57139 réponses à ce sujet

[LadyVakarian]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

Speaking of RvB, does anyone else think that after the blast from Harbinger's beam Shepard is thinking something to the effect of, "I can't feel my torso." 

Man, Shepard saying a Caboose line reminds me of this video Joel (the voice of Caboose) made.

I remember that video.  So funny.  I really hope Rooster Teeth makes a Marauder Shield machinima, it would be so funny.  And, like one guy put it before, Joel could voice a husk.  That would be great.

I would love to see Joel play the voice of all Three Husketeers. That would make my day. They would walk up to Shep and say, "Shepard...Shepard are you hungry? Are you cold? Do you need a blanket?"

EDIT: Top of page. In light of my above post, I made this a while ago,

Modifié par LadyVakarian, 26 mars 2012 - 02:40 .

[byne]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

I'm going to roll with the direction the thread has gone in the last page, and point out that if we combine RvB and ME3, and take the video of Joel being Shepard into account, Destroy still makes the most sense, as thats the only ending choice that results in Caboose killing Church again.

ROTFLOL, that was brilliant!  Better hit Ctrl-F-U again.  

Edit: On the same RvB ME3 mash up idea, do the Reaper weapons remind you of a certain someone's laser face. 

[n00bsauce2010]

If Bioware would pull a stunt like this, it's the perfect time. With PAX only a month away from their release date. It would be the perfect time to reveal said twist. I just can't help but wonder how they didn't know people were gonna be pissed about this..(brilliant stunt or utter annoyance)

[goffisbored]

I'm glad that the "Dream Planet Files" heavily imply that at least some of the ending sequence was was in fact a dream/hallucination. I'll try and do some more digging to see if I can spot any other similarly named items.

Modifié par goffisbored, 26 mars 2012 - 02:39 .

[ChuckieJ]

Golferguy758 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Honestly, I thought the stargazer scene was more of a fourth wall ending. That or something that occurs regardless of ending. Kind of like. Say the ending was a series of events. Currently it is progressing in the form A, B, C, D. A is the talk with TIM and Anderson, B is the choices, C is the stupid plothole mess, and D is the Stargazer scene.

What if the Stargazer wasn't D at all. It could be E. So currently we would have ABCE as the storyline progression at the end. D is made up of the actual endings that come about. This would make it so it flows ABCDE.

Currently D is missing, but the story can still flow because E comes after C. We are just missing D currently.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

I was sad no one picked up on that and wasn't sure if i was clear enough. haha

I agree with this as well. Let me play the "one more story" that the StarGazer is talking about!

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

I'm going to roll with the direction the thread has gone in the last page, and point out that if we combine RvB and ME3, and take the video of Joel being Shepard into account, Destroy still makes the most sense, as thats the only ending choice that results in Caboose killing Church again.

ROTFLOL, that was brilliant!  Better hit Ctrl-F-U again.  

Edit: On the same RvB ME3 mash up idea, do the Reaper weapons remind you of a certain someone's laser face. 

You're right!  I guess Church was in Mass Effect 2.

[americanidiot53]

Dwailing wrote...

americanidiot53 wrote...

Just a quick question. I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but if the whole ending was real and the player picked to destroy all synthetics, then wouldn't Shepard have died because his synthetic implants were destroyed? Or no because that's not really synthetic life?

Well, part of the theory is that since Shepard survives in the Destroy ending (If you have an effective military strength of over 4,000; 5,000 if you don't kill TIM before he shoots Anderson), that whole scene after Harbinger hits Shepard with the beam is just the Reapers trying to indoctrinate Shepard. 

Edit: You know, since Star-Brat says Shepard may die as well as all synthetic life thanks to his implants.  It would seem that Star-Brat is trying to make the Destroy option the worst option.

Ok. Thanks for clarifying.

[Dwailing]

 Well, as much fun as this has been, I need to work on a couple of papers I have due tomorrow.  They're only 1 page each, but I would like to get to bed before 1 a.m.  See you all at some point tomorrow.

[masster blaster]

I find it funny that when Shepard get's up after Harby's attack Shepard try's to walk to the Conduit. I'm thinking "don't go into the light Shepard." Also I think Caboose is the voice in Shepard's head telling Shepard " Shepard I made a muffin, and I made a prank call on the Normandy that you left the battle to get some more muffins for all of use, and I think they went to help you go get some more muffins. Oh wait I just lead them to away way from the battle didn't I ."

Modifié par masster blaster, 26 mars 2012 - 02:47 .

[n00bsauce2010]

ChuckieJ wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Honestly, I thought the stargazer scene was more of a fourth wall ending. That or something that occurs regardless of ending. Kind of like. Say the ending was a series of events. Currently it is progressing in the form A, B, C, D. A is the talk with TIM and Anderson, B is the choices, C is the stupid plothole mess, and D is the Stargazer scene.

What if the Stargazer wasn't D at all. It could be E. So currently we would have ABCE as the storyline progression at the end. D is made up of the actual endings that come about. This would make it so it flows ABCDE.

Currently D is missing, but the story can still flow because E comes after C. We are just missing D currently.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

I was sad no one picked up on that and wasn't sure if i was clear enough. haha

I agree with this as well. Let me play the "one more story" that the StarGazer is talking about!

Another reason I also thought about Indoctrination here. With the endings interpreted at face value. I think a small minority care about shepards so called "side mission dlc."

I also read somewhere that shepards squad mates walking off the normandy during the space magic sequence is a bug. Is there any confirmation on this? It seems like BS because how exactly could Bioware let a bug that big into the ending?

[Ck213]

To the OP, another interesting thing about the choices is if you turn away from any of them and walk back down the path....GAME OVER. The Crucible is destroyed. It would have been very interesting if you could walk away from the Destroy choice, but no dice. Perhaps you can at low EMS, I haven't tested it.

Also, everything about the meeting with the Catalyst feels hyper-symbolic. So over the top that it takes you out of the story. I saw the pictures of the area on the original post, but no mention that the Control device looks like Geth Technology. The Destroy device looks likes Collector technology. The Synthesis device looks like the transporter beam. And of course there is the technology from the Shadow Broker's ship.

Ok, now Shepard's succes is supposed to be a surprise to the Catalyst, and the crucible has give it new insight and new ideas, but why is the Citadel already set up for the choices with a design aesthetic of technology that follows ages after its creation?

That's what really bugs me about the whole Catalyst scene. It looks like it's cobbled together from things Shepard has experienced. The character is symbolic, the set is symbolic, and the choices are symbolic. It's overloaded with symbolism and makes it jarring with all that's come before.

If I take this end plot at face value and assume this is the way things are supposed to be, the biggest "that-doesn't-make-sense" to me is the Destroy Choice. How is that a Solution for the Catalyst. It doesn't solve the problem and it takes the Catalyst out of the picture. Why would the Catalyst even offer it as choice? For that matter, how would giving Shepard control be a solution for the Catalyst? What does he expect Shepard to do differently that would satisfy itself and Shepard? The only solution that seems to work is Synthesis, There ya go, no more organics creating synthetics and requiring super synthetics to kill advanced organics.

There are too many things I woud have to ignore to accept this ending, and I haven't even touched  on the majority of it.

[byne]

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

ChuckieJ wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Honestly, I thought the stargazer scene was more of a fourth wall ending. That or something that occurs regardless of ending. Kind of like. Say the ending was a series of events. Currently it is progressing in the form A, B, C, D. A is the talk with TIM and Anderson, B is the choices, C is the stupid plothole mess, and D is the Stargazer scene.

What if the Stargazer wasn't D at all. It could be E. So currently we would have ABCE as the storyline progression at the end. D is made up of the actual endings that come about. This would make it so it flows ABCDE.

Currently D is missing, but the story can still flow because E comes after C. We are just missing D currently.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

I was sad no one picked up on that and wasn't sure if i was clear enough. haha

I agree with this as well. Let me play the "one more story" that the StarGazer is talking about!

Another reason I also thought about Indoctrination here. With the endings interpreted at face value. I think a small minority care about shepards so called "side mission dlc."

I also read somewhere that shepards squad mates walking off the normandy during the space magic sequence is a bug. Is there any confirmation on this? It seems like BS because how exactly could Bioware let a bug that big into the ending?

I know someone asked how they could possibly teleport, and Merizan said they didnt teleport, but she couldnt explain yet due to spoilers.

And even if it was a bug, and the squad members that you brought with you on the final part werent supposed to be on the Normandy, it doesnt explain how any of the others made it aboard, since they werent exactly that far from you during the final push.

[greywardencommander]

I'm off to finish my social psychology project/dissertation/thesis whatever you want to call it (omg how did you guess I was into psychology was it something I've said here or in my thread in my signature?) Lol

[IST]

Forbes is a firm Indoctrination Theory backer now by the looks of their last 2 articles..

On a different note.. when did 'Forbes' turn 'awesome'? Have NEVER been to their site pre-ending debacle.. one great thing to come from all of this right! lol

[byne]

Well, since its apparently the fashionable thing to do now, I too have a paper I need to do some work on.

[Rob Psyence]

We will Hold The Line!

Modifié par Rob Psyence, 26 mars 2012 - 02:50 .

[n00bsauce2010]

byne wrote...

n00bsauce2010 wrote...

ChuckieJ wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

savagejuicebox wrote...

Golferguy758 wrote...

Honestly, I thought the stargazer scene was more of a fourth wall ending. That or something that occurs regardless of ending. Kind of like. Say the ending was a series of events. Currently it is progressing in the form A, B, C, D. A is the talk with TIM and Anderson, B is the choices, C is the stupid plothole mess, and D is the Stargazer scene.

What if the Stargazer wasn't D at all. It could be E. So currently we would have ABCE as the storyline progression at the end. D is made up of the actual endings that come about. This would make it so it flows ABCDE.

Currently D is missing, but the story can still flow because E comes after C. We are just missing D currently.

Yes, my sentiments exactly.

I was sad no one picked up on that and wasn't sure if i was clear enough. haha

I agree with this as well. Let me play the "one more story" that the StarGazer is talking about!

Another reason I also thought about Indoctrination here. With the endings interpreted at face value. I think a small minority care about shepards so called "side mission dlc."

I also read somewhere that shepards squad mates walking off the normandy during the space magic sequence is a bug. Is there any confirmation on this? It seems like BS because how exactly could Bioware let a bug that big into the ending?

I know someone asked how they could possibly teleport, and Merizan said they didnt teleport, but she couldnt explain yet due to spoilers.

And even if it was a bug, and the squad members that you brought with you on the final part werent supposed to be on the Normandy, it doesnt explain how any of the others made it aboard, since they werent exactly that far from you during the final push.

The dialogue of your squad mates assumes that "everyone" in your squad is actually with you.. and not just the two people you choose. So you're very very right on that. Thanks

[Streambeck]

Streambeck wrote...

So, I just wanted to add something to this. What I'm saying is grasping at straws more than the theory itself, but it potentially works with the theory, so bear with me:

Taking the end sequence at face value, and really the entirety of ME3, you have to really consider something about TIM's motives.

Why is it so important to him that Shepard agrees with him? Why, particularly in the end segment, if the ending is literal, would it be so important for Shepard to see things his way? He's on the cusp of his "control," he appears to have more knowledge about whatever is going on than Shepard or Anderson. Why not just kill them and open the arms himself?

This also goes all the way back to why he would bring Shepard back in the first place, and Harbinger's keen interest in Shepard. If the Reapers were so intent on securing Shepard's body, and TIM had the body, why wouldn't there just be some kind of exchange where TIM would be led to believe it was in humanity's best interest? They give him some Reaper tech in exchange for Shepard's body, or something along those lines.

I think it's possible that Harbinger's goal with Shepard, and what TIM was doing without even being aware of it (considering he's under some level of Reaper control), was fashioning a successor for TIM. The new human voice for the Reapers. TIM was shrewd and resourcefull, a "worthy" agent of the Reapers, but Shepard was "a symbol, a bloody icon." Shepard is able to unite the entirety of the galaxy with his inherent leadership.

I mean, think about it. If the proto-Reaper was the endgoal of the Collectors/Harbinger, why have their agent send the person most likely to be capable of foiling their plan? Why show such interest in preserving Shepard's body when they already had it? Why would TIM have such a keen interest in observing Shepard's leadership skills, his ability to gain loyalty and trust, his ability to repair bridges, his critical thinking, with the resources he has? Maybe the "dirty dozen" were the only ones truely capable of foiling the Collectors, and maybe Shepard was the only one that could unite them, but that not only seems far-fetched, it seems so oddly specific. With what we understand of TIM's means now, it just doesn't seem like Shepard could possibly serve as some kind of lynchpin in stopping the Collectors. It just feels like ME2 was, in a way, more of a test, a trial run for Shepard.

Yeah, sorry, this is way far fetched, just thought I'd share.

This got drowned really quickly, just wanted to bump it and see what people thought.

[n00bsauce2010]

Ck213 wrote...

To the OP, another interesting thing about the choices is if you turn away from any of them and walk back down the path....GAME OVER. The Crucible is destroyed. It would have been very interesting if you could walk away from the Destroy choice, but no dice. Perhaps you can at low EMS, I haven't tested it.

Also, everything about the meeting with the Catalyst feels hyper-symbolic. So over the top that it takes you out of the story. I saw the pictures of the area on the original post, but no mention that the Control device looks like Geth Technology. The Destroy device looks likes Collector technology. The Synthesis device looks like the transporter beam. And of course there is the technology from the Shadow Broker's ship.

Ok, now Shepard's succes is supposed to be a surprise to the Catalyst, and the crucible has give it new insight and new ideas, but why is the Citadel already set up for the choices with a design aesthetic of technology that follows ages after its creation?

That's what really bugs me about the whole Catalyst scene. It looks like it's cobbled together from things Shepard has experienced. The character is symbolic, the set is symbolic, and the choices are symbolic. It's overloaded with symbolism and makes it jarring with all that's come before.

If I take this end plot at face value and assume this is the way things are supposed to be, the biggest "that-doesn't-make-sense" to me is the Destroy Choice. How is that a Solution for the Catalyst. It doesn't solve the problem and it takes the Catalyst out of the picture. Why would the Catalyst even offer it as choice? For that matter, how would giving Shepard control be a solution for the Catalyst? What does he expect Shepard to do differently that would satisfy itself and Shepard? The only solution that seems to work is Synthesis, There ya go, no more organics creating synthetics and requiring super synthetics to kill advanced organics.

There are too many things I woud have to ignore to accept this ending, and I haven't even touched  on the majority of it.

I noticed some of that too. I thought after hearing about the Indoc theory that the conduit from which to get to the citadel is actually some sort of artifact similar to Object Rho. Althought it's just a theory. It makes sense though, and attempts to explain why the reapers brought the citadel to earth and established the conduit inside of the ID T...(a.k.a setting a trap for shepard)

Also another thing to think about is.. if it isn't the indoc theory. Then why in mass effect 1 are you able to talk saren out of his "firm" belief? It would seem to me that if he represents synthesis and is talked out by shepard, he essentially knows his belief is false and nothing more than a reaper made fallacy. The same with the illusive man. If he's so sure he can control the reapers, why does he struggle against shepards own logic and is potentially talked into suicide. (just my theory though)

[masster blaster]

As anyone found a picture of the Kid/Catalyst when you pick control, and put it up on this site?

[JTP117]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

I'm going to roll with the direction the thread has gone in the last page, and point out that if we combine RvB and ME3, and take the video of Joel being Shepard into account, Destroy still makes the most sense, as thats the only ending choice that results in Caboose killing Church again.

ROTFLOL, that was brilliant!  Better hit Ctrl-F-U again.  

Edit: On the same RvB ME3 mash up idea, do the Reaper weapons remind you of a certain someone's laser face. 

You're right!  I guess Church was in Mass Effect 2.

And technically Caboose/Shepard DID kill him! World keeps on spinning

[masster blaster]

Also if it's not to much to ask can somebody have a video link of Captain Kurries speech from ME1 about we hold the Line, or resit Kurries speech please because my ME1 is not working at this time right now. Plus it will help people remeber about holding the line for PAX, and IT.

Modifié par masster blaster, 26 mars 2012 - 03:00 .

[The Irish Man]

I say we wait and see the new DLC coming in April. If it has nothing to do with the ending then that means we've all been officially indoctrinated by BioWare.

[streamlock]

I'm still holding on to a miniscule thread of hope that this theory is legit. As before, I'm taking a wait and see approach.

The alternative would be that the endings are as stands-which would be astonishingly bad. I could see why they would do it, but man would it suck.

[Rifneno]

byne wrote...

Goddamn beholders.  Can't even escape them hundreds of years in the future in the galactic core.