Ce sujet est fermé
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
@Simon_Says- The growl isn't the
same. We hear that weird noise during the entire ending sequence. It's
not the same as the growl when we're interrupted by Anderson during the
time we're talking to the kid (in the beginning).
Modifié par Simon_Says, 24 avril 2012 - 04:46 .
SubAstris wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
SS2Dante wrote...
MadRabbit999 wrote...
When someone has a second to defend IT please answer this one before it goes lost:
"In this video, TIM shoots Anderson, then Shepards shoots TIM. If Anderson shot in the stomach is reflected on Shepard ,then why when Anderson is shot in the back is not reflected on Shepard?
"
Makes the whole "Shepard is shooting himself" like BS to me.
Two reasons, one practical and one thematic. The thematic takes precedence obviously.
Thematically - in this ending the indoctrinated part of Shepard shot Anderson, not "Shepard".
Practically - bececause then Shepard would be dead.
Thematically - in this ending the indoctrinated part of Shepard shot Anderson, not "Shepard"- so the evidence that Shepard has the same wounds as Anderson, and therefore is Anderson, is bull***p?
No no, you don't get it, basically the only thing that is "real" is what Shep does, so it only makes sense that the wound is real because he actually pulled the trigger. Everything else is in Sheps head.
But Anderson is nonetheless shot, you can't just assume it affects two people in one instance (who are meant to be the same person), and not two in the other just because it fits your theory
Modifié par SS2Dante, 24 avril 2012 - 04:49 .
Agreed with Tuchanka and Rannoch. Especially in the Curing the Genophage Mission when Eve asks you if something's bothering you (Dalatrass load of bull****). God, I think I stayed more than 15 minutes before my screen, just thinking about my answer...Rifneno wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
This was my thought too. But there are still ToR and DA2 and I don't forget the "new commander on board" (you know who I mean). I'm secrely hoping that I'm wrong and that the EC will confirm it... Till then, i'll stay a little bit sceptical...
Yeah but the thing is, all of DA2 was an abortion. Don't know what ToR is. ME3, OTOH, was simply awesome up until London. Both the geth/quarian and genophage story arcs were just masterpieces.
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
If Shepard had touched something unique, such as his back, knee or foot both times then you might have something, but that just seems to be twisting the evidence for the theory. There is little evidence for anything here
Cool. Then why are you here if you're not making any contributive argument?
Felt I needed to explain why the evidence is far from adequate, didn't realise this was only for pro-ITers and not a forum for free discussion
It doesn't seem to me like you're explaining why the evidence is far from adequate. You're merely just stating your opinion as so without explaining why you think that. No offense to you and your opinion.
Maybe you don't understand the point of this forum. It is to discuss the indoctrination theory. Supporter or not, you should not just simply say "It is wrong" and these things should not be considered evidence. Why do you think those things should be disregarded as evidence? Explain that and then you'll look less like a troll and more like a contributer to the overall discussion. And people of both sides will gawk at the opportunity to discuss your counter-arguments.
SS2Dante wrote...
Dnayew wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
I just noticed that to when playing through w/ my FemShep character (yes, sadly I have a FemShep character...lol).
Also, I noticed that when you're talking to the little boy **cough** Harbinger **cough **, you don't just hear a sound similar to the growling noise described in the books, you hear the EXACT SAME SOUND you hear when the Illusive Man overcomes Indoctrination right before he takes his own life.
This was staggering proof to me that the Indoctrination Theory holds weight.
Dnayew I checked on youtube and I'm not hearing this. Think you may have misheard. Any links?
lol
Uncle Jo wrote...
Agreed with Tuchanka and Rannoch. Especially in the Curing the Genophage Mission when Eve asks you if something's bothering you (Dalatrass load of bull****). God, I think I stayed more than 15 minutes before my screen, just thinking about my answer...Rifneno wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
This was my thought too. But there are still ToR and DA2 and I don't forget the "new commander on board" (you know who I mean). I'm secrely hoping that I'm wrong and that the EC will confirm it... Till then, i'll stay a little bit sceptical...
