508 réponses à ce sujet

[SLana]

Then I have another question - why BioWare can't say straight that people who believe in IT are wrong? Not something like "you get what you see", just something like "this is not indoctrination, we are sorry, we didn't intend to make you see the endings that way"? Are they afraid of another wave of negative emotions from fans or they just want us to discuss it because some of us need a bit of hope, or what? Maybe people who believe in IT are right, or maybe they are wrong, but when you learn that Santa doesn't exist, does it make your presents disappear? Remeber, "This is not the last you'll hear of Commander Shepard".

Modifié par SLana, 02 avril 2012 - 03:29 .

[Foulpancake]

MACharlie1 wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote...

MACharlie1 wrote...

CombatEvil wrote...

2papercuts wrote...

I think it has some viability for three reasons

1. The bullet wound
2. The changing eyes
3. The breath scene
All of these the developers had to consciously acknowledge and spend more time and money to put in the game.

1, bullet wound? i saw no bullet.... was in my mind chared broken skin bleeding from internal wounds caused by  the beam....
2. changing eyes? looked to me as the protein layer burned away reveiling cybernetics...
3. breath scene? he lived so what?...

i refuse too believe bioware "Hid" these "clues" to suggest a indoctronation theory

I'm not a subscriber to any one theory but go renegade and the cybernetic eye implants are not the same as TIMs. Shepards are a singular circle. TIMs are three of them which he gained when he touched teh Reaper artifact. 

Nope.  Check again.

*snip*
*snip*

Bigger

TiM      http://i.imgur.com/LU9UN.jpg 
Shep   http://i.imgur.com/mJbqR.jpg 


edit: intended for CombatEvil, not MACharlie

I'm seeing the same eye texture.... 

ya honestly the BEST evidence i see for IT is the eyes and bullet wound, the wound can be better explained by the damage taken before, but the eyes just can't. There is NO logical explanation for shepards eyes suddenly turning into TIM's eyes. None whatsoever.

It would be like you making a White shepard, and suddenly when he arrives and talks with Starchild he is Black... without some kind of logic behind it, its just complete nonsense and why would bioware randomly decide to give him these eyes in the final scene? Again it makes 0 sense

[EHondaMashButton]

MACharlie1 wrote...
I'm seeing the same eye texture.... 

Yea, sorry i meant to quote the person above you.

[Wayning_Star]

MACharlie1 wrote...

Wayning_Star wrote...

the burning off is merely a representation of change. All communicaton with the reaper race has been 'symbolic' even the "reflections" Sheppard attempted to collate after getting hit with their knowledge base. Why would the reapers wish to 'talk' to a pesky human/organic short of recycling them?

Harbinger, Sovreign, and the reaper on Rannoch establishes that Reapers can be quite chatty. 

lol, yes that's true, but they've never related anything but threats and hyperbole. Even the links with those beacons was illistrative. They had really nothing to say, ever...  they're not evil beings cause they don't even know what that means.. just the priorities. It was almost like they used Sheppard as 'entertainment' even when trying to do him in. Getting back to the electrifying scene that occured during the attempt to control the reapers, it would take a gob of something to absorb the energy of all those reapers everywhere, indoctrinate them/reprogram them. It's common knowledge that Shep was equipped with reaper tech, it were vague tho as to the extent(and purpose, considering the mental state of the elusive man who WAS apparently, indoctrinated.) Considering all that, why didn't the reaps just clobber Shep, in fact, who/why was Shep killed and then, brought back by a guy who was already 'programmed' by the reaps?

[Indylavi]

My only problem with IT is that I think people give too much credit to details. Maybe it's because I've worked in the game industry. A lot of stuff is just reused to simply cut down on development time. Especially if you are under a tight deadline. It's why all the bases in ME1 looked the same except slightly different layouts. It's why all (or almost all) jungle worlds in ME2 had the same sky. Look at Zorya's sky on the mission with Zaeed or the planet Jacob's father is on. Even where the Normandy lands in ME3. Exactly the same sky with two moons.

All in all. I think IT was a cleverly designed theory us fans came up with because the disappointment of ME3's ending was so bad. Rather that was because they ran out of time and couldn't flesh it out as much, wanted to make more money to pay for a clarification end DLC pack, or the guy was just burned out and wanted to end it quickly I don't know. But if I were him, I would run with IT and say it was my plan all along. It'd make fans feel like their faith was vindicated and give those that came up with IT a sense of accomplishment. And it'd cover up your terrible "artsy" ending.

This is just my opinion and I don't wish to offend or condemn people for believing in IT. I actually love debating lore about Sci-Fi and all of that. So even if IT is wrong it's still good fun

[Wayning_Star]

Hello Man wrote...

SLana wrote...

Then I have another question - why BioWare can't say straight that people who believe in IT are wrong? Not something like "you get what you see", just something like "this is not indoctrination, we are sorry, we didn't intend to make you see the endings that way"? Are they afraid of another wave of negative emotions from fans or they just want us to discuss it because some of us need a bit of hope, or what? Maybe people who believe in IT are right, or maybe they are wrong, but when you learn that Santa doesn't exist, does it make your presents disappear? "This is not the last you'll hear of Commander Shepard"

Because Bioware love this stuff when fans/players speculate.

I wonder if the "fans" might be 'indoctrinated', or worse, utilized for further writings..(hey, whats that strange buzzing noise comming from the internet?!?!)

[Indylavi]

Wayning_Star wrote...
I wonder if the "fans" might be 'indoctrinated', or worse, utilized for further writings..(hey, whats that strange buzzing noise comming from the internet?!?!)

Hey that's not funny. 14 years ago when I had to connect to the internet with a 56k modem. The internet would not only actually buzz, but would make noises that would wake up everybody in the house and annoy the cat when I connected to it

[SLana]

Hello Man wrote...

Because Bioware love this stuff when fans/players speculate.

It's not so funny when people have only one major theory, and both sides post mostly threads like  "How can you believe in this?!" and "Why u no believe it's so obvious!!!" The same evidences, the same thoughts, the same questions and answers - here's how it looks now. Maybe we should think up a new theory, like Joker's time traveler teaching reapers to love? 

Modifié par SLana, 02 avril 2012 - 03:46 .

[EHondaMashButton]

Indylavi wrote...

My only problem with IT is that I think people give too much credit to details. Maybe it's because I've worked in the game industry. A lot of stuff is just reused to simply cut down on development time. Especially if you are under a tight deadline. It's why all the bases in ME1 looked the same except slightly different layouts. It's why all (or almost all) jungle worlds in ME2 had the same sky. Look at Zorya's sky on the mission with Zaeed or the planet Jacob's father is on. Even where the Normandy lands in ME3. Exactly the same sky with two moons.

All in all. I think IT was a cleverly designed theory us fans came up with because the disappointment of ME3's ending was so bad. Rather that was because they ran out of time and couldn't flesh it out as much, wanted to make more money to pay for a clarification end DLC pack, or the guy was just burned out and wanted to end it quickly I don't know. But if I were him, I would run with IT and say it was my plan all along. It'd make fans feel like their faith was vindicated and give those that came up with IT a sense of accomplishment. And it'd cover up your terrible "artsy" ending.

This is just my opinion and I don't wish to offend or condemn people for believing in IT. I actually love debating lore about Sci-Fi and all of that. So even if IT is wrong it's still good fun

I'd agree with you, but giving shepard the Illusive Man eyes is extra work.  For 3/4 of the lightning surge scene its your regular eyes, covered with blue static.  Then right before you disintegrate, all of a sudden you have the Illusive Man's eyes.  

It warrants explanation.  It doesn't have to be IT, but there's a reason they did it.  They could've used the cybernetic eyes, or regular blue eyes, or kept going with the blue electricity effect.

[Wayning_Star]

SLana wrote...

Hello Man wrote...

Because Bioware love this stuff when fans/players speculate.

It's not so funny when people have only one major theory, and both sides post mostly threads like  "How can you believe in this?!" and "Why u no believe it's so obvious!!!" The same evidences, the same thoughts, the same questions and answers - here's how it looks now. Maybe we should think up a new theory, like Joker's time traveler teaching reapers to love? 

well, EDI maybe... Nah, that's just toooo weird.. but then.. crap, now I'll be up all night worrying over this..

[Wayning_Star]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

Indylavi wrote...

My only problem with IT is that I think people give too much credit to details. Maybe it's because I've worked in the game industry. A lot of stuff is just reused to simply cut down on development time. Especially if you are under a tight deadline. It's why all the bases in ME1 looked the same except slightly different layouts. It's why all (or almost all) jungle worlds in ME2 had the same sky. Look at Zorya's sky on the mission with Zaeed or the planet Jacob's father is on. Even where the Normandy lands in ME3. Exactly the same sky with two moons.

All in all. I think IT was a cleverly designed theory us fans came up with because the disappointment of ME3's ending was so bad. Rather that was because they ran out of time and couldn't flesh it out as much, wanted to make more money to pay for a clarification end DLC pack, or the guy was just burned out and wanted to end it quickly I don't know. But if I were him, I would run with IT and say it was my plan all along. It'd make fans feel like their faith was vindicated and give those that came up with IT a sense of accomplishment. And it'd cover up your terrible "artsy" ending.

This is just my opinion and I don't wish to offend or condemn people for believing in IT. I actually love debating lore about Sci-Fi and all of that. So even if IT is wrong it's still good fun

I'd agree with you, but giving shepard the Illusive Man eyes is extra work.  For 3/4 of the lightning surge scene its your regular eyes, covered with blue static.  Then right before you disintegrate, all of a sudden you have the Illusive Man's eyes.  

It warrants explanation.  It doesn't have to be IT, but there's a reason they did it.  They could've used the cybernetic eyes, or regular blue eyes, or kept going with the blue electricity effect.

my take on the 'eyes' thing is that it's merely a by product of the scene and all that energy/sparks'n stuff. The Elusive man was severely charred from trying the same thing(I think? seemed like it:) and as the scene wore on, Shep looke rather burnt, then grabbed the 'sticks' to finish up. (anyone ever try one of those electrice shock/tough person gizmos at a penny arcade?, reminded me of'em.) I think the 'dream state' theory holds, considering the waking someone in that brief shot spoilier...

[ForceXev]

It's obvious that Bioware had something up their sleeve when they made the ending.  The shot of Shepard taking a breath and the silly teaser after the credits with the old man telling the little boy there will be one more Shepard story means that Bioware had a plan to do something more with the story after ME3, probably in a paid DLC.

This is what I disliked about the ending more than anything else -- how obvious it was to me that it was not finished and that Bioware intended to sell us the rest of the ending as DLC.

The indoctrination theory is the only thing anybody has come up with that fits with all of the pieces of the ME3 story and ending.  It's a great theory, or it would have been if Bioware had followed through on it.  By leaving the story unfinished, Bioware put themselves in an awkward position.  If the indoctrination theory was Bioware's plan all along it's ruined, because if Bioware follows through on it now, people will say that they stole the idea from their fans or gave up creative control and allowed their fans to rewrite the ending.

[AlanC9]

VampireSoap wrote...

Wake up, people! Bad writing is just bad writing. There is no way game writers will hide the plots so sophisticated that it takes speculations in this depth to piece the story together. I kept laughing while I was watching the indoctrination theory video clip. I thought the guy was just being funny, but now so many people actually believe it. No wonder so many people right now still believe in magical beings in the sky....The pathway to truth is through reason and logic. When there is a situation presented to us, we don't make an assumption and then assume that assumption is right and make up all the details from there, we look at the data, the facts and then decide whether there is truth in this claim.

It's just my personal point of view, I'm sorry if it sounds offensive to some people. It is never my intention to provoke anyone.

Dude, they're happier believing in I-theory. Let them be happy until Bio screws them over once and for all.

(And there's still an outside chance that Bio will retcon I-theory into being true)

[SLana]

EHondaMashButton wrote...
It warrants explanation.  It doesn't have to be IT, but there's a reason they did it.  They could've used the cybernetic eyes, or regular blue eyes, or kept going with the blue electricity effect.

Or they could've used another viewpoint. IT or not, we just want to know if there's something at all behind all this. My friend says the whole level looks imaginary because it was designed by lazy people, but lazy people won't give Shep those eyes...

Modifié par SLana, 02 avril 2012 - 04:25 .

[Wayning_Star]

ForceXev wrote...

It's obvious that Bioware had something up their sleeve when they made the ending.  The shot of Shepard taking a breath and the silly teaser after the credits with the old man telling the little boy there will be one more Shepard story means that Bioware had a plan to do something more with the story after ME3, probably in a paid DLC.

This is what I disliked about the ending more than anything else -- how obvious it was to me that it was not finished and that Bioware intended to sell us the rest of the ending as DLC.

The indoctrination theory is the only thing anybody has come up with that fits with all of the pieces of the ME3 story and ending.  It's a great theory, or it would have been if Bioware had followed through on it.  By leaving the story unfinished, Bioware put themselves in an awkward position.  If the indoctrination theory was Bioware's plan all along it's ruined, because if Bioware follows through on it now, people will say that they stole the idea from their fans or gave up creative control and allowed their fans to rewrite the ending.

Wouldn't it be really weird if Bioware writers got so 'into' their story that they painted themselve into a corner. Kind of like the Tale Tale Heart..

[Plasma Prestige]

 Considering the Bioware team wanted the ending to promote speculation, it is completely logical to think the indoctrination theory is true. 

[Wayning_Star]

Plasma Prestige wrote...

 Considering the Bioware team wanted the ending to promote speculation, it is completely logical to think the indoctrination theory is true. 

Only from our perspective, the 'plot holes' others complained are well reasoned and the three choice ending just seem generic, considering the extent of the story over three games. The first two were straight forward, eventhough the reapers got kind of simplistic in the second installment. The fact that uploads of our hard fought building up of Sheppard stats was kind of 'sleepy' when loading up the new storyline. All in all, the IT is 'expected' by many, as the reaps were programmed for only ONE purpose. But..it's too simplistic, imo, as the story includes many subplots and values guided emotional tags. Reapers don't have "values", at least not organic ones. I think the purpose for Sheppard was/is way more complicated than indoctrination. So that ending would be too easy, as he, as an organic, couldn't possibly overcome it... Too many reapers and too little Sheppard. Maybe the reaps wanted saved..they are part of the universe/sentient races... etc..

[Wayning_Star]

the old man(illusive man) and the little boy(catalyst) were the ones talking about "The Sheppard" in that one cut scene. Weird, eh?

Modifié par Wayning_Star, 02 avril 2012 - 04:43 .

[SLana]

Wayning_Star wrote...

the old man(illusive man) and the little boy(catalyst) were the ones talking about "The Sheppard" in that one cut scene. Weird, eh?

Well, if some people completely believe in Green Space Magic while accusing others in stupidity because of believing in IT, why not?

[PiEman]

VampireSoap wrote...

BiancoAngelo7 wrote...

OP, until you provide any logic or reasoning as to why the indoctrination theory is incorrect, or at least explaining the multitude of reasonings found here:

docs.google.com/document/d/1QT4IUepvrU1pfv_B95oQj0H84DlCTUmzQ_uQh1voTUs/preview

Then I can't take you seriously. Consider it courtesy that I give you the benefit of the doubt and not just call you a troll for telling others how "blind" they are while offering absolutely no reasoning as to why other than "the ending is the ending".

I'm sorry if I offended you in some way. I apologize. I never meant that the people who belive are blind.

You said now you can understand why people still believe in "magical beings in the sky".

It's a little late to consider that you might have offended some people, you ****ing ******...

[CARL_DF90]

Hey, I think you missed a few details op. First, in the Arrival DLC for ME2, Shepard was directly exposed to Reaper indoctrination tech while inside the project lab. Second, recurring weird and/or messed up dreams are a tale-tell sign of someone being affected by the indoctrination process. Lo and behold Shepard was having constant dreams of that stupid kid and the Catalist just HAPPENS to take the form of that child? Way beyond coincidence. Plus, after Harbinger just blasts everyone he just leaves Shepard alone? Something smells and it ain't me.  There's more to support the theory but those three right there should be enough to paint the picture.

Modifié par CARL_DF90, 02 avril 2012 - 05:25 .

[SLana]

CARL_DF90 wrote...

Hey, I think you missed a few details op. First, in the Arrival DLC for ME2, Shepard was directly exposed to Reaper indoctrination tech while inside the project lab.

I didn't play Arrival and I don't want to, and it is reflected in my war assets, so what, no indoctrination for me?

[Vesji]

There are enough arguments to both Indoctrination theory and the "bad" Ending as it is.

Why do you find it weird when people side with either point?

[UnstableMongoose]

To the OP: Asking passive-aggressive questions about why people think things is pointless. There are plenty of people who have already discussed why they think things. As a matter of fact, we have dozens of clone posts already on this board that discuss the exact same things that you are asking over and over again. The way to find out what someone else is thinking is to lurk and read the answers to the questions that you have, not post threads with titles that make you seem like a 13-year-old girl who's just discovered a list of acronyms that were popular on the internet in the 90s.

I am being a little bit harsh with you on this, and I apologize for that, but you have to understand: you're never going to get results going about it the way you're going about it. If you're confused as to why someone believes something, go read what they have to say about it--don't make yourself seem foolish.