VanDex wrote...
I feel I should start the post saying that I have absolutely no intention to troll or flame or rain on anyone's parade or whatever, but I just want to reinforce the idea that it is extremely easy for Bioware to dismiss the theory.
As much as I like the theory and want to believe it, don't you think Bioware can easily handwave all the alleged evidence supporting the theory as space magic and peculiarities of game design? The reason the boy on Earth appears and disappears as sudenly as he does could just be the same reason why we don't see Jack Bauer popping to the loo in 24, right? Anderson saying he's behind you and then appearing ahead of you could simply be the walls realigning, as he himself puts it. Shepard breathing next to the crucible on what seems to be a platform in space with no protection whatsoever? Can easily be explained by some invisible fields shielding the whole platforn or something of that kind. The whole slow motion and general dreaminess thing in the last 5 minutes or so could just be a (rather lame) device to emphasize the dramatic effect of the final moments. I know everything seems to fit so perfectly, but it's still sci-fi and everything can be explained the way writers want it to be explained.
Then again, at times I don't even agree with myself on certain points about the whole indoctrination thing. I find the rubble scene to be by far the best piece of evidence to support the theory, since I'm pretty sure I can even hear gunfire and some metallic/reaper sounds in the background. Surely that has to mean something. Then the Citadel. Yes, I've already pointed out that the dreaminess could be there for reasons that have nothing to do with the theory, but then again, there's so much echoes and reverb in dialogue that I can't help thinking "that doesn't feel right". Besides, there's this darkish frame around the edges (not the oily tentacles during the TIM scenes) that is present in the nightmare sequences throughout the game.
Anyway, thanks for the great theory that makes so much sense! Even if it turns out to be wrong, that'll still be my ending. Oh, and sorry for the somewhat messy post.
I've actually been worried by just this, but in the opposite way. I honestly worry that, while I would love for the theory to be true, it could all be precisely a chain of design oversights, and in an effort to not be seen as having fault, they might claim this theory as true because it fits well enough. It might all be a coincidence that they claim to fix their mistake.