?