Yeah but the thing is, all of DA2 was an abortion. Don't know what ToR is. ME3, OTOH, was simply awesome up until London. Both the geth/quarian and genophage story arcs were just masterpieces.
Time to go to training. I'll be back...
Simon_Says wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
@Simon_Says- The growl isn't the
same. We hear that weird noise during the entire ending sequence. It's
not the same as the growl when we're interrupted by Anderson during the
time we're talking to the kid (in the beginning).
Hey, I'm not saying they're the same. I was just pointing to what Dnayew talked about.
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
If Shepard had touched something unique, such as his back, knee or foot both times then you might have something, but that just seems to be twisting the evidence for the theory. There is little evidence for anything here
Cool. Then why are you here if you're not making any contributive argument?
Felt I needed to explain why the evidence is far from adequate, didn't realise this was only for pro-ITers and not a forum for free discussion
It doesn't seem to me like you're explaining why the evidence is far from adequate. You're merely just stating your opinion as so without explaining why you think that. No offense to you and your opinion.
Maybe you don't understand the point of this forum. It is to discuss the indoctrination theory. Supporter or not, you should not just simply say "It is wrong" and these things should not be considered evidence. Why do you think those things should be disregarded as evidence? Explain that and then you'll look less like a troll and more like a contributer to the overall discussion. And people of both sides will gawk at the opportunity to discuss your counter-arguments.
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
What was your answer ?SS2Dante wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
Agreed with Tuchanka and Rannoch. Especially in the Curing the Genophage Mission when Eve asks you if something's bothering you (Dalatrass load of bull****). God, I think I stayed more than 15 minutes before my screen, just thinking about my answer...Rifneno wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
This was my thought too. But there are still ToR and DA2 and I don't forget the "new commander on board" (you know who I mean). I'm secrely hoping that I'm wrong and that the EC will confirm it... Till then, i'll stay a little bit sceptical...
Yeah but the thing is, all of DA2 was an abortion. Don't know what ToR is. ME3, OTOH, was simply awesome up until London. Both the geth/quarian and genophage story arcs were just masterpieces.
Time to go to training. I'll be back...
Same. I spent ages just staring at the screen and then the car shakes and stops you answering...I burst out laughing at Bioware being delightfully evil.
Modifié par Unschuld, 24 avril 2012 - 04:53 .
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
But Anderson is nonetheless shot, you can't just assume it affects two people in one instance (who are meant to be the same person), and not two in the other just because it fits your theory
Meh, it's hard to explain the psychology. Anderson describes everything that Shepard sees and does, they both raise there arm at the same time, and if you keep Anderson alive you get 1000 EMS which get's you closer to the "Shepard Alive scene.
I don't expect everyone to accept these little nuances that Bioware wrote in. Fact is, once Anderson dies anyway, you start bleeding profusely and pass out.
SubAstris wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
But Anderson is nonetheless shot, you can't just assume it affects two people in one instance (who are meant to be the same person), and not two in the other just because it fits your theory
Meh, it's hard to explain the psychology. Anderson describes everything that Shepard sees and does, they both raise there arm at the same time, and if you keep Anderson alive you get 1000 EMS which get's you closer to the "Shepard Alive scene.
I don't expect everyone to accept these little nuances that Bioware wrote in. Fact is, once Anderson dies anyway, you start bleeding profusely and pass out.
Taking the ending at face-value, Anderson is going to describe the scene as well, since he presumably wants to link up with Anderson who also came up from the beam. If they can describe their local area, then they can potentially meet up. I can't remember the raising of the arm simultaneously, though.
How do you know it was a 1000 BTW? I haven't personally heard that, would love some verification. But anyway, a non-killed Anderson is going to boost the morale of someone like Shepard and therefore increase military strength (btw I don't think EMS was done very well in-game, seemed kind of random, how exactly Allers was worth those points don't really know)
Seems like your last point is a post hoc
SubAstris wrote...
