57139 réponses à ce sujet

[DJBare]

pirate1802 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

A single scream, I guess everyone else was instantly killed.

[DirtyPhoenix]

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Accepting the scream was in his head goes a long way to show the kid wasn't real right? (ofcourse not this single evidence, but seeing in context of other evidences). And accepting the kid wasn't real is a step towards IT right? Because this is the same kid who appears towards the end and gives you BS choices.

[SS2Dante]

DJBare wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

A single scream, I guess everyone else was instantly killed.

Ah, Shep and her superhuman hearing abilities, eh?

[DirtyPhoenix]

DJBare wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

www.youtube.com/watch

A single scream, I guess everyone else was instantly killed.

To add dramatic effect, they said

[MadRabbit999]

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Not at all, check hundreds of posts back I was here almsot from the start and drop from week to week, I have both bashed and supported IT, I do not take sides, I rather see concrete proofs not speculations or I would go to a religion forum and discuss "beliefs" over facts, there.

To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

It could be trauma in his head accumulated over the years, or a scream he has heard many times before.

TBH doesn't sound liek the  kid screaming, more like a shriek of terror, and cerntanly does not sound like the voice of that kid tone either.

Also if this was the same kid at the end, then why bothering looking all glowy and ghostly? Why not just the same hallucination?

Wether IT is true or not, the Reapers DID get in your mind to fetch the memory of this kid or plant it there, that is the only  fact.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 25 avril 2012 - 02:48 .

[paxxton]

Uncle Jo wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Well, Shepard defeated many enemies along the way through London. He just made it to the beam. There must always be a limit on how many enemies you have to defeat to achieve a goal.

There are better clues in the game than MS to support IT.

I'll never buy this and I've mentioned other clues. One more time you have to look at the whole picture, if you just pick up a hint out of its context, it sure seems irrelevant...

Shepard had to fight his way through London to get to the beam. I think considering the whole level as a coherent challenge is a broader picture than saying that to get to the beam he only had to kill a marauder.

I do see your point. But no, I can't agree with you. Getting conveniently  in an EMPTY part of the citadel and not far away from the activation panel with a magical gun, just to hear the load of bull**** of the Star brat and then choose which way you're going to die (electrocuted/disintegrated/reduced to cosmic dust) is not coherent. This is the whole picture...

Edit: I would prefered being torn apart by Harbinger's beam, it'd still have made more sense...

This is the whole picture in the other direction in time, so to speak. Of course, what happens on the Citadel is sufficiently bizarre to back up IT. I was just concerned with Marauder Shields and why I don't think he's the only one guarding the beam.

And don't get me wrong - I believe IT is the means to explaining the ending of ME3.

[SS2Dante]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Not at all, check hundreds of posts back I was here almsot from the start and drop from week to week, I have both bashed and supported IT, I do not take sides, I rather see concrete proofs not speculations or I would go to a religion forum and discuss "beliefs" over facts, there.

To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

It could be trauma in his head accumulated over the years, or a scream he has heard many times before.

TBH doesn't sound liek the  kid screaming, more like a shriek of terror, and cerntanly does not sound like the voice of that kid tone either.

Yes, but you're not giving any reasons to include this. Why include it, then hide it? Why have it so obviously out of place? Why do we hear nothing from the other ship? Why does the voice echo so oddly?

I'm looking at it from a design point of view, and answering them. You are simply saying that it doesn't PROVE IT, without offering any rational explanation.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 25 avril 2012 - 02:49 .

[Drift Avalii]

Man, now I'm confused - I always thought the kid was on the second shuttle to be destroyed, not the first one :-s

[HellishFiend]

MadRabbit999 wrote...



To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

Who said it was proof? Who ever says anything is "proof" in this topic? We are all just speculating and having fun finding tidbits that could be evidence or hints from bioware that support IT. If anyone ever uses the word proof, its all in good fun, or theyre just excited. 

[DirtyPhoenix]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Not at all, check hundreds of posts back I was here almsot from the start and drop from week to week, I have both bashed and supported IT, I do not take sides, I rather see concrete proofs not speculations or I would go to a religion forum and discuss "beliefs" over facts, there.

To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

It could be trauma in his head accumulated over the years, or a scream he has heard many times before.

TBH doesn't sound liek the  kid screaming, more like a shriek of terror, and cerntanly does not sound like the voice of that kid tone either.

Also if this was the same kid at the end, then why bothering looking all glowy and ghostly? Why not just the same hallucination?

Wether IT is true or not, the Reapers DID get in your mind to fetch the memory of this kid or plant it there, that is the only  fact.

To trick you into thinking it is a reaper-controlling catalyst. What you've said is true, but weirdity follows wherever the kid goes, including the dreams. Can't help but think something's wrong with the kid. I'll never look at it the same way.. In my first playthrough I actually felt sad for it, not anymore!

[MadRabbit999]

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Not at all, check hundreds of posts back I was here almsot from the start and drop from week to week, I have both bashed and supported IT, I do not take sides, I rather see concrete proofs not speculations or I would go to a religion forum and discuss "beliefs" over facts, there.

To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

It could be trauma in his head accumulated over the years, or a scream he has heard many times before.

TBH doesn't sound liek the  kid screaming, more like a shriek of terror, and cerntanly does not sound like the voice of that kid tone either.

Yes, but you're not giving any reasons to include this. Why include it, then hide it? Why have it so obviously out of place? I'm looking at it from a design point of view.

I have had the pleasure to meet and work with some of the most creative world builders and level designers, yet without proper QA, I have seen them screwing up their work pretty easily.

Something like this is hard to spot even by QA, like many other bugs... and this could have been part of the original scene that featured full screams from everyone on the shuttle, before they cut it and  thoguht it would have been more dramatic to just put music. And QA  failed to catch this one.... nope I do not have proof, but nobody has proof to contradic this point either, circular logic eh?

HellishFiend wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...



To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

Who
said it was proof? Who ever says anything is "proof" in this topic? We
are all just speculating and having fun finding tidbits that could be
evidence or hints from bioware that support IT. If anyone ever uses the
word proof, its all in good fun, or theyre just excited. 

Do yuo seriusly want me to quote the 100+ people that calls IT "proof"? Just look back a little.

Modifié par MadRabbit999, 25 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[Tirian Thorn]

What I don’t understand is how opponents of the IT theory think that Control & Synthesis are viable choices.  From a roleplaying aspect they are, but if you’re really looking at those options as legitimate choices then I think they have been indoctrinated. 

For both of these they are options that are put forth by individuals that are known/proven to have been indoctrinated.  (Saren & TIM) 

Why in the world would anyone in their right mind believe a word either of them would say?  Because the star-kid said they were ok?  The star-child tells you he’s the master-mind behind the reapers, why would you believe anything that thing tells you? 

Javik also tells you that there are similar patterns in every cycle.  And he explains that in his cycle there was a faction that believed controlling the reapers was possible.  This divided their order of battle and cost them a great deal.  Later they learned the proponents of control were indoctrinated.  So how could control be a viable option?
Synthesis -Saren believed this was the way to go.  But the reapers have said they are the pinnacle of evolution.  Now that could just be hubris on their part and that’s possible.  It’s possible that the crucible also gave the star-kid the ability to merge organic & synthetic life.  But it does seem a little far-fetched that the Crucible’s purpose was to introduce new possibilities to the star-kid – which no one even knew about.  If the species of the galaxy have been adding to and refining this design for millions of years it is more likely to me that the Crucible is a giant bomb that affects the reapers.  But without the catalyst (found on the citadel which is the largest of reaper tech) the bomb could wipe out everything, everywhere. 

And why does the kid cooperate with you anyway?  He could just say “screw you” and be done with it.   The fact is, it wants you to pick control or synthesis.  It makes destroy seem so final, vile and evil.  Like saying, you “could” have this disgusting, foul tasty vanilla ice cream and only YOU can have it.  But wouldn’t you rather have this delicious chocolate that EVERYONE can enjoy? 

Modifié par Tirian Thorn, 25 avril 2012 - 02:56 .

[Uncle Jo]

paxxton wrote...

This is the whole picture in the other direction in time, so to speak. Of course, what happens on the Citadel is sufficiently bizarre to back up IT. I was just concerned with Marauder Shields and why I don't think he's the only one guarding the beam.

And don't get me wrong - I believe IT is the means to explaining the ending of ME3.

I don't get you wrong If we assume the face-value ending is true, then IMHO, the devs should have made Harbinger's beam could actually really kill you. Okay, you'll have to die many times before you notice the safe path and make it to the beam alive. It doesn't explain what happens after that, but is still less incoherent...

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 avril 2012 - 03:01 .

[Stegoceras]

Drift Avalii wrote...

Man, now I'm confused - I always thought the kid was on the second shuttle to be destroyed, not the first one :-s

You know what, after watching the scene again, I thoroughly agree that the kid is actually on the second shuttle that blows up.

[HellishFiend]

I dont buy the "QA" or "coincidence" or "Bioware messed up" defense one bit. There are just too many things. Too many. I'm not talking about anyone specific, but in general, I almost roll my eyes every time someone says something we find is just a coincidence or QA issue.

We have dozens upon dozens of occurrences of varying degrees that can be considered evidence, and very compelling and logical speculation regarding each that supports IT. In order to completely refute (or debunk, as people like to call it) IT and support the face-value interpretation, you have to not only state that every single one of those occurrences are QA/coincidence (which is statistically unlikely), but also come up with reasonable answers for the multitude of plotholes and inconsistencies with the ending.

