57139 réponses à ce sujet

[gunslinger_ruiz]

blooregard wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Just trying to stay objective and logical.

Speaking of, I would love it if all the Theorists could get together for a day of posting taking ALL of our evidence for Indoctrination and try to disprove it. See how far we can take it, try and explain it another way. So far on my own I cannot, the majority of evidence points towards Indoctrination.

Ultimately... it is outright impossible to disprove IT. There is too many consistancies and evidence for it. A rational person will know that. That is why you see only trolls/ignorant people saying that IT is impossible/wrong and can not bring evidence forward.

Well there is some evidence that can be explained away with little hassle but then when things like TIM's shift in attitude and the kid surviving getting lasered and/or nobody noticing him people begin to nitpick at why its wrong. 

That's what I keep coming to when going into deep thought about Indoctrination Theory. A handful of things can be explained away as "coincidence" or "glitch" but that's only a few things, while all the other evidence almost always only points to Indoctrination. Moreover, that little handful of things can still be interpretted as Indoctrination. It's like thinking in a circle that keeps coming back to the Theory.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 07 mai 2012 - 07:23 .

[blooregard]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

blooregard wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Just trying to stay objective and logical.

Speaking of, I would love it if all the Theorists could get together for a day of posting taking ALL of our evidence for Indoctrination and try to disprove it. See how far we can take it, try and explain it another way. So far on my own I cannot, the majority of evidence points towards Indoctrination.

Ultimately... it is outright impossible to disprove IT. There is too many consistancies and evidence for it. A rational person will know that. That is why you see only trolls/ignorant people saying that IT is impossible/wrong and can not bring evidence forward.

Well there is some evidence that can be explained away with little hassle but then when things like TIM's shift in attitude and the kid surviving getting lasered and/or nobody noticing him people begin to nitpick at why its wrong. 

That's what I keep coming to when going into the deep though about Indoctrination Theory. A handful of things can be explained away as "coincidence" or "glitch" but that's only a few things, while all the other evidence almost always only points to Indoctrination. Moreover, that little handful of things can still be interpretted as Indoctrination. It's like thinking in a circle that keeps coming back to the Theory.

The indoctrination theory isn't just a group...its an idea and ideas don't die so easily.

[Ch1m3Ra]

blooregard wrote...

The indoctrination theory isn't just a group...its an idea and ideas don't die so easily.

Like Cerberus?

[Big G13]

blooregard wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

blooregard wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

Just trying to stay objective and logical.

Speaking of, I would love it if all the Theorists could get together for a day of posting taking ALL of our evidence for Indoctrination and try to disprove it. See how far we can take it, try and explain it another way. So far on my own I cannot, the majority of evidence points towards Indoctrination.

Ultimately... it is outright impossible to disprove IT. There is too many consistancies and evidence for it. A rational person will know that. That is why you see only trolls/ignorant people saying that IT is impossible/wrong and can not bring evidence forward.

Well there is some evidence that can be explained away with little hassle but then when things like TIM's shift in attitude and the kid surviving getting lasered and/or nobody noticing him people begin to nitpick at why its wrong. 

That's what I keep coming to when going into the deep though about Indoctrination Theory. A handful of things can be explained away as "coincidence" or "glitch" but that's only a few things, while all the other evidence almost always only points to Indoctrination. Moreover, that little handful of things can still be interpretted as Indoctrination. It's like thinking in a circle that keeps coming back to the Theory.

The indoctrination theory isn't just a group...its an idea and ideas don't die so easily.

A TIM quote to support IDT, nice.

[Silhouett3]

There is a track playing the conduit scene, right after Harbinger shots Shep. I'm not sure if it's a sound effect or music actually, it sounds strange and disturbing. It hints to a mental change of state rather then a physical one - Shep's injuries.

Please confirm, is this it?
www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Silhouett3, 07 mai 2012 - 07:38 .

[HellishFiend]

Silhouett3 wrote...

There is a track playing the conduit scene, right after Harbinger shots Shep. I'm not sure if it's a sound effect or music actually, it sounds strange and disturbing. It hints to a mental change of state rather then a physical one - Shep's injuries.

Please confirm, is this it?
www.youtube.com/watch

That sounds like, if I recall, what you briefly hear during the load screen as you go up the conduit beam. It could be the same track, or just a recurring theme. 

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Bit offtopic but some time ago I had this fun idea of trying to find songs that fit IT:

So far I have foudn four which made me think of the IT in different ways.

Back in the Loop by E-TYPE

This one might fit ME2 better due to Shepards ressurection, but it could also easily go with a video on the final assult on Earth and the "Snap out of it now" as well as other parts of the text is mostly what makes me think of IT.

Me against the World by Simple Plan

Now this one makes me think of this thread and the people here more than the actual game. With all the people against us it is us against the world (or the fanbase) at least that is how it felt for a long time.

Wake me up Inside by Evanscence

This one is entirely for Shepard and Indoctrination as should be quite clear. It is time for Shepard to wake up inside and finish the fight.

Just a fun  side project I have, anyone else have an idea for songs which fit IT?

[gunslinger_ruiz]

@ Rastlin
Eh, not my kind of music. But we could definitely use some Indoctrination Theory music vids. Y'know, boost morale and all that.

EDIT: anything out of the Inception soundtrack would work in that regard. Now we just need some video makers *I'm not one*.

Modifié par gunslinger_ruiz, 07 mai 2012 - 08:07 .

[HellishFiend]

While we're on the subject of music, has anyone pointed out before that all of the musical ambiance notes and tones you hear in the dream sequences seem to be exclusively from the piano tracks Leaving Earth and An End Once and for All? They all seem to be the same note, tone, and/or octave as one of the staple notes you hear in those tracks.

It's hard for me to describe accurately since I'm not very familiar with music terminology, but hopefully you guys get what I mean.

[Stigweird85]

Cyberfrog81 wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Let's look at one of the other greatest twists of all time. Darth Vader. The actor portraying Vader, David Prowse was not even told until the movie came out in theathers, Hammil was only told 5 minutes beforehand. The voice actor, James Earl Jones wasn't told until he started recording the lines personally.

Morever, they SAID they didn't plan on making the EC, hence my own theory that this whole thing was a big alternate reality game, crossed with PR stunt, only people werent satisfied to wait for the conclusion DLC that would reveal indoctrination,

"We'll have something totally awesome for you soon, keep your faith in us a little longer, you will be rewarded!"

Except... that's not the message that was sent; certainly not the message people got. No, the non-sensical ending that seems to belong in a different game entirely, is what they intended, it was their vision. PR ('artistic integrity') was ****** poorly handled. I don't see how anyone, supporter of IT or not, can say otherwise.


Extended for clarity: I'm on board with the indoctrination attempt scenario. But I don't believe in blaming the audience for not "getting" something that wasn't properly communicated; or for not graciously accepting a product that didn't deliver as promised.

If IT proves to be true, or even if it doesn't but there is more than the literal endings then I will be glad that it wasn't obvious,  If you can see(or worse predict) a twist coming it isn't really that good a twist. 

For instance Darth Vader is Luke's dad -  a major twist in the franchise and it shocked audiences. Then came the prequels so if you watch them in sequential order (i,.e 1,2,3,4,5,6 rather than 4,5,6,1,2,3) then this major twist is revealed at the end of the third movie which takes the power away from the reveal. Foreshadowing is one thing but out and out telling you is poor writing in the above example all it would have taken to keep the secret a little longer would be for Padme to give birth to children but not name them, this leaves the audience to work it out themselves

Or using a murder mystery analogy - What type of person are you? Do you like to see the killer at the start of the film/programme etc do the deed and then watch as his plan unravels or do you like to try and work it out yourself? Personally I prefer trying to work to work it out with the clues provided

[HellishFiend]

bigstig wrote...


For instance Darth Vader is Luke's dad -  a major twist in the franchise and it shocked audiences. Then came the prequels so if you watch them in sequential order (i,.e 1,2,3,4,5,6 rather than 4,5,6,1,2,3) then this major twist is revealed at the end of the third movie which takes the power away from the reveal. Foreshadowing is one thing but out and out telling you is poor writing in the above example all it would have taken to keep the secret a little longer would be for Padme to give birth to children but not name them, this leaves the audience to work it out themselves

Or using a murder mystery analogy - What type of person are you? Do you like to see the killer at the start of the film/programme etc do the deed and then watch as his plan unravels or do you like to try and work it out yourself? Personally I prefer trying to work to work it out with the clues provided

A good story is a good story, but a proper delivery definitely helps, as you say. 

On that subject, I feel the best viewing order for people who have not yet seen the Star Wars movies is 4, 5, 1, 2, 3, 6. I think that does the best job of preserving the intergrity of the narrative. 

And preserving the integrity of the narrative is exactly what Bioware is doing right now by not spoiling what's coming in the EC before it comes. 

[Stigweird85]

byne wrote...

Arian Dynas wrote...

Salient Archer wrote...

Has anyone here read ME:Conviction or ME:Evolution?

My freind, that's like going to a church and asking if anyone has read the bible. 

So basically what you're saying is: "No, no one here has."?

[HellishFiend]

Was that really necessary?

[Vahilor]

Somthing new the last 3 days.. was on a CON and couldn't peek into the forum ? =)

[SubAstris]

Destructorlio wrote...

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.

Of course creating a whole new ending is different to brushing up a few inconsistencies in the game

[Destructorlio]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

I hate being 100% certain of Anything, I'd say it's still possible for IT to be false but it is extremely likely IT is true. Just need to try and poke some holes and potentially fill said holes with other explanations. Trying to disprove a Theory and failing ought to make it stronger

Agreed. I believe in IT and everytime I look my belief gets stronger, but I must be intellectually honest and admit that it may not, indeed, be true- only the EC will confirm it one way or another. 

Anyway, I actually tried to debunk all of the individual pieces of evidence, and it's fairly easy to debunk them individually. But when you put them all together, it's pretty hard to ignore the pattern:

Taking an extremely skeptical eye to the IT indicators:

Explicit

1. The trees in the end sequence: As frequently pointed out, there are indeed trees on the right-hand side prior to the moment IT supposes the dream sequence starts. DEBUNKED

2. The wound to Shepard's side: Could have been made during the battle- she does seem to clutch her side prior to shooting Andersen. DEBUNKED

3. The child and the dream sequences: As has been noted, these could just be a symbolic examination of the mounting toll of the war on Shepard. DEBUNKED

4. Shepard's eyes: Could be a coincidence that they turn blue in the control/synthesis options. Lots of things are blue, it's one of the primary colours. DEBUNKED

5. The breath: The rubble could be on the Citadel, and space magic could have protected Shepard from the blast. In fact, space magic could have protected Shepard even if he fell to earth from the Citadel. Space magic also protected him from the destroy option destroying all technology. DEBUNKED...uh, sort of...

6. The 'reflection' trees in the cubemap: I honestly can't think of an explanation for this, outside some kind of bug. NOT DEBUNKED

Implicit

1. The musical cues: The game was being rushed into production and they probably just slapped whatever music they had available onto the scenes, so any inferences drawn from the music will be flawed. DEBUNKED

2. The 'garden world': Okay, so in the extended DLC, what they will reveal is that in the moments after the final charge in London, Joker:
a. bought the ship down to London.
b. Told EDI, Liara and Garrus to get on board. Even though this is something that Liara and Garrus would NEVER DO, they did it for some reason. Y'know, cause bad writing.
c. After picking them up, Joker inexplicably high-tailed it to the nearest Mass Relay.
d. After the Mass Relay overloads, the Normandy survived the overloads because of space magic.
e. After surviving the overload explosion, the Normandy crash landed on a garden paradise. EDI was not killed by the 'destroy' option because space magic.
NOT DEBUNKED. This makes no sense. The 'literal' explanation does not explain this. IT does. When you remove all other alternatives, whatever remains, no matter how improbably, is the truth.

3. The 'stargazer' epilogue: The line just before 'one more story' explains that what we just saw 'really happened'. Evidence cancels itself out. DEBUNKED

4. The black distortion: This could just be a sign that the Illusive Man is trying to exert control over you. DEBUNKED

5. The 'hum' on the Normandy: Engine trouble. DEBUNKED

6. The voice of the Star Child: Even if the ending sequence is real, it seems clear the Catalyst took the form of the child because it represented your guilt over his death- so the voices in your mind could just be a side effect of whatever process the catalyst used to gain this information and present it to you. DEBUNKED

7. Andersen and The Illusive Man: Andersen mentioned that the walls in the Citadel were moving, shifting- this could explain how he got to the console before you, even though there appeared to be no other way in or out. The Illusive Man would have prepared for this moment for years so no doubt had a secret way to arrange his presence on the Citadel. DEBUNKED... except for the shadows (bug!)

So, taken in isolation, you can dismiss any one piece of evidence. But after all these bugs and coincidences... it does seem to take on a coherence of some kind that points towards IT.

Anything I missed?

Modifié par Destructorlio, 07 mai 2012 - 09:22 .

[SubAstris]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Ultimately... it is outright impossible to disprove IT. There is too many consistancies and evidence for it. A rational person will know that. That is why you see only trolls/ignorant people saying that IT is impossible/wrong and can not bring evidence forward.

Even if BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull?

[Stigweird85]

[quote]whateverman7 wrote...

in game:

1. the kid - shepard was the only one that saw the kid....reason being the kid was a ploy by the reapers to get shepard on thier side...humans have a soft spot for children, reapers would know this, they're an advanced being....which explains why the godlike figure trying to get you to work with the reapers at the end was the same kid...
[/quote]

The choice of clothing is also interesting, no one else in the universe is seen wearing that type of clothing and in the art book it states that the designers wanted it to look futuristic but not out of place today -  the reason as you rightly put it humans have a soft spot for children so Bioware may be using this against you the player rather than just as a tool for the story.

[quote]whateverman7 wrote...

2. the ending choice colors/explainations by the kid - the colors for good/bad choices were switched...destroy, which was the good choice, was colored red...and the kid made it seem that was the worst choice you could make....while it was the opposite for control and synthesis....[/quote]

This is one of the biggest things for me, whether or not you believe Indoctrination theory true or not it is undeniable that the destroy option(the one you have been aiming for for 3 games) is suddenly portrayed as the bad option. For 3 games Bioware conditioned the player to respond to these colours and then flips the switch. It is another example of Bioware are manipulating the player beyond the general game

3. Indoctrination. - looking at the indoctrination def and the symptoms associated with it, shepard was experiencing this throughout the whole game: the growling noises, the nightmares, headaches, etc...the kid's reaction to whatever choice you made represented the reaper's reaction...if you picked destroy, he disappeared instantly, meaning they knew they failed...the other choices, he lingered around meaning they knew they succeeded....[/quote]

Looking at the game with IT tinted glasses then most things can appear sinister, I don't really see this as proof on it's own. What it interesting is the starchild voice is made up of both Male and Female Shepards.

[quote]whateverman7 wrote...]

4. extra scene - it showed that shepard never left earth to get on the crucible and that he was alive....which means the whole thing on the crucible wasnt real, and in his head...
[/quote]

That's still up for debate, it certainly looked more similar to destroyed London that Citadel to me though, what is critical is that destroy is the only way to get the Shepard alive scene

[quote]whateverman7 wrote...
real life:

1 bioware staff - they've been quiet about all this for the most part, except 1 important thing: telling us to keep our saves....why would we need to keep our saves if this was the last game?...they could, but i doubt they're gonna release major dlc for this game that our saves would be important for...our saves are for the next game....

...i think they started out and intended this to be the last game, but EA and them realized killing this cash cow now wouldnt be best for business....the problem was though they had spent so much on marketing already about this being the last game, they couldnt change that....so they just stuck with that marketing scheme, while knowing it wasnt true...and are gonna announce me4 with shepard still fighting the reapers...but now, there has been a turning point in the war, cause the reapers couldnt indoctrinate shepard, and it scares them...[/quote]

The mass effect trilogy was always touted as Shepard's story however they also made it clear that it is not the only story. The cynic in me agrees that EA(or anyone) would want a cash cow to die but I would love to play more in the ME series. Mass Effect is often compared to Star Wars so look at the volume of stories and games connected to the series but not to main characters. Yes some are better than others but it shows just what level of expansion can be achieved

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

Okay just got another one for the IT.

During the conversation with james when you invite him up if you follow the Paragon dialogue line Shepard says "The right choice is usualy not the easy one."

Yes it is minor and yes we have heard it before, but hearing Shepard outright say this and then thinking about the ending where the easy choice is most certainly not Destroy if taken at face value...

[Stigweird85]

Big Bad wrote...

Hey All. No joke, I just spent the last 3.5 hours trying to make it through the fight with the Krogan Battlemaster during the mission where you recruit Liara in ME1. I started on veteran, but ended up turning the difficulty down to normal in order to beat it. I am seriously the worst gamer in the history of life!

Hate to say but it get a lot harder from there, Benzia is a pain in the ass(took me 8 hrs over two days while on insanity - I was only armed with a pistol and it  can't remember exact reason but it was class related and it was a new playthrough so I was underpowered too) It was worth the effort though. Now I can look at my achievements and see 100% on all Mass Effect titles)

Modifié par bigstig, 07 mai 2012 - 09:40 .

[Raistlin Majare 1992]

SubAstris wrote...

Destructorlio wrote...

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.

Of course creating a whole new ending is different to brushing up a few inconsistencies in the game

Few inconsistencies? Oh you mean the gaping plot holes, the complete 180 degree turn on everything we have learned and the complete impossibility of the ending when taken face value...yeah it is just a "few inconsistencies."

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Destructorlio wrote...

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.

Of course creating a whole new ending is different to brushing up a few inconsistencies in the game

Few inconsistencies? Oh you mean the gaping plot holes, the complete 180 degree turn on everything we have learned and the complete impossibility of the ending when taken face value...yeah it is just a "few inconsistencies."

Prove it

[Stigweird85]

HellishFiend wrote...

byne wrote...

After they release DLC fixing the endings of ME3, they should release a Darkspawn Chronicles-esque DLC that assumes Shepard died at the end of ME2, and you play as some indoctrinated soldier and just screw up everyone's day.

I'd play that. Maybe I would be able to kill the Dalatrass finally.

What if they released a DLC where you get to play as Indoctrinated Shepard (if you pick Control or Synthesis) and ruin everyone's day? It would be like the death of the Quarian fleet over and over for everyone you ever knew. Or would that only appeal to the overly sadistic variety? <_<

I'd play that as an alternative and have suggested(with others) that  you "win" said storyarc but either suicide ala Saren and TIM or your LI pulls the trigger on you. Or you can wipe out your entire squad and then either awake to see the destruction or just continuye on your merry way

[SubAstris]

Raistlin Majare 1992 wrote...

Okay just got another one for the IT.

During the conversation with james when you invite him up if you follow the Paragon dialogue line Shepard says "The right choice is usualy not the easy one."

Yes it is minor and yes we have heard it before, but hearing Shepard outright say this and then thinking about the ending where the easy choice is most certainly not Destroy if taken at face value...

You are first assuming destroy is the best option. James wouldn't have even know this! It could easily applies to all options anyway

[Stigweird85]

balance5050 wrote...

prettz wrote...

jkthunder wrote...

Still looking at prettz's screenshots and the discussions surrounding it. Prettz did you say you were using flycam the whole time or just for some parts? The reason I ask is because I've seen some weird views with flycam (haven't used it in ME3 yet) where some environmental assets can get jumbled up since they're not part of the normal locked view an average player can see.

If the magically appearing trees and bushes (shall we call them star shrubbery?) are what one can see while turning around in normal mode without flycam, I'd say that's too big of an error to overlook, and would lean heavily toward it being another subtle sign that the indoctrination hallucinations are becoming more severe. However, if it's a flycam view, you can never be sure if what you see is intentional or not and I would more easily shrug it off (especially considering they had to scramble to get the game out in less time than they wanted).

Edit - Best quote tree I've seen in a long time!

using flycam for the tree in both, it's easy to tell when I'm not cause you well see the back of Shepard in all of them unless it's a cut scene and those still have people standing around in them. plan to put some youtube vids up but am new at it and leaning encoding for it now:D

Ok hears another pic. look closely at it. Do you see what is wrong with it.


i.imgur.com/039pJ.jpg

The shadows are all pointing in different direction.

I don't see anything wrong with the shadows? They are pointed away from the light source(the control panel) which is the middle of them?

What do you think is wrong?