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
If Shepard had touched something unique, such as his back, knee or foot both times then you might have something, but that just seems to be twisting the evidence for the theory. There is little evidence for anything here
Cool. Then why are you here if you're not making any contributive argument?
Felt I needed to explain why the evidence is far from adequate, didn't realise this was only for pro-ITers and not a forum for free discussion
It doesn't seem to me like you're explaining why the evidence is far from adequate. You're merely just stating your opinion as so without explaining why you think that. No offense to you and your opinion.
Maybe you don't understand the point of this forum. It is to discuss the indoctrination theory. Supporter or not, you should not just simply say "It is wrong" and these things should not be considered evidence. Why do you think those things should be disregarded as evidence? Explain that and then you'll look less like a troll and more like a contributer to the overall discussion. And people of both sides will gawk at the opportunity to discuss your counter-arguments.
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
SS2Dante wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
If Shepard had touched something unique, such as his back, knee or foot both times then you might have something, but that just seems to be twisting the evidence for the theory. There is little evidence for anything here
Cool. Then why are you here if you're not making any contributive argument?
Felt I needed to explain why the evidence is far from adequate, didn't realise this was only for pro-ITers and not a forum for free discussion
It doesn't seem to me like you're explaining why the evidence is far from adequate. You're merely just stating your opinion as so without explaining why you think that. No offense to you and your opinion.
Maybe you don't understand the point of this forum. It is to discuss the indoctrination theory. Supporter or not, you should not just simply say "It is wrong" and these things should not be considered evidence. Why do you think those things should be disregarded as evidence? Explain that and then you'll look less like a troll and more like a contributer to the overall discussion. And people of both sides will gawk at the opportunity to discuss your counter-arguments.
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
Guys, I think the argument here is less over the issue and more in tone. SubAstris, you seemed a little scathing in your first answer. You may not have meant to be, and I'm cool with what you said, but others may have felt you were being insulting. Ok if we all calm down here?
Also, I think we need another word, rather than "evidence". It has an accepted slang meaning here that may be confusing to those popping in and out.
Uncle Jo wrote...
What was your answer ?SS2Dante wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
Agreed with Tuchanka and Rannoch. Especially in the Curing the Genophage Mission when Eve asks you if something's bothering you (Dalatrass load of bull****). God, I think I stayed more than 15 minutes before my screen, just thinking about my answer...Rifneno wrote...
Uncle Jo wrote...
This was my thought too. But there are still ToR and DA2 and I don't forget the "new commander on board" (you know who I mean). I'm secrely hoping that I'm wrong and that the EC will confirm it... Till then, i'll stay a little bit sceptical...
Yeah but the thing is, all of DA2 was an abortion. Don't know what ToR is. ME3, OTOH, was simply awesome up until London. Both the geth/quarian and genophage story arcs were just masterpieces.
Time to go to training. I'll be back...
Same. I spent ages just staring at the screen and then the car shakes and stops you answering...I burst out laughing at Bioware being delightfully evil.
Tim discovered Space Magic and the Reapers were afraid he'd become an enchanter?Unschuld wrote...
I actually have a question, for the sake of discussion, that may or may not have been discussed earlier but I can't recall. Why, if the Illusive man is truly indoctrinated, do the reapers attack the Sanctuary facility? If he were indoctrinated and not trying to indoctrinate, why would the reapers stop him from creating another army of husks? Why then would this conflict suddenly shift in the citadel control room to TIM being (mostly) under the control of the reapers?
To me it seems like TIM in the control room is a little less "TIM", rather than a facet of Shepard's psyche.
Modifié par Simon_Says, 24 avril 2012 - 05:09 .
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
It's actually not like your analogy at all. Shepard touches 3 part of his body during the end.
1st. He touches his shoulder, where Marauder Shields shot him.
