57139 réponses à ce sujet

[HellishFiend]

bigstig wrote...

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

In any case it would not have a happy ending because it would inevitably result in Shepard being gooified and pumped into a shiny new Reaper. And that's if he's lucky....

[HellishFiend]

bigstig wrote...


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?

When catching up on backlogged posts, you really should finish catching up before responding, because usually questions like these get answered in the following posts....

[Ch1m3Ra]

SubAstris wrote...

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?

Your point?

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Even though I'm half asleep I'm gonna give this a shot. Wish me luck and I'm sorry for the typos.

Destructorlio wrote...

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?

Explicit:

1. While you can see similar dead trees on the right hand side before you are blasted, the dead trees you see when waking up are towards the left almost immediatley behind you. You can see some dead tress on the far left before the blast but they're far more spread out.

2. That wound could have been sustained from Harbingers beam, NOT by Maurader Shields since he obviously shoots you in the upper right torso (your right arm flings backward). If it was from Harbingers beam why aren't there other areas of Shepard's body that bleed as profusley. Example, Shepard's head is exposed and yo ucan clearly see bloodied portions of armor along his/her legs and arms, but none of these bleed any worse than what we see. In addition, Anderson holds the exact spot after he is shot.

3. The Nightmares, and the child, can be seen as PTSD or a sign that Shepard is tired of this war and of losing people. But, the fact that the Catalyst takes the form of this child shows that it can see inside Shepard's head.

4. Blue being a primary color is not sufficient evidence to debunk a Bioware scene that is central around specific colors. Shepard's eye appear as exact copy of The Illusive Man's eyes, down to thet very last detail. This cannot be Shepard's cybernetic eyes showing since they are in the opposite formation and of different design (very bright center while TIMs are a light circle around the pupil). This can mean that you're under The Illusive Man's influence or, more likely, you are being circumvented with Reaper tech  by intereacting with the Control option or Synthesis beam, much how TIM got his eyes and Husk's get theres. As seen, it can lead to Indoctrintion both subtle and direct.

5. The rubble is clearly from London, you can see specific aesthetic grooves on rubble London when going through cutscenes and battle, too similar for coincidence in the Breath scene's level of detail. The Reaper cables shown (that's not rebar, do not make me break out my screenshot comparisons) could easily be from the Citadel, or from the Beam structure. There's more in the Breath scene that I have no clue where comes from (could be Reaper tech, could be Alliance tech), it's almost too much to speculate on.

6. The cube map itself seems like unintended evidence. I have a hard time seeing things extracted from the game's assets as evidence if it is nearly impossible to see without ripping the assets out.

Implicit:

1. Music has been integral to Bioware's storytelling, highs and lows, triumphs and failures. You can almost feel the sheer emotion coming off of the ending sequence music "An End Once and For All." Music queues might be reused at times but during important things, it is essential to the Bioware experience and I do not believe they would skip on that during Nightmares, the opening, the ending, the Citadel encounter, etc.

2. The garden world..... Hell if I know, I'm waiting until EC for sure. But honestly, it all does look too good to be true. Joker picking them up and hitting a Mass Relay JUST IN TIME for the wave to hit, the Normandy obviously being torn apart at FTL speeds and crash landing almost perfectly, it's occupants still alive (unless you got the really bad red ending). Your LI even stops out to reassure the player they made it out alive. So far as the hero dying to save his friends/ LI/The Galaxy, it's perfect...Too perfect.

3. Stargazer could be telling the story of how Shepard resisted Indoctrination, or rose from the dead to stop the Reapers, we don't hear exactly what he says we're left to assume he told our story without so much detail as we played through. "One More Story," can easily mean "Shepard isn't finished yet."

4. If you mean the oily tentacles/shadows in the corners of the screen, since TIM assumes direct control of you it is obviously a sign of Indoctrination from Shepard's perspective (since we see it in the corners we can say with some certainty Shepard sees them in the corner of his/her eyes). We see all-too similar shadows in our Nightmares about the boy. We also hear the same whispers from the dreams during this exchange.

5. "Do you hear that hum?" It  could easily be the Normandy's drive core subtle hum. Or maybe one of the shuttle's drive cores. Or maybe the sound of FTL inside the cargo hold. Too complex for a throw-away line, not strong enough to be solid evidence.

6. The voices the Catalysts uses, from Shepard's perspective, is his/her own the boys and a stranger's (male if your female Shepard, vice versa). This itself is a very eerie choice for a complex exchange with a Reaper controlling AI. Why not just one voice. If it is a side affect, why would Shepard hear a stranger's voice mixed in with his/her own and the boys?

7. You strike true. I believe it is possible for Anderson to get to the panel before you, and the path he used simply shifted before you could see. Interestingly enough, when playing through the ending again I noticed the sound of a door opening Before the door you use to get to the chasm, around this time Anderson mentions seeing the chasm...or maybe it was the walls shifting. If that is the case then why don't we hear Anderson's path shifting once we're close enough? The Illusive Man could have been following Shepard, but making himself appear as a shadow or something given his new Mind Powers. OR, if he is a part of the illusion, or the cause of the Indoctrination, it stands to reason that he casually walks out from behind your back when he obviously wasn't phsycially there before.

I'm sure there's more evidence we can bounce back and forth but here it is for now.

[Stigweird85]

balance5050 wrote...

prettz wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

I think shadows are stretching it a bit, it's entirely possible that it's just a minor visual bug. Like when you can see Shepard's shadow Under the raised platform after you pass out.

All within the ending though, we need a pic of strange shadow play in other parts of the game.

humm good point. I'll take a look and see

guess the shadows been brought up before:?
hear I am trying to be clever haha:lol:

hears one that really points it out

http://i.imgur.com/QXG7t.jpg

HAHA! WTH is up with those shadows?

Again, I don't see the problem here, granted the shadows are pointing in different directs which with a single light source would be an issue but there isn't a single light source here.

It could be a clue...I just don't see it

[HellishFiend]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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?

Your point?

SubAstris never has a point. He only ever does two things in this thread: asks questions he knows cant be answered, and demands proof on things that cant be proven. I think there are a couple of people in the thread that actually enjoy the challenge of responding to him, though. 

[SubAstris]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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?

Your point?

You said it was impossible to disprove IT, and I was providing a scenario which might force you to retract such a comment

[SubAstris]

HellishFiend wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

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?

Your point?

SubAstris never has a point. He only ever does two things in this thread: asks questions he knows cant be answered, and demands proof on things that cant be proven. I think there are a couple of people in the thread that actually enjoy the challenge of responding to him, though. 

Then someone clearly hasn't read much of what I have been saying. In this instance, why can't someone answer it? It is straight-forward question

[Rosewind]

bigstig wrote...

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?

Their shadows indicate the light source is directly between them, but it's not it's behind them in the centre. Their shadows shouldn't be that far spread honestly, but don't see what this got to do with IDT?

[Ch1m3Ra]

SubAstris wrote...


You said it was impossible to disprove IT, and I was providing a scenario which might force you to retract such a comment

And I was providing the current scenario of things. It is clearly impossible to write off IT or say it is fact. Not until Bioware comes out and comfirms either through the EC. If you think it is impossible that IT may happen then you really shouldn't be coming back to this thread.

[Vahilor]

bigstig wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

prettz wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

I think shadows are stretching it a bit, it's entirely possible that it's just a minor visual bug. Like when you can see Shepard's shadow Under the raised platform after you pass out.

All within the ending though, we need a pic of strange shadow play in other parts of the game.

humm good point. I'll take a look and see

guess the shadows been brought up before:?
hear I am trying to be clever haha:lol:

hears one that really points it out

http://i.imgur.com/QXG7t.jpg

HAHA! WTH is up with those shadows?

Again, I don't see the problem here, granted the shadows are pointing in different directs which with a single light source would be an issue but there isn't a single light source here.

It could be a clue...I just don't see it

If you have more than one light you have also more than one shadow.. and the shadows you have from different light sources are lighter and all shadows should be quite somliar on both.
Only one Shadow pointing in totaly different directions like you see on the picture is nothing that is normaly possible.

[Rosewind]

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

[Ch1m3Ra]

HellishFiend wrote...

SubAstris never has a point. He only ever does two things in this thread: asks questions he knows cant be answered, and demands proof on things that cant be proven. I think there are a couple of people in the thread that actually enjoy the challenge of responding to him, though. 

Words of wisdom.

[gunslinger_ruiz]

SubAstris wrote...

Then someone clearly hasn't read much of what I have been saying. In this instance, why can't someone answer it? It is straight-forward question

I know I'm going to regret responding to your aggressive posting but ok.

Your straight-forward question "Even if BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull?"

Here is an answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull then IT would be false and many gamers/fans like yourself would file complaints against Bioware for using the term "complete bull" in the presence of gamers/fans like yourself and likely demand some kind of undeservered apology or compensation.

Here is another possible answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull, EC is sitll coming out, future DLC is still coming out, they may lost some of their fanbase, they may gain back some of their fanbase, how the fans will react is entirely up to them.

[Ch1m3Ra]

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

[gunslinger_ruiz]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

There's also numerous light sources on the Citadel, theres a big one glowing around you in the background. One very subtle one around that hole in the cieling. One from the panel. Hmm. Speculation.

[Vahilor]

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

More Light sources.. more than one shadow.

Here is a example for multiple light sources from different directions:



http://maverick.inri...mbresDouces.jpg

Modifié par Vahilor, 07 mai 2012 - 10:16 .

[Rosewind]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

\\
lol I know what you doing to say, but I do agree there is something off about those shadows but could also be a lighting design over site lighting is really had to get right in 3d stuff.

[Ch1m3Ra]

Rosewind wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

lol I know what you doing to say, but I do agree there is something off about those shadows but could also be a lighting design over site lighting is really had to get right in 3d stuff.

Its quite hard to believe its an oversight. There are actual Lighting Artist job positions. They are the ones in charge of lighting areas. The part will also have to go through QA; especially when its the final confrontation between Shepard and TIM. Its alot more obvious than the cubemaps of the trees during the three choices. They wouldn't have let this slip so easily.

[HellishFiend]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

There are no multiple light sources. Only shadows that point in different directions. There is a difference between the two. If there were multiple light sources (or even a single light source), the shadows would change orientation as the characters moved. Instead, we have a console shadow that points in one direction, an Anderson shadow that points in another, and a TIM shadow that points in yet another. As I said in a previous post, Anderson and TIM's shadows appear to remain fixed in 45 degree angles away from Shepard's perspective, regardless of their position on the platform, indicating they are not actually caused by a light source. The camera angle used at one point in the scene (where you cant see Shepard) seems to explicitly highlight this. As I also said in that post, I think the opposing 45 degree angles on the shadows are possibly intentionally analogous to the positioning of dialog tree options in a similar fashion as the crucible choices. 

[SubAstris]

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


You said it was impossible to disprove IT, and I was providing a scenario which might force you to retract such a comment

And I was providing the current scenario of things. It is clearly impossible to write off IT or say it is fact. Not until Bioware comes out and comfirms either through the EC. If you think it is impossible that IT may happen then you really shouldn't be coming back to this thread.

I didn't say that. I asked whether if BW, before the EC comes out, tomorrow say, and said that IT was utterly false, would you write off IT then

[Ch1m3Ra]

HellishFiend wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

Rosewind wrote...

It is possible for there to be more then one light source we don't know this. They use invisible light sources all the time in games.

Well... whats the reason for using multiple light sources then? Because it really isn't necessary. Unless...

There are no multiple light sources. Only shadows that point in different directions. There is a difference between the two. If there were multiple light sources (or even a single light source), the shadows would change orientation as the characters moved. Instead, we have a console shadow that points in one direction, an Anderson shadow that points in another, and a TIM shadow that points in yet another. As I said in a previous post, Anderson and TIM's shadows appear to remain fixed in 45 degree angles away from Shepard's perspective, regardless of their position on the platform, indicating they are not actually caused by a light source. The camera angle used at one point in the scene (where you cant see Shepard) seems to explicitly highlight this. As I also said in that post, I think the opposing 45 degree angles on the shadows are possibly intentionally analogous to the positioning of dialog tree options in a similar fashion as the crucible choices. 

Was just thinking about that myself. If you make the shadows out to be arrows pointing towards the console, and then take into account the positions of the three choices... Anderson's shadow is pointing towards destroy, while TIM's shadow is pointing towards control.

[SubAstris]

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Then someone clearly hasn't read much of what I have been saying. In this instance, why can't someone answer it? It is straight-forward question

I know I'm going to regret responding to your aggressive posting but ok.

Your straight-forward question "Even if BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull?"

Here is an answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull then IT would be false and many gamers/fans like yourself would file complaints against Bioware for using the term "complete bull" in the presence of gamers/fans like yourself and likely demand some kind of undeservered apology or compensation.

Here is another possible answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull, EC is sitll coming out, future DLC is still coming out, they may lost some of their fanbase, they may gain back some of their fanbase, how the fans will react is entirely up to them.

Interesting, because some ITers say that they would stick with their beliefs even with explicit refutation from BW themselves. Good to see that some aren't that intellectual dishonest

[Ch1m3Ra]

SubAstris wrote...

Ch1m3Ra wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


You said it was impossible to disprove IT, and I was providing a scenario which might force you to retract such a comment

And I was providing the current scenario of things. It is clearly impossible to write off IT or say it is fact. Not until Bioware comes out and comfirms either through the EC. If you think it is impossible that IT may happen then you really shouldn't be coming back to this thread.

I didn't say that. I asked whether if BW, before the EC comes out, tomorrow say, and said that IT was utterly false, would you write off IT then

Obviously. I'm still not sure what your point is, nor what your motivations are. Because Bioware is not going to say anything.

[Ch1m3Ra]

SubAstris wrote...

gunslinger_ruiz wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Then someone clearly hasn't read much of what I have been saying. In this instance, why can't someone answer it? It is straight-forward question

I know I'm going to regret responding to your aggressive posting but ok.

Your straight-forward question "Even if BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull?"

Here is an answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull then IT would be false and many gamers/fans like yourself would file complaints against Bioware for using the term "complete bull" in the presence of gamers/fans like yourself and likely demand some kind of undeservered apology or compensation.

Here is another possible answer. If BW came out tomorrow and said IT was complete bull, EC is sitll coming out, future DLC is still coming out, they may lost some of their fanbase, they may gain back some of their fanbase, how the fans will react is entirely up to them.

Interesting, because some ITers say that they would stick with their beliefs even with explicit refutation from BW themselves. Good to see that some aren't that intellectual dishonest

So why can't others have their own interpretation of the endings? They would just go with their own headcanon of Shepard being indoctrinated. Is there a problem there?