57139 réponses à ce sujet

[Jere85]

---> This

[Vandicus]

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Yeah I couldn't see anyone surviving that either.... Well except for Wrex and Garrus but that's just cause of how awesome they are. :happy: . They'd survive a moon falling on them unlike that pansy Chewbacca.

[KujaTheDarkOne2]

Vandicus wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Yeah I couldn't see anyone surviving that either.... Well except for Wrex and Garrus but that's just cause of how awesome they are. :happy: . They'd survive a moon falling on them unlike that pansy Chewbacca.

Why you gotta both hate on and remind me of Chewbacca's death? My feels... my feels.

[Lugaidster]

For a good laugh see this

[ArkkAngel007]

Rifneno wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

How are things like infinite pistol and Harbinger's avatar not part of the theory?  Just because you may think they're not relevant doesn't mean they others can't think they are.

I'm not saying the Guardian isn't Harbringer.  I'm just saying the kid when you first see him is likely not.  I'm not discounting it.  But it's a stretch.  And infinate ammo occurs at the beginning of the game too.  It can be too easily written off as any sort of design choice to be a solid support.

I'm not saying not to use them at all, but they should be accessory.

My point is, if you are going to try and convince others, lead with the core arguments that can't be written off easily.  Then you can follow up with the stretches.

[Sefriol]

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Again, DLC isn't central to the theory. It leads to a strong possibility of DLC, but the theory doesn't call for it.

I don't understand why what you just said is so hard for Indoctrination theory haters to grasp.

Why would Bioware make a story if they don't try to tell(sell) it?

What would be the point of Normandy crashing and destruction of Mass Relays? Why would Bioware make this Indoctrination theory so unclear? Why would Bioware make so complex story when the game doesn't need it?

The theory itself is nicely done, but without extra content (DLC) which would have an explain - it's very unlikely.
I like this theory as a "what if"-situation, but I really hope it's not coming into the game.

+ Some things you find in the game might just be design flaws or "you are not supposed to look this thing at this angle" kind of things. Because of this, don't try to answer questions above.

[Rifneno]

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Indeed.  That'd be even worse than him surviving Harbinger's beam weapon.  I'm thinking Sephiroth got that supernova trick from a failed attempt to kill Shepard.

[Vandicus]

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Yeah I couldn't see anyone surviving that either.... Well except for Wrex and Garrus but that's just cause of how awesome they are. :happy: . They'd survive a moon falling on them unlike that pansy Chewbacca.

Why you gotta both hate on and remind me of Chewbacca's death? My feels... my feels.

"They told me he'd died in a quake... That a falling moon killed him... But, how can a quake kill a wookiee warrior?! How can a mere moon be a match for my son?!" 

Modifié par Vandicus, 17 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[ArkkAngel007]

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Exactly.  You can't explain it in any other logical fashion, even if you don't analyze the rubble to recognize the shelving, concrete, patterns that were on the buildings nearby in London, and the rebar.  Shepard would not have survived at all.

And that's what you lead with...those standout moments.  Then you present the proof with the rubble, building shots, the effects of exposed atmospheric reentry and impacting terra at high speeds from orbit, etc.

Modifié par ArkkAngel007, 17 mars 2012 - 02:55 .

[byne]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Exactly.  You can't explain it in any other logical fashion, even if you don't analyze the rubble to recognize the shelving, concrete, patterns that were on the buildings nearby in London, and the rebar.  Shepard would not have survived at all.

And that's what you lead with...those standout moments.  Then you present the proof with the rubble, building shots, the effects of exposed atmospheric reentry and impacting terra at high speeds from orbit, etc.

Even Cerberus wouldnt be able to put Shep back together after Citadel reentry, because its pretty explicitly stated that they could only bring Shep back in the first place because her helmet kept her brain relatively intact, yet you arent even wearing one at the end of ME3, and somehow survive without any need for a second Lazarus Project or anything.

[Rifneno]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I'm not saying the Guardian isn't Harbringer.  I'm just saying the kid when you first see him is likely not.  I'm not discounting it.  But it's a stretch.  And infinate ammo occurs at the beginning of the game too.  It can be too easily written off as any sort of design choice to be a solid support.

I'm not saying not to use them at all, but they should be accessory.

My point is, if you are going to try and convince others, lead with the core arguments that can't be written off easily.  Then you can follow up with the stretches.

I don't know whether he's Harbinger when he's playing with a toy Normandy but I'm 99% sure he's Harbinger by the time he's in the ventilation shafts.  Not just his creepy wording, not just that no one else seems to see him at the shuttle later, not that he vanishes like a ghost, but the part that gets me the most is that growl that's timed to happen as Anderson distracts Shepard from him.  That's not an accident.  As for the pistol, I think it's a lot fishier for it to go infinite at the end of the game rather than in the tutorial.  The tutorial is made to be extremely forgiving, it's teaching new players the basics.  The ending though?  At least in the tutorial you had to manually reload it even if you did have unlimited clips.  This is the only time your weapon just refills itself.  ...  Oh wait.  No, it also does that when you're in the geth server.  ...  So anyway, if others think X is more convincing than Y and they want to lead off with it, that's their business.

[ArkkAngel007]

Sefriol wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Again, DLC isn't central to the theory. It leads to a strong possibility of DLC, but the theory doesn't call for it.

I don't understand why what you just said is so hard for Indoctrination theory haters to grasp.

Why would Bioware make a story if they don't try to tell(sell) it?

What would be the point of Normandy crashing and destruction of Mass Relays? Why would Bioware make this Indoctrination theory so unclear? Why would Bioware make so complex story when the game doesn't need it?

The theory itself is nicely done, but without extra content (DLC) which would have an explain - it's very unlikely.
I like this theory as a "what if"-situation, but I really hope it's not coming into the game.

+ Some things you find in the game might just be design flaws or "you are not supposed to look this thing at this angle" kind of things. Because of this, don't try to answer questions above.

Again, the theory was to explain what was going on with the ending.  DLC is BioWare's field, and trying to lead an argument with an element that there is zero tangible proof for is just suicide.

It does lead really well into DLC if that's what is happening or will happen in the future, but it still stands well on its own just as well as if the ending was taken literally...better in fact.  I just want that separation to be understood.

[GunMoth]

I made a list of "Hard" evidence that doesn't require artistic interpretation etc. but isn't consistent with certain things in the game.

- Shepard having TIM eyes during both Synth and Control endings.
- The indoctrination codex.
- The TIM pillar at the ending having the name "Badending" in the UE viewer.
- Shepard breathing on what looks like Earth.
- The child having voice files made by both Jenifer Hale and Mark Meer (right audio is one, left audio is the other)

I'm currently sifting through the UE viewer for anything else. Though I will admit this is much harder than I originally thought.

[Terran235]

Just finished the game. All 3 games uninstalled and in my box of forgotten games.


No feeling of accomplishment. Nothing. Unbelievable ending. Synthesis was kind of beautiful as an idea. But very unlikely. Who ever thought of these endings and thought they were good was on crack.

[ArkkAngel007]

Rifneno wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I'm not saying the Guardian isn't Harbringer.  I'm just saying the kid when you first see him is likely not.  I'm not discounting it.  But it's a stretch.  And infinate ammo occurs at the beginning of the game too.  It can be too easily written off as any sort of design choice to be a solid support.

I'm not saying not to use them at all, but they should be accessory.

My point is, if you are going to try and convince others, lead with the core arguments that can't be written off easily.  Then you can follow up with the stretches.

I don't know whether he's Harbinger when he's playing with a toy Normandy but I'm 99% sure he's Harbinger by the time he's in the ventilation shafts.  Not just his creepy wording, not just that no one else seems to see him at the shuttle later, not that he vanishes like a ghost, but the part that gets me the most is that growl that's timed to happen as Anderson distracts Shepard from him.  That's not an accident.  As for the pistol, I think it's a lot fishier for it to go infinite at the end of the game rather than in the tutorial.  The tutorial is made to be extremely forgiving, it's teaching new players the basics.  The ending though?  At least in the tutorial you had to manually reload it even if you did have unlimited clips.  This is the only time your weapon just refills itself.  ...  Oh wait.  No, it also does that when you're in the geth server.  ...  So anyway, if others think X is more convincing than Y and they want to lead off with it, that's their business.

And again, I'm not discounting it.  But it can too easily go either way.  That's the issue when I see threads that begin  with the infinate ammo argument or similar styled arguments...they can too easily be dismissed.  That's why they should be accessory to the main argument, not the focus.

[byne]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Sefriol wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Again, DLC isn't central to the theory. It leads to a strong possibility of DLC, but the theory doesn't call for it.

I don't understand why what you just said is so hard for Indoctrination theory haters to grasp.

Why would Bioware make a story if they don't try to tell(sell) it?

What would be the point of Normandy crashing and destruction of Mass Relays? Why would Bioware make this Indoctrination theory so unclear? Why would Bioware make so complex story when the game doesn't need it?

The theory itself is nicely done, but without extra content (DLC) which would have an explain - it's very unlikely.
I like this theory as a "what if"-situation, but I really hope it's not coming into the game.

+ Some things you find in the game might just be design flaws or "you are not supposed to look this thing at this angle" kind of things. Because of this, don't try to answer questions above.

Again, the theory was to explain what was going on with the ending.  DLC is BioWare's field, and trying to lead an argument with an element that there is zero tangible proof for is just suicide.

It does lead really well into DLC if that's what is happening or will happen in the future, but it still stands well on its own just as well as if the ending was taken literally...better in fact.  I just want that separation to be understood.

Indoctrination Theory, at its most basic, is an attempt to explain what in the world was going on in that last ridiculous 10 minutes, assuming Bioware doesnt release and future DLC to try and expand upon the ending.

DLC in and of itself could be counter to the very idea of Indoctrination Theory, as Bioware could just retcon the last 10 minutes.

[Cancer Puppet]

If the ending is a hallucination, and there's going to be a DLC, free or paid, then Bioware has cheated everyone who bought the game. Why? Because it will mean that they've sold an incomplete product. Not everyone has an internet connection, so not everyone could receive the "true" ending, either.

Sorry, but as bad as the ending is, I don't believe that Bioware would try to pull that crap. It's a little too much.

Modifié par Cancer Puppet, 17 mars 2012 - 03:05 .

[MaroonMoore93]

www.change.org/petitions/retake-mass-effect#
www.change.org/petitions/bioware-corp-we-want-a-dlc-that-changes-the-last-minutes-of-the-game

Don't forget about these!

[Apollo-XL5]

This is how I believe shepard got indoctrinated.

After the events of ME1 harbinger (who I assume is the Alpha reaper, being the largest and oldest - check codex) realizes that shep is a massive threat to the reapers because of his ability to rally people to his cause and if he was able to rally the entire galaxy then the reapers plans for consuming all advance life in the galaxy would be doomed to fail. So first he sends the collectors to kill shep but did not figure on Cerberus (who i believe that the IM is not indoctrinated at this point, That happens before ME3) resurrecting shep and helping him. Then after a number of confrontations with shep while controlling the collectors, harbinger realizes that killing him is not the way and so he must be indoctrinated. Now shep has had exposure to the reapers and their technology(object rho where he got a big does of reaper magic and could hear harbinger in his head), but at this point he has had 3 massive victories(one cost 300,000 batarians) against them and his will and resolve are too strong for indoctrination to work. But the ground work has been laid with the connection that harbinger made. No skip to the start of ME3 and shep sees a boy playing in his garden, this is the last happy image that shep will see before everything goes to hell. Also harbinger is leading the attack on earth( and we know that he can connect with someone over a long distance, like the collectors while in darkspace.) and during the attack shep sees that boy in a vent after hearing a loud bang(I believe that from this point the boy is dead and this is the hallucination that harbinger creates. The boy tells him that he can not save him and then disappears suddenly and was very quiet about it. Also note that anderson did not see or hear the boy. The we get to the killer moment. Shep sees the boy board a shuttle only to be killed by a reaper. The guilt shep feels is enough for a crack to show in his will and resolve and that is enough for harbinger to keep picking at during the course of the game. And this is with the nightmares. The first one has shep chasing the boy until he sees the boy burn in front of him. The second nightmare(which happens after shep loses both victnas's son and Mordin, both of which have an effect on him) is the same as the first but now the forest is littered with dark figures, I thought at first these signified the dead, but I think it shows instead the reaper presence in his mind Also he hears voices in all three dreams and the voice get louder in each. The third and final dream( which occurs after shep and co were defeated by cerberus at Thessia) again is the same as the first two but with more black figures in it and also ends with the boy and a version of shep smiling back at him while burning. I think this means that the connection with shep is strong now and his resolve has fractured now allowing indoctrination to take place. Which happens on earth at the conduit with harbinger right in front of him. So after the attack shep seems to have survived, although you hear on the radio that no one did, and heads up to the citadel where anderson who looks alittle hurt but not to the extent that a reaper laser would cause( look at shep for that) and then the IM turns up out of the blue. Now this I believe is the battle going on inside his mind, with anderson representing the side of shep resisting indoctrination and the IM who represents the reapers. Once shep gets the IM out of the way. It seems that he has won and anderson dies. But this is to lead shep into a false sense of security because the final test is the catalyst. Which appears as the boy that caused shep to feel guilty and question himself. Also the catalyst(star child lol) also has both femsehp and male shep voices mixed with his own. And he tells you the reapers plan but also gives hope in three options. The first is the one that shep should choose but it is in renegade red and the catalyst gives you reasons not to go through with it.(The geth would die, EDI would die and he would probably die, plus anderson is shown in the clip which is weird for a renegade choice) so then comes the option to control the reapers, which is the IM's choice and shep is told that everyone will live but he will die and reapers would also live and sot to go down this path would mean that indoctrination is successful. Then there is the third choice which is similar to the control option and so the reapers would win again. So shep instead goes for destroy option, which means that the indoctrination failed and shep wakes up in the rubble in london where he was left. And the so the story would carry on in an upcoming DLC.

Also I think that the crucible is a reaper trojan horse to give the galaxy hope that they destroy the reapers but really all it does is take the galaxy's attention from the real target which is.......Harbinger. Kill him and the reapers fall.

And the bits with the relays blowing and the normandy, well since it is a dream then they would not make sense(because when idd our dreams ever make sense). But they maybe in there as a repercussion for the choice that shep makes (the relays blowing up.) and the normandy crashing on a planet(show shep that his friends who did not go on the run to the conduit with him did survive.)
And the bit right at the end with the old man and kid. "Tell me and another story about the shepard"
"Ok one more story" I think is a foreshadow to the finale DLC.

Thats what I think anyway, please let me know what you guys think.

[MJF JD]

WALL OF TEXT - THIS HURTS YOU

[KujaTheDarkOne2]

Vandicus wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

Vandicus wrote...

KujaTheDarkOne2 wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

Guys, remember, this isn't a general ending thread. If you want the theory to be more acceptable, work on refining it. Figure out what is actually important and a solid foundation for the theory. Forget the infinity pistol, forget the child when on Earth, forget the trees.

Focus on what made you believe in this theory in the first place...what gave you that moment. For me, it was choosing the synthesis ending and seeing Matthew Shepard exhibit the physical qualities of a heavily indoctrinated individual after suspicions from the final dream.

Hold the line, but don't lose the reason why you are while you're doing so.

To help maintain the point of the thread I will throw in my moment of Indoctrination theory acceptance: when I found that the 'Destroy' ending featured Shepard waking up IN A PILE OF RUBBLE. Waking up in such a situation is only possible if Shepard never went to the Citadel - the Citadel's rubble would be different, and even if it's Shepard, there is no way she could have survived the Citadel crashing on Earth.

Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's any way that ANYTHING could survive the Citadel crashing on Earth. I mean, that thing's massive. It would be an exctinction-level event.

Yeah I couldn't see anyone surviving that either.... Well except for Wrex and Garrus but that's just cause of how awesome they are. :happy: . They'd survive a moon falling on them unlike that pansy Chewbacca.

Why you gotta both hate on and remind me of Chewbacca's death? My feels... my feels.

"They told me he'd died in a quake... That a falling moon killed him... But, how can a quake kill a wookiee warrior?! How can a mere moon be a match for my son?!" 

You just brutally murdered all my feels. Way to go.

[Lugaidster]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

This is how I believe shepard got indoctrinated.

After the events of ME1 harbinger (who I assume is the Alpha reaper, being the largest and oldest - check codex) realizes that shep is a massive threat to the reapers because of his ability to rally people to his cause and if he was able to rally the entire galaxy then the reapers plans for consuming all advance life in the galaxy would be doomed to fail. So first he sends the collectors to kill shep but did not figure on Cerberus (who i believe that the IM is not indoctrinated at this point, That happens before ME3) resurrecting shep and helping him. Then after a number of confrontations with shep while controlling the collectors, harbinger realizes that killing him is not the way and so he must be indoctrinated. Now shep has had exposure to the reapers and their technology(object rho where he got a big does of reaper magic and could hear harbinger in his head), but at this point he has had 3 massive victories(one cost 300,000 batarians) against them and his will and resolve are too strong for indoctrination to work. But the ground work has been laid with the connection that harbinger made. No skip to the start of ME3 and shep sees a boy playing in his garden, this is the last happy image that shep will see before everything goes to hell. Also harbinger is leading the attack on earth( and we know that he can connect with someone over a long distance, like the collectors while in darkspace.) and during the attack shep sees that boy in a vent after hearing a loud bang(I believe that from this point the boy is dead and this is the hallucination that harbinger creates. The boy tells him that he can not save him and then disappears suddenly and was very quiet about it. Also note that anderson did not see or hear the boy. The we get to the killer moment. Shep sees the boy board a shuttle only to be killed by a reaper. The guilt shep feels is enough for a crack to show in his will and resolve and that is enough for harbinger to keep picking at during the course of the game. And this is with the nightmares. The first one has shep chasing the boy until he sees the boy burn in front of him. The second nightmare(which happens after shep loses both victnas's son and Mordin, both of which have an effect on him) is the same as the first but now the forest is littered with dark figures, I thought at first these signified the dead, but I think it shows instead the reaper presence in his mind Also he hears voices in all three dreams and the voice get louder in each. The third and final dream( which occurs after shep and co were defeated by cerberus at Thessia) again is the same as the first two but with more black figures in it and also ends with the boy and a version of shep smiling back at him while burning. I think this means that the connection with shep is strong now and his resolve has fractured now allowing indoctrination to take place. Which happens on earth at the conduit with harbinger right in front of him. So after the attack shep seems to have survived, although you hear on the radio that no one did, and heads up to the citadel where anderson who looks alittle hurt but not to the extent that a reaper laser would cause( look at shep for that) and then the IM turns up out of the blue. Now this I believe is the battle going on inside his mind, with anderson representing the side of shep resisting indoctrination and the IM who represents the reapers. Once shep gets the IM out of the way. It seems that he has won and anderson dies. But this is to lead shep into a false sense of security because the final test is the catalyst. Which appears as the boy that caused shep to feel guilty and question himself. Also the catalyst(star child lol) also has both femsehp and male shep voices mixed with his own. And he tells you the reapers plan but also gives hope in three options. The first is the one that shep should choose but it is in renegade red and the catalyst gives you reasons not to go through with it.(The geth would die, EDI would die and he would probably die, plus anderson is shown in the clip which is weird for a renegade choice) so then comes the option to control the reapers, which is the IM's choice and shep is told that everyone will live but he will die and reapers would also live and sot to go down this path would mean that indoctrination is successful. Then there is the third choice which is similar to the control option and so the reapers would win again. So shep instead goes for destroy option, which means that the indoctrination failed and shep wakes up in the rubble in london where he was left. And the so the story would carry on in an upcoming DLC.

Also I think that the crucible is a reaper trojan horse to give the galaxy hope that they destroy the reapers but really all it does is take the galaxy's attention from the real target which is.......Harbinger. Kill him and the reapers fall.

And the bits with the relays blowing and the normandy, well since it is a dream then they would not make sense(because when idd our dreams ever make sense). But they maybe in there as a repercussion for the choice that shep makes (the relays blowing up.) and the normandy crashing on a planet(show shep that his friends who did not go on the run to the conduit with him did survive.)
And the bit right at the end with the old man and kid. "Tell me and another story about the shepard"
"Ok one more story" I think is a foreshadow to the finale DLC.

Thats what I think anyway, please let me know what you guys think.

Wall'o Text Alert! Not reading without propper format...<_<

[MWatson17]

One of the things I took from what Casey Hudson said--and that apparently most people overlooked-- is that they are open to suggestions for writing new content. Instead of talking about how he said a bunch without saying anything, continue to hold the line by putting your suggestion in this thread:

http://social.biowar...8213/2#10098575

In the meantime, continue to hold the line!

[VanDex]

So the latest Casey Hudson interview basically states that the existing endings are valid and there's nothing beyond them, right?