2nd. He touches his temple in response to TIM's mind control/indoctrination attempt, Like Shep has a headache (another symptom of indoctrination)
3rd. He clutches his abdomen in response to Andersons death.
SubAstris wrote...
SS2Dante wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
n00bsauce2010 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
bFootball wrote...
I don't know if someone else has noticed this, but I've just started my third play through and noticed Shepard's wound in the final scene is in the same place Anderson touches Shepard in opening cut scene ("soft around the edges"). Maybe Shepard is subconsciously remembering it.
If Shepard had touched something unique, such as his back, knee or foot both times then you might have something, but that just seems to be twisting the evidence for the theory. There is little evidence for anything here
Cool. Then why are you here if you're not making any contributive argument?
Felt I needed to explain why the evidence is far from adequate, didn't realise this was only for pro-ITers and not a forum for free discussion
It doesn't seem to me like you're explaining why the evidence is far from adequate. You're merely just stating your opinion as so without explaining why you think that. No offense to you and your opinion.
Maybe you don't understand the point of this forum. It is to discuss the indoctrination theory. Supporter or not, you should not just simply say "It is wrong" and these things should not be considered evidence. Why do you think those things should be disregarded as evidence? Explain that and then you'll look less like a troll and more like a contributer to the overall discussion. And people of both sides will gawk at the opportunity to discuss your counter-arguments.
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
Guys, I think the argument here is less over the issue and more in tone. SubAstris, you seemed a little scathing in your first answer. You may not have meant to be, and I'm cool with what you said, but others may have felt you were being insulting. Ok if we all calm down here?
Also, I think we need another word, rather than "evidence". It has an accepted slang meaning here that may be confusing to those popping in and out.
I wasn't trying to be scathing, I'll try and calm down lol. Sometimes it can be frustrating though when I perceive people looking in so minute details at the narrative that they seem to ignore the bigger picture
SubAstris wrote...
balance5050 wrote...
SubAstris wrote...
My argument is that just because Shepard touches a similar region of the body doesn't mean that the two things are linked. It is a bit like saying that because two common words, such as "body" are used in two different extracts from some texts you have, therefore they are part of the same text. The likelihood that there is meant to be a connection is considerably lower than if, for example, two incredibly rare words were used in the extracts, such as "expelliarmus"; there would be an increased likelihood that such words are part of the same overall text, if you see my analogy
It's actually not like your analogy at all. Shepard touches 3 part of his body during the end.
1st. He touches his shoulder, where Marauder Shields shot him.
2nd. He touches his temple in response to TIM's mind control/indoctrination attempt, Like Shep has a headache (another symptom of indoctrination)
3rd. He clutches his abdomen in response to Andersons death.
True, but it still shows a far from conclusive link from Shepard touching himself at the beginning to the end
Unschuld wrote...
I actually have a question, for the sake of discussion, that may or may not have been discussed earlier but I can't recall. Why, if the Illusive man is truly indoctrinated, do the reapers attack the Sanctuary facility? If he were indoctrinated and not trying to indoctrinate, why would the reapers stop him from creating another army of husks? Why then would this conflict suddenly shift in the citadel control room to TIM being (mostly) under the control of the reapers?
To me it seems like TIM in the control room is a little less "TIM", rather than a facet of Shepard's psyche.
Simon_Says wrote...
Tim discovered Space Magic and the Reapers were afraid he'd become an enchanter?Unschuld wrote...
I actually have a question, for the sake of discussion, that may or may not have been discussed earlier but I can't recall. Why, if the Illusive man is truly indoctrinated, do the reapers attack the Sanctuary facility? If he were indoctrinated and not trying to indoctrinate, why would the reapers stop him from creating another army of husks? Why then would this conflict suddenly shift in the citadel control room to TIM being (mostly) under the control of the reapers?
To me it seems like TIM in the control room is a little less "TIM", rather than a facet of Shepard's psyche.
Retour en haut
