Ce sujet est fermé
MDT1 wrote...
Martukis wrote...
Out of curiosity... Who on earth has a vent in their home that is electrified? What kind of purpose would that even serve?
It is a the new space vent prototype the alliance plans to integrate into their death star.
Gudmoore wrote...
Here's a couple screens of the kid at the beginning, haven't seen any from this scene posted.
oi43.tinypic.com/91bipj.jpg - Kid running towards the locked door.
oi41.tinypic.com/33de4oh.jpg - Kid entering locked door.
oi42.tinypic.com/2i0u6f5.jpg - Reaper beam blew up the floor the kid was on.
Of course! How could I have missed that, it all makes sense now ;pnjfluffy19 wrote...
jackncoke28 wrote...
I've been thinking about the Crucible and how alot of it doesn't add up, for example if its been worked for so many cycles, why haven't the reapers caught on to it, why are they letting the aliance construct the thing, never once attempting to destroy it, or at the very least attempt to sabotage it? Why bring the catalyst directly above their friggin heads, making the crucible a more effective weapon against them, do they even shoot at the crucible when the aliance floats it towards the citidel? Harbinger lands away from citidel entrance and just blasts at people running toward, why doesn't it just land in front of the friggin beam and block everyone from entering, or at least have a **** load of reapers blocking your way? The weapon that can defeat them is left guarded by one damn marauder, really? Leads me to believe that they want this to happen. I mean, they brought the entire citidel to Earth, to shepards back yard.
Well executed point.
Could always be explained away as space magic.
Martukis wrote...
http://www.gamingdot...-3-save-editor/ - the save editor/viewer for ME3
thePredator50 wrote...
Martukis wrote...
http://www.gamingdot...-3-save-editor/ - the save editor/viewer for ME3
Many thanks kind sir.
jackncoke28 wrote...
I've been thinking about the Crucible and how alot of it doesn't add up, for example if its been worked for so many cycles, why haven't the reapers caught on to it, why are they letting the aliance construct the thing, never once attempting to destroy it, or at the very least attempt to sabotage it? Why bring the catalyst directly above their friggin heads, making the crucible a more effective weapon against them, do they even shoot at the crucible when the aliance floats it towards the citidel? Harbinger lands away from citidel entrance and just blasts at people running toward, why doesn't it just land in front of the friggin beam and block everyone from entering, or at least have a **** load of reapers blocking your way? The weapon that can defeat them is left guarded by one damn marauder, really? Leads me to believe that they want this to happen. I mean, they brought the entire citidel to Earth, to shepards back yard.
vrumpt wrote...
I think the simple fact that Bioware (Jessica Merizan) is encouraging us to question the endings as more than face value is evidence enough in itself. There is far too much evidence in favor of indoctrination to have it be simply a coincidence. Beyond this, Bioware has had a history of in Mass Effect, portraying something to have us believe in one way first, then turning around and later revealing its true meaning or intentions.
An example, at the beginning on ME2, you have no reason to believe that Wilson has betrayed you all until the end. Playing through this sequence again and listening to his dialogue, it is easy to see that he is lying to you just from his dialogue alone. Another example could be the entire first ME plot; you don't know Saren is working for a Reaper until it is revealed to be so, then playing through again you can see everything that makes it be that way makes sense and fits. This is a recurring theme in Mass Effect, and I think its further evidence to prove the indoctrination theory to be true.
I think this, combined with the overwhelming evidence in favor of indoctrination, the fact that Bioware continues to wait for more people to play through the game (so that they can see if they pick up on indoctrination themselves), and how they encourage us to question the endings at their face value while they do this, its more than clear that indoctrination is the correct answer.
And, if anything else, its the only way any of this makes sense; for the game, and for a company like Bioware who have given us moments like (spoiler) Revan's reveal in KOTOR. The fact that a company like Bioware would give us an ending as sloppy as it is is evidence in of itself. They wouldn't do that, even within ME3 itself the ending stands out as being obtuse, an outlier if you will that stands out from the rest of the game. I think that right there is yet another piece of evidence in favor of indoctrination.
So with everything we have, and nothing else to support any other other theory, we have to 2 plausible endings, one of which makes no sense, the other makes perfect sense. If you were to explain the situation to an alien from another planet, which ending do you think he would say is real?
But why didnt they send any repears to attempt to destroy crucible as soon as they found out about it? which im thinking should have been sooner since Undina was working with cerberus the whole time. and why not guard the entrance to citidel better? and also, why leave a beam that can teleport people into the citidel operational at all?Vhalkyrie wrote...
jackncoke28 wrote...
I've been thinking about the Crucible and how alot of it doesn't add up, for example if its been worked for so many cycles, why haven't the reapers caught on to it, why are they letting the aliance construct the thing, never once attempting to destroy it, or at the very least attempt to sabotage it? Why bring the catalyst directly above their friggin heads, making the crucible a more effective weapon against them, do they even shoot at the crucible when the aliance floats it towards the citidel? Harbinger lands away from citidel entrance and just blasts at people running toward, why doesn't it just land in front of the friggin beam and block everyone from entering, or at least have a **** load of reapers blocking your way? The weapon that can defeat them is left guarded by one damn marauder, really? Leads me to believe that they want this to happen. I mean, they brought the entire citidel to Earth, to shepards back yard.
It was a secret project that was alluded to at several points in the game. We are also told that the Protheans built the Crucible, but they couldn't make it work. They didn't have enough time to get the Catalyst before the Reapers destroyed them, and the Crucible. So yes, the Reapers know about the Crucible.
In the current cycle, the Reapers didn't become aware of how far it had been built until TIM extracted the info from the Prothean VI, then handed it over to the Reapers, who immediately shut down, seized, and moved the Citadel to Earth.
Modifié par jackncoke28, 16 mars 2012 - 04:03 .
It's still a crap ending.magicalpoop wrote...
You guys are reading into the lines way too much. After reading the journalistic piece on the final hours of Mass Effect 3, everything seems clear now. Casey and crew make it clear they wanted a more artistic ending, that meant scrapping a giant epic Illusive man boss fight. This also meant having all players having a unified and similar experience at the end (Hence the same endings).
The ending was/was not a hallucination. Shepard's story is over. They brought in Buzz Aldrin to voice the Grandpa at the end of the stargazer sequence for crying outloud. You think they did that for no reason? It's left "open and for speculation". Anything is possible but that's just it - they want it to be like that - and no prodding of the little kid in Vancouver will bring anything.
There is no resolution, it's meant to be like that.
saren could also shoot himself.kylecouch wrote...
I find a slight problem with
Illusive Man can shoot himself.....how does that apply to this?
Capeo wrote...
vrumpt wrote...
I think the simple fact that Bioware (Jessica Merizan) is encouraging us to question the endings as more than face value is evidence enough in itself. There is far too much evidence in favor of indoctrination to have it be simply a coincidence. Beyond this, Bioware has had a history of in Mass Effect, portraying something to have us believe in one way first, then turning around and later revealing its true meaning or intentions.
An example, at the beginning on ME2, you have no reason to believe that Wilson has betrayed you all until the end. Playing through this sequence again and listening to his dialogue, it is easy to see that he is lying to you just from his dialogue alone. Another example could be the entire first ME plot; you don't know Saren is working for a Reaper until it is revealed to be so, then playing through again you can see everything that makes it be that way makes sense and fits. This is a recurring theme in Mass Effect, and I think its further evidence to prove the indoctrination theory to be true.
I think this, combined with the overwhelming evidence in favor of indoctrination, the fact that Bioware continues to wait for more people to play through the game (so that they can see if they pick up on indoctrination themselves), and how they encourage us to question the endings at their face value while they do this, its more than clear that indoctrination is the correct answer.
And, if anything else, its the only way any of this makes sense; for the game, and for a company like Bioware who have given us moments like (spoiler) Revan's reveal in KOTOR. The fact that a company like Bioware would give us an ending as sloppy as it is is evidence in of itself. They wouldn't do that, even within ME3 itself the ending stands out as being obtuse, an outlier if you will that stands out from the rest of the game. I think that right there is yet another piece of evidence in favor of indoctrination.
So with everything we have, and nothing else to support any other other theory, we have to 2 plausible endings, one of which makes no sense, the other makes perfect sense. If you were to explain the situation to an alien from another planet, which ending do you think he would say is real?
No she isn't. She's just saying they are so vague you can make up what you want. She also clearly said what she thinks happens in each ending, which means they are real. She also clearly stated that Normandy made an FTL jump and didn't go into a relay, which means the endings are real. She also clearly stated this is the end of Shep's story and (unbelievably) stated that what happened to everyone else isn't really that important, which means the endings are real.
Earthborn_Shepard wrote...
Jessica Merizan is constantly hinting at how "The GARDIAN might not be truthful" yes, actual quote.
ValnKmere wrote...
I think that they mean "ME3 is the end of Shepards story." They can do as much DLC in the game (as well as post-Ending DLC) that extends Shepards story as long as they want.
njfluffy19 wrote...
ValnKmere wrote...
I think that they mean "ME3 is the end of Shepards story." They can do as much DLC in the game (as well as post-Ending DLC) that extends Shepards story as long as they want.
I just hope the DLC is better than ME2's in that case. They didn't even bring back original voice cast except Male and Female Shep's (Aside from Hackett). If it feels disconnected from the ME3 storyline, I'll be disappointed. I am already disappointed, actually, I think I'll just be entirely deflated.
Capeo wrote...
vrumpt wrote...
I think the simple fact that Bioware (Jessica Merizan) is encouraging us to question the endings as more than face value is evidence enough in itself. There is far too much evidence in favor of indoctrination to have it be simply a coincidence. Beyond this, Bioware has had a history of in Mass Effect, portraying something to have us believe in one way first, then turning around and later revealing its true meaning or intentions.
An example, at the beginning on ME2, you have no reason to believe that Wilson has betrayed you all until the end. Playing through this sequence again and listening to his dialogue, it is easy to see that he is lying to you just from his dialogue alone. Another example could be the entire first ME plot; you don't know Saren is working for a Reaper until it is revealed to be so, then playing through again you can see everything that makes it be that way makes sense and fits. This is a recurring theme in Mass Effect, and I think its further evidence to prove the indoctrination theory to be true.
I think this, combined with the overwhelming evidence in favor of indoctrination, the fact that Bioware continues to wait for more people to play through the game (so that they can see if they pick up on indoctrination themselves), and how they encourage us to question the endings at their face value while they do this, its more than clear that indoctrination is the correct answer.
And, if anything else, its the only way any of this makes sense; for the game, and for a company like Bioware who have given us moments like (spoiler) Revan's reveal in KOTOR. The fact that a company like Bioware would give us an ending as sloppy as it is is evidence in of itself. They wouldn't do that, even within ME3 itself the ending stands out as being obtuse, an outlier if you will that stands out from the rest of the game. I think that right there is yet another piece of evidence in favor of indoctrination.
So with everything we have, and nothing else to support any other other theory, we have to 2 plausible endings, one of which makes no sense, the other makes perfect sense. If you were to explain the situation to an alien from another planet, which ending do you think he would say is real?
No she isn't. She's just saying they are so vague you can make up what you want. She also clearly said what she thinks happens in each ending, which means they are real. She also clearly stated that Normandy made an FTL jump and didn't go into a relay, which means the endings are real. She also clearly stated this is the end of Shep's story and (unbelievably) stated that what happened to everyone else isn't really that important, which means the endings are real.
That's a nice observation about the amount of data, I really hope you are right but I'm not holding my breath. This is EA we are talking about.benben84 wrote...
StringWail wrote...
I like this theory as it does kind of make sense however it doesn't conclude the game correctly. BioWare told us the game would be complete 100% without DLC which it won't be if endings that made sense are sold later. EA and BioWare will effectively be holding their customers to ransom. If this is the case bye bye BioWare and EA, it was good while it lasted.
I don't think it will be DLC, according to some posts the console versions content is much larger than PC version so assuming this is correct, I bet a patch or code will unlock the hidden content on the discs. PC will be DLC because if they included it with the PC game it would have been found by now. This also leads me to believe that it will be free...
jackncoke28 wrote...
Another thing i've been thinking about is why TIM wanted Shepard brought back exactly as he/she was, with no changes to their personality, and no attempt at controlling shepard's thoughts. TIM understood indoctrination, he knew about the risks involved with working with reaper tech. Maybe he viewed Shepard as plan B, in case his plan A failed, a fail safe?
Modifié par Tairram, 16 mars 2012 - 04:26 .
Stumpykins wrote...
Heya guys
I dont know if anyone has asked this before but has it been established what ending the game picks if you choose action mode, that might give an insight into what ending bioware considers real and could add to the theory of hallucination/indoc.
Retour en haut
