57139 réponses à ce sujet

[jakenou]

The piles of bodies however are just plain weird. Why would they repeat Ashley's armor so many times?

[HellishFiend]

jkthunder wrote...

The piles of bodies however are just plain weird. Why would they repeat Ashley's armor so many times?

They wouldnt, unless you apply the universal anti-IT/pro-ender defense, which is that Bioware was one of the following (take your pick): lazy, incompetent, or careless

[jakenou]

MaximizedAction wrote...
It's like the Deathstar having a hallway leading directly to the only vulnerably spot on the whole thing and no one's protecting it...hm...bad example.

Heheh. Further proof that space magic can take down even the most powerful empire. Too bad space magic wasn't blatantly established as a core theme from the beginning of ME. All this would have been so much easier on my brain.

[jakenou]

HellishFiend wrote...

jkthunder wrote...

The piles of bodies however are just plain weird. Why would they repeat Ashley's armor so many times?

They wouldnt, unless you apply the universal anti-IT/pro-ender defense, which is that Bioware was one of the following (take your pick): lazy, incompetent, or careless

But it's so weird to repeat her armor like that, that it looks very intentional. I mean that would just be a huge mistake. I won't give Bioware too much credit, but I won't give them too little either. It's pretty easy to randomize repeating patterns, especially in this day and age. They could have easily mixed more textures and assets of different bodies in that pile... but it looks to be primarily Ashley (perhaps because it's easily distinguishable) and Kaidan, with a little bit of Liara, and I didn't look much more after that. Bioware is trying to indoctrinate me I think. Or worse... EA is!

[Arbalor4]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Arbalor4 wrote...

Eh those intial 300 were the only unique ones and all died in the first attack leaving harbinger and the sovereign clones:whistle:

"Harbinger and the Sovereign Clones", sounds like a bad cover band

Only Cause the lead singer doesnt show up till the last second of the concert and the rest play one note the entire time

[jakenou]

This one is from yesterday, but it made me think about things...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

I would suggest back to the discussion... who thinks which members of the squad are indoctrinated?

Couldn't anyone who gets close to Shepard be exceptionally "exposed"? Everyone Shep recruits or gets close to, eventually gives Shep unconditional trust and respect. They become willing to fight and die along side Shep for his/her cause. Sure, it's a natural bonding anyway, and maybe it doesn't have to be considered indoctrination, but it would seem to gel well with the Reaper's big evil plan anyway?!

[byne]

Subguy614 wrote...


Edit for words not showing up: The oldest known reaper is 37MYO  The LoD is not KNOWN to be a reaper (I think it's the living ship from farscape)
The oldest known reaper is 37,000,000 yrs old. The Leviathan of Dis is not KNOWN to be a reaper. I thought of it like the farscape living ship.

Balak straight up tells you the Leviathan of Dis indoctrinated all the highest levels of Batarian government and thats why the Reapers took Khar'shan so easily.

Pretty sure that makes it a Reaper.

[EpyonX3]

balance5050 wrote...

 


Do we have the name of this specific asset? is it 'dream tree' or 'London tree'? Does this asset appear in any of the dreams?

I'll check but I think it's either just tree or even weirder, presidium tree.

[Destructorlio]

Fingertrip wrote...

I'm really down with IT, but some stuff are so bloody subtle that your average gamer won't even spot it. That seems like a pretty faulty way to hint at at a bigger scheme to the overall plot. The subtle-in game hints are perfectly valid, but when it comes to digging through files and really "grasp" at straws, which can be seen somewhat of an "error" is abit stretching it abit.

Bioware know we live in the age of the internet, where anything and everything can be and is analyzed on a micro level. If they'd put a big flashing sign in the game saying: "YOU ARE BEING INDOCTRINATED!" that would defeat the point of the entire exercise- there would be no mystery, nothing to discuss. This thread is their grand achievement- a group exercise pulling ME3 apart and then putting it back together again in a way that makes sense. They knew this would happen- they stayed right on the line between IT and reality, just where indoctrination takes place. Any clues less subtle than the ones they provided would have been too much.

Any single piece of IT evidence can be dismissed by saying it was a bug or an error. Hell, any three pieces of evidence can be dismissed But *this* many pieces of evidence? Why do all the errors all point towards the same conclusion? Why do they all have these thematic commonalities? That's not how bugs work. A bug just happens to generate the reflections of trees, after a different bug has randomly generated trees after you're hit by the Reaper beam? And it's just a coincidence that trees are a major feature of the dream sequences that also involve the star child? These coincidences sure are stacking up- at what point does it become less probable that it's all a series of bizarre bugs and more probable that this was all done intentionally, particularly given the complexity of the rest of the game? How many coincidences will it take? More than ten? Because we have more than ten:

1. The trees in the end sequence after Shepard is blasted by Harbinger.
2. The wound to Shepard's side after Shepard shoots Andersen.
3. The dream sequences and their consistency with previous descriptions of indoctrination process.
4. Shepard's eyes if you choose the Control or Synthesis.
5. Shepard surviving if you choose destroy.
6. The musical cues being negative if you choose control or synthesis, hopeful if you choose destroy.
7. The 'garden world' and the inexplicable presence of the Normandy and certain crewmembers.
8. The 'stargazer' epilogue: The last lines in the series are: "Okay, there is time for one more story."
9. The black distortion during your conversation with Andersen and the Illusive Man.
10. The 'hum' on the Normandy James reports.
11. The voice of the Star Child being made up of Shepard's voices.
12. The unexplained presence of Andersen and The Illusive Man on the citadel.
13. The reflections of the trees in the crucible chamber.
14. The warning signs next to the child every time you see him in reality.

This is in addition to the masses of out-of-game evidence like indoctrination being specifically mentioned in the making-of app, the fact that Bioware have completely refused to comment on IT's veracity one way or the other (hell, a Bioware employee came into this forum just to tell us that there is no time limit on testing theories- they couldn't have saved us a lot of trouble by saying: "PS- you're all wrong."?) and the fact that the rest of the game is intricately put together with extremely subtlety and grace- the sort you would require to pull IT off.

I think it all comes down to: do you have faith in Bioware. If, like me, you believe they are master storytellers, the best in the business, that they have raised the bar for storytelling and characterization in gaming, and that they wanted to end the series on a note that changes gaming forever, then IT is not only plausible, it is the inescapable conclusion.

If you think Bioware are a bunch of hacks who threw together a nonsense ending, laden with bugs, storytelling snafus and continuity errors- the real question is: why are you here?

[lex0r11]

Guys, I was here like 5 hours ago. Give me something to do while I try to catch up.

I'm so sorry for pointless posts!
*drowns in shame*

[Arbalor4]

lex0r11 wrote...

Guys, I was here like 5 hours ago. Give me something to do while I try to catch up.

I'm so sorry for pointless posts!
*drowns in shame*

No by all means keep going the threads gotta grow

[Arbalor4]

oh and apparently mordin was inspired by clint eastwood

[Unschuld]

Destructorlio wrote...
If you think Bioware are a bunch of hacks who threw together a nonsense ending, laden with bugs, storytelling snafus and continuity errors- the real question is: why are you here?

I dunno. Maybe they're the forum equivalent of husks.

[Destructorlio]

Apart from pulling apart the file architecture some more looking for clues, I think the most productive thing we can do to further bolster/debunk IT is to analyze the 'many voices' you can hear during the dream sequences and the very similar 'many voices' you can hear in the initial sequence with Andersen on the citadel (immediately before TIM appears).

Questions:

1- are these two sets of voices the same set of voices? If they are identical, this is a big clue pointing towards IT. I am of course talking about the 'background' voices from the dream sequence, not the voices of your dead crewmates that are layered on top of this.

2- what are these background voices saying? Does anyone have any audio software/skillsets that could be used to isolate the voices and examine them more closely?

3- can the file behind these voices be found in the games architecture? What is the file called? Can someone post the file so that everyone on the forum who cares to can try and listen to it and try to distinguish any coherent sentences.

4- I read on a blog that the writer thought that the voices are saying something like: "Don't trust him." and "Choose your own path" or things to that effect (I can't find the link unfortunately, it was definitely from this thread, it was like a 'complete list of all IT theory evidence' blog) but I'm aware that you can hear almost anything due to pareidolia, so I'd like some kind of confirmation about what these voices are saying- it could be a vital clue about the nature of the dreams, and of the final sequence.

[liggy002]

byne wrote...

Subguy614 wrote...


Edit for words not showing up: The oldest known reaper is 37MYO  The LoD is not KNOWN to be a reaper (I think it's the living ship from farscape)
The oldest known reaper is 37,000,000 yrs old. The Leviathan of Dis is not KNOWN to be a reaper. I thought of it like the farscape living ship.

Balak straight up tells you the Leviathan of Dis indoctrinated all the highest levels of Batarian government and thats why the Reapers took Khar'shan so easily.

Pretty sure that makes it a Reaper.

Why wasn't this bad boy in the Mass Effect games?  Seriously, we need some ME3 DLC with this Reaper.

[liggy002]

And request sent to Gamble for DLC with Leviathan of Dis.

[nategator]

Serious question: how is IT disproven? Or has it become a law rather than a theory? Thanks!

[MegumiAzusa]

Just starting a new playthrough \\o/ and I noticed the music in the dance scene changes to the music also played when you betray Wrex and he comes to "visit" you on the Citadel, and it's played when you choose your final answer for TIM.
Strange choice of music...

[The Eruptionist]

Just a question about how we can hear Shepard's voice speaking the same lines as the Star Kid. Assuming that the Anderson and Illusive Man scene is also part of the dream/ hallucination; can we hear Shepard's voice speaking their lines as well?

Probably been addressed. But it would make sense that if the Star Kid's lines are repeated by Shepard then so would the others who presumably are products of Shepard's imagination. If this can be proven then it'd be pretty strong evidence.

Also an interview with Casey Hudson was quoted a while ago but I think it had a very important quote:

"We end up exploring some spaces that maybe have never been done before. Because interactive storytelling is still kind of new, there are neat things to try. One of the things we’re trying in Mass Effect 3 is the idea that we can let you feel something that is part of that character’s experience versus strictly getting you to react to things that you see and experience. We’re trying to tell a little bit of the story Shepard would feel and seeing if the player feels that as well. You saw that on the Earth mission, and you see it throughout the game. It’s insight into how Shepard feels. I think that’s going to be one of the things people remember."

That interview can be found here: http://www.gameinfor...PostPageIndex=2

[Destructorlio]

nategator wrote...

Serious question: how is IT disproven? Or has it become a law rather than a theory? Thanks!

IT will definitely remain a theory until the EC comes out (unless they double-down and make the EC have two interpretations as well, which I really hope they do not do, as that would be as inconclusive as what we have now!) as that is the only way it will be proved or disproven. All of our evidence, while compelling in aggregate, is inconclusive individually, which means that you can still plausibly go either way and not be wrong or right- until further evidence arises or until EC is released.

I imagine that, a couple of weeks before EC is released, enough people will have seen the cut for IT to be conclusively proven/disproven by the rumour mill.

I sincerely hope IT is true, not just because it explains the ending, but because it will be an unprecendented mindfvck and will elevate Mass Effect, and gaming, to new levels of narrative complexity. 

Either way, the sh!tstorm is going to be MASSIVE.

[blooregard]

Destructorlio wrote...

nategator wrote...

Serious question: how is IT disproven? Or has it become a law rather than a theory? Thanks!

IT will definitely remain a theory until the EC comes out (unless they double-down and make the EC have two interpretations as well, which I really hope they do not do, as that would be as inconclusive as what we have now!) as that is the only way it will be proved or disproven. All of our evidence, while compelling in aggregate, is inconclusive individually, which means that you can still plausibly go either way and not be wrong or right- until further evidence arises or until EC is released.

I imagine that, a couple of weeks before EC is released, enough people will have seen the cut for IT to be conclusively proven/disproven by the rumour mill.

I sincerely hope IT is true, not just because it explains the ending, but because it will be an unprecendented mindfvck and will elevate Mass Effect, and gaming, to new levels of narrative complexity. 

Either way, the sh!tstorm is going to be MASSIVE.

Yeah a alot of people should be in favor of of IT because it technically removes the star brat
It "can" be disproven but the ones that can disprove it aren't talking.

[Destructorlio]

A further thought, not evidence, certainly, but food for thought: I am a project manager at a company that makes educational games. Games are not written like books. It is facile to say that Bioware simply ran out of time so they rushed the ending. That's not how games are made. When you initiate a project you scope out the entire story FIRST, before anything is made. This is BASIC project management, something I assume Bioware has mastered by now.

Yes, you do sometimes have to cut corners as deadlines loom, but you don't cut them from the primary product, you cut them on things like side missions and DLC and QA (as we saw with 'From Ashes' and some of the rendering bugs that have been reported). A game isn't made in the order you play it- you don't make the first 95% first and then finish up the last 5% just before publish- especially in a game like ME3 where all your choices tie into each other in such a way that it would have all needed to be intricately mapped out beforehand. Different parts get worked on simultaneously- the ending would have been getting made at the same time as the beginning. In other words: The ending was planned. It is meant to be the way it is. The odd things are not bugs or errors or bad writing, they are clues, put there specifically to guide us to the Indoctrination Theory conclusion.

Something we do very commonly in my line of work is called a 'post-publish fix'. Basically, we reach the deadline and the content is not ready, still has bugs, still hasn't been 100% QA'd, and we publish it anyway. On our QA'd Functional Specs we write: "Post-publish fix." meaning we'll publish, fix the bug after publish, then re-upload after we've made the fixes. This is very common in gaming as well, which is why we have day one patches and even patches 3 months after publish.

Bioware, no doubt, was under immense time pressure to get the game finished, so maybe they just did a more advanced version of this? No time to finish the ending properly, so they just kind of... punted it down the line? As someone pointed out earlier in the forum, they originally asked EA for a 6 month deadline extension, and were only granted three months. Part of that deal may have been them saying: "Okay, give us three months now, and then three months to do the ending DLC." IT may have been an elegant way of 'ending' the game without really ending it.

This doesn't support or debunk IT, just some thoughts about the process.

[Destructorlio]

blooregard wrote...

It "can" be disproven but the ones that can disprove it aren't talking.

If there is any definitive evidence of IT not being true, I have not seen it- this in and of itself is extremely strange. It reminds me of the end of The Sopranos. When asked to definitively say whether or not Tony was killed in the last moment of the show, creator David Chase said: "The clues are laden throughout the season, if you want to look for them." If you analyzed the clues, you reached the inescapable conclusion that Tony was, indeed, dead. But still some people insisted that he was not, even though the whole season was just ridden with clues that he was- you basically had to deny the existence of any kind of literary analysis to support your position- there was no 'ah, but if you look at this clue, he's still alive.' because the creators put in no such clue. 

It's similar with Bioware: Every statement they have made on the ending has been expressly vague. They've used words like 'artistic vision' and 'we want everyone to interpret it for themselves.' Sorry, but if IT is not true, there is nothing to interpret- it's just a series of nonsensical non sequiturs that happen in front of you. If IT is not true, there is no artistic vision- the ending is completely bungled. 

IT, on the other hand, explains every bug, every non sequitur, every clue, every process- and does so in a way that is intelligent, clever, subtle, and mindblowing- utterly consistent with Bioware's quality of writing. 

If IT was not true, they'd just say: "IT is not true." The only reason to be so vague is to avoid spoiling the IT reveal- because if there was nothing to spoil, they wouldn't mind spoiling it. 

[blooregard]

Destructorlio wrote...

blooregard wrote...

It "can" be disproven but the ones that can disprove it aren't talking.

If there is any definitive evidence of IT not being true, I have not seen it- this in and of itself is extremely strange. It reminds me of the end of The Sopranos. When asked to definitively say whether or not Tony was killed in the last moment of the show, creator David Chase said: "The clues are laden throughout the season, if you want to look for them." If you analyzed the clues, you reached the inescapable conclusion that Tony was, indeed, dead. But still some people insisted that he was not, even though the whole season was just ridden with clues that he was- you basically had to deny the existence of any kind of literary analysis to support your position- there was no 'ah, but if you look at this clue, he's still alive.' because the creators put in no such clue. 

It's similar with Bioware: Every statement they have made on the ending has been expressly vague. They've used words like 'artistic vision' and 'we want everyone to interpret it for themselves.' Sorry, but if IT is not true, there is nothing to interpret- it's just a series of nonsensical non sequiturs that happen in front of you. If IT is not true, there is no artistic vision- the ending is completely bungled. 

IT, on the other hand, explains every bug, every non sequitur, every clue, every process- and does so in a way that is intelligent, clever, subtle, and mindblowing- utterly consistent with Bioware's quality of writing. 

If IT was not true, they'd just say: "IT is not true." The only reason to be so vague is to avoid spoiling the IT reveal- because if there was nothing to spoil, they wouldn't mind spoiling it. 

Anti-IT view point  will state that they're keeping quite because IT is the thing thats keeping the fans at a relitivly docile level. were they do come out and say IT is true/false a ****storm would be started that could rival the ending crap.

[Darth Sparto]

If that were the case why wouldn't they do that at the very beginning when the fans were already angry.