As Coates would say, "It's too much..."

[SS2Dante]

MadRabbit999 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

SS2Dante wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...

I honestly do not see how can that play any part in the IT at all... either if it is in his head or is to enhance the dramatic moment.

Maybe the scream was in his head and the kid was real, ever thought about that, or only pro-IT feedback is a allowed here?

Coherent argument's are appreciated.

And I'm sorry, but saying you don't see how the scream indicates IT if it's in Shepards head...THAT is faith against evidence, right there. You've picked a side and are sticking with it, regardless of evidence.

Not at all, check hundreds of posts back I was here almsot from the start and drop from week to week, I have both bashed and supported IT, I do not take sides, I rather see concrete proofs not speculations or I would go to a religion forum and discuss "beliefs" over facts, there.

To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

It could be trauma in his head accumulated over the years, or a scream he has heard many times before.

TBH doesn't sound liek the  kid screaming, more like a shriek of terror, and cerntanly does not sound like the voice of that kid tone either.

Yes, but you're not giving any reasons to include this. Why include it, then hide it? Why have it so obviously out of place? I'm looking at it from a design point of view.

I have had the pleasure to meet and work with some of the most creative world builders and level designers, yet without proper QA, I have seen them screwing up their work pretty easily.

Something like this is hard to spot even by QA, like many other bugs... and this could have been part of the original scene that featured full screams from everyone on the shuttle, before they cut it and  thoguht it would have been more dramatic to just put music. And QA  failed to catch this one.... nope I do not have proof, but nobody has proof to contradic this point either, circular logic eh?

HellishFiend wrote...

MadRabbit999 wrote...



To me it is done to enhance the dramatic moment, to you is IT proof, but neither of us has any real proofs.

Who
said it was proof? Who ever says anything is "proof" in this topic? We
are all just speculating and having fun finding tidbits that could be
evidence or hints from bioware that support IT. If anyone ever uses the
word proof, its all in good fun, or theyre just excited. 

Do yuo seriusly want me to quote the 100+ people that calls IT "proof"? Just look back a little.

I find the notion that QA removed all the previous screams and somehow missed this one FAR more unlikely than even the most far reaching IT stuff. Also, you really think that that scene wasn't written, scripted and storyboarded with care? It's the opening credits! You don't just change stuff around willy-nilly (heh) in a game like that.

If you'll look back actually you'll find repeated clarifications of the words "proof" and "evidence" used in this thread.

You seem to what definitive "proof", with literal as your fallback stance. unfortunately this is something you cannot have until the DLC comes out, so you must look at probabilities. To my mind, the probability of all these odd occurences syncing up perfectly by accident is far far lower than the probability that Bioware can make good games.

Modifié par SS2Dante, 25 avril 2012 - 03:02 .

[HellishFiend]

Uncle Jo wrote...

paxxton wrote...

This is the whole picture in the other direction in time, so to speak. Of course, what happens on the Citadel is sufficiently bizarre to back up IT. I was just concerned with Marauder Shields and why I don't think he's the only one guarding the beam.

And don't get me wrong - I believe IT is the means to explaining the ending of ME3.

I don't get you wrong If we assume the face-value ending is true, then IMHO, the devs should have made Harbinger's beam could actually really kill you. Okay, you'll have to die many times before you notice the safe path and make it to the beam alive. It doesn't explain what happens after that, but is still less incoherent...

It's somewhat concievable that the fact that you can NOT die during the conduit charge is a hint in and of itself. In the context of the IT, Harbinger does not want to kill Shepard at this point - he very much wants him alive. Bioware may have made it to where Harbinger will not kill you during that scene for just that reason.

 Of course, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that it is just for gameplay reasons and/or to not ruin the drama of the moment by making you repeat the charge over and over, but if thats true, then why can you get a "The crucible has been destroyed" game over during the final choice? It seems silly to allow a game over during that sequence (which doesnt even make sense if you take the face-value interpretation) and not the conduit charge. 

[DirtyPhoenix]

I find it funny how the music cuts away the exact moment shep spots the kid. before that everything was normal.

[Tirian Thorn]

HellishFiend wrote...

I dont buy the "QA" or "coincidence" or "Bioware messed up" defense one bit. There are just too many things. Too many. I'm not talking about anyone specific, but in general, I almost roll my eyes every time someone says something we find is just a coincidence or QA issue.

We have dozens upon dozens of occurrences of varying degrees that can be considered evidence, and very compelling and logical speculation regarding each that supports IT. In order to completely refute (or debunk, as people like to call it) IT and support the face-value interpretation, you have to not only state that every single one of those occurrences are QA/coincidence (which is statistically unlikely), but also come up with reasonable answers for the multitude of plotholes and inconsistencies with the ending.

As Coates would say, "It's too much..."

The number of “mistakes” the amount of “laziness” and proclaimed “QA errors” that are present are too numerous to be just that. 

To me, it just seems like this was all done with a plan.  But, the Indoctrination had to be so subtle that there would be debate and discussion as to whether or not it was true. 

I’ve brought this up many many times on this thread but it deserves mention again.  Bioware wanted discussion, they wanted debate.  From day one they were saying stuff like “hold on to your save files” and “if you only knew what we had planned.”  Why say things like that if you have no future plans, other than side quest DLC?  Would a DLC about retaking Omega really draw people back if the ending sucked so bad? 

Bioware wanted this debate.  They wanted the press surrounding the ending.  They wanted it to be polarizing. 

[HellishFiend]

Tirian Thorn wrote...

HellishFiend wrote...

I dont buy the "QA" or "coincidence" or "Bioware messed up" defense one bit. There are just too many things. Too many. I'm not talking about anyone specific, but in general, I almost roll my eyes every time someone says something we find is just a coincidence or QA issue.

We have dozens upon dozens of occurrences of varying degrees that can be considered evidence, and very compelling and logical speculation regarding each that supports IT. In order to completely refute (or debunk, as people like to call it) IT and support the face-value interpretation, you have to not only state that every single one of those occurrences are QA/coincidence (which is statistically unlikely), but also come up with reasonable answers for the multitude of plotholes and inconsistencies with the ending.

As Coates would say, "It's too much..."

The number of “mistakes” the amount of “laziness” and proclaimed “QA errors” that are present are too numerous to be just that. 

To me, it just seems like this was all done with a plan.  But, the Indoctrination had to be so subtle that there would be debate and discussion as to whether or not it was true. 

I’ve brought this up many many times on this thread but it deserves mention again.  Bioware wanted discussion, they wanted debate.  From day one they were saying stuff like “hold on to your save files” and “if you only knew what we had planned.”  Why say things like that if you have no future plans, other than side quest DLC?  Would a DLC about retaking Omega really draw people back if the ending sucked so bad? 

Bioware wanted this debate.  They wanted the press surrounding the ending.  They wanted it to be polarizing. 

Agreed 100%. 

[Uncle Jo]

HellishFiend wrote...

Uncle Jo wrote...

paxxton wrote...

This is the whole picture in the other direction in time, so to speak. Of course, what happens on the Citadel is sufficiently bizarre to back up IT. I was just concerned with Marauder Shields and why I don't think he's the only one guarding the beam.

And don't get me wrong - I believe IT is the means to explaining the ending of ME3.

I don't get you wrong If we assume the face-value ending is true, then IMHO, the devs should have made Harbinger's beam could actually really kill you. Okay, you'll have to die many times before you notice the safe path and make it to the beam alive. It doesn't explain what happens after that, but is still less incoherent...

It's somewhat concievable that the fact that you can NOT die during the conduit charge is a hint in and of itself. In the context of the IT, Harbinger does not want to kill Shepard at this point - he very much wants him alive. Bioware may have made it to where Harbinger will not kill you during that scene for just that reason.

 Of course, I'm willing to entertain the possibility that it is just for gameplay reasons and/or to not ruin the drama of the moment by making you repeat the charge over and over, but if thats true, then why can you get a "The crucible has been destroyed" game over during the final choice? It seems silly to allow a game over during that sequence (which doesnt even make sense if you take the face-value interpretation) and not the conduit charge. 

Exactly my point^^. Thanks for explaining it better than I did

Modifié par Uncle Jo, 25 avril 2012 - 03:10 .

[Baldsake]

pirate1802 wrote...

I find it funny how the music cuts away the exact moment shep spots the kid. before that everything was normal.

There was no music in the video, that was the whole point... There have been some very solid hints at the IDT in this thread... The scream is not one of them.

[HellishFiend]

Uncle Jo wrote...
Exactly my point^^. Thanks for explaining it better than I did

Yeah, I just realized I basically just repeated what you said, only worded differently, lol. 

[DirtyPhoenix]

Baldsake wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

I find it funny how the music cuts away the exact moment shep spots the kid. before that everything was normal.

There was no music in the video, that was the whole point... There have been some very solid hints at the IDT in this thread... The scream is not one of them.

yeah but there was ambient noice right? That disappears thee moment shep sees the kid. And i'm saying nothing about whether its a solid proof or not. I myself am not totally convinced in the validity of IDT. Just exploring the oddities, discovering new things in the process.

[HellishFiend]

Baldsake wrote...

pirate1802 wrote...

I find it funny how the music cuts away the exact moment shep spots the kid. before that everything was normal.

There was no music in the video, that was the whole point... There have been some very solid hints at the IDT in this thread... The scream is not one of them.

I think he meant to say the ambient sound effects cut away at that moment, not the music.