508 réponses à ce sujet

[woodbyte]

Denial is an ugly thing.

Sure, there's alot of evidence in favor of IT, but there's just about as much against it.
On these kind of situations I usually go with Occam's razor:

"Other things being equal, a simpler explanation is better than a more complex one."

That said, I think it's an elegant theory and it would have been awesome if BW really came up with it on purpose and then included another 10-20m sequence of the "real" endings after Shep wakes up.

[PhotonMaze]

Get of your ****ing high horse. I am a full on atheist and anti-theist. I despise religion and the only truth I accept is science. I hate that people are comparing the indoctrination theory to religions. Do I shape my life around believing the IT? No. Am I absolutely certain it is true? No, but the evidence is very compelling. The IT can be more easily compared to a scientific theory than a religion because there is actual evidence. None of it absolutely proves the theory, but it is all very plausable.

While I cannot say for certain if it's true (no one can yet) the indoctrination theory is very feasible for a few important reasons:

1. Shepard's breath at the end of the game in what looked to be London- This almost certainly means something. Why would Bioware put it in otherwise?
2. The way that the delevopers have recently been acting, it sounds like they have got something big planned and they had it planned before the game was released (See Michael Gamble's tweet)
3. The fact that the end game sequence correlates in many ways with how indoctrination is percieved throughout the series.
4. Shepard isn't himself when talking to the starchild.
5. Countless more reasons.

The point in a theory is that it is a theory!!! No one is claiming to know that the indoctrination theory is true - unlike religious people who claim with absolute certainty that god exists. That is why this is more like a scientific theory. We were waiting patiently on the results.

[KeenBlade]

Well, I can argue for and against IT. Especially the eye evidence. Remember ME2? Cerberus practically rebuilt Shep from a hardsuit full of grease and a shattered skeleton. He/she received heavy cybernetic implants, and it's quite possible that with all of the 'upgrades' you made to Shep in ME2 that he/she was just as much machine as human. Edi has the same eyes, TIM has the same eyes. Saren, after Sov's extensive implant modifications had the same eyes (albeit they were more turian than human).

It's reasonable to say that anyone with implants in their eyes would have those eyes. Half of the classes have cybernetic 'upgrades' to their nervous system, so if the destroy option destroys all synthetic systems, it would destroy the geth, quarians, Shep, any remaining cerberus operatives, and probably all VI along with Edi. It might even kill Garrus since he took a missile to the face in ME2 and had some heavy cybernetics added by Chakwas.

This too is all speculation and conjecture, but I have an open mind for both believable options. my faith in BW that this wasn't the worst thing a gaming company could do (half-assed endings/incomplete game), or that it actually was the worst possible thing EA/BW has done to something I've wholeheartedly enjoyed.

[Arkitekt]

PhotonMaze wrote...

Get of your ****ing high horse. I am a full on atheist and anti-theist. I despise religion and the only truth I accept is science. I hate that people are comparing the indoctrination theory to religions. Do I shape my life around believing the IT? No. Am I absolutely certain it is true? No, but the evidence is very compelling. The IT can be more easily compared to a scientific theory than a religion because there is actual evidence. None of it absolutely proves the theory, but it is all very plausable.

Yes, it is an inane comparison. I'd rather prefer comparing it to the evidence of, say, U.F.O.s.

While I cannot say for certain if it's true (no one can yet) the indoctrination theory is very feasible for a few important reasons:

1. Shepard's breath at the end of the game in what looked to be London- This almost certainly means something. Why would Bioware put it in otherwise?

The conclusion that is London is unwarranted, but interesting in itself. Why you ask? Because someone reached this conclusion by observing that Shepard is in concrete rubble, and there's "no concrete" on the citadel. I don't know where the hell they "know" this, but taking the off-chance that they learnt it on some mass effect wiki, there are also three other possibilities: (1) the Crucible was made out of Concrete, (2) The "concrete" of the cutscene is not really concrete and (3) someone forgot Mass Effect lore and made a cutscene with the wrong building material.

All of these possibilities are a lot more probable than having Shepard surviving a reentry on Earth (something that he wasn't even able to do in ME2).

Last but not least, when you ask "this almost certainly means something", it's like you took that line off of some conspiracy theory satire. Well what can it possibly mean other than that Shepard survived the blast and you get the chance to say "hurraaah!" if you got sufficient effort put into the game?

2. The way that the delevopers have recently been acting, it sounds like they have got something big planned and they had it planned before the game was released (See Michael Gamble's tweet)

It's called marketing hype. After the stuff they pulled off before ME3 launch you should know better by now.

3. The fact that the end game sequence correlates in many ways with how indoctrination is percieved throughout the series.

Some details are compatible with the theory, mostly because the theory is confabulated to be compatible with the end game, in an ad hoc way. Shepard's wound is in the same spot that Andersons'? COINCIDENCE? And other hilarious stuff.

4. Shepard isn't himself when talking to the starchild.

I won't discuss metaphysics. I see in the screen one guy/girl that looks exactly like Shepard talking with the exact voice that Shepard usually does. Perhaps Shepard says things you didn't like. However, to reach the conclusion that because of this detail, it's not "himself", is overreaching. It does look to me exactly what and how Shepard would say if he/she was extremely tired and fatigued, bleeding and constantly fainting.

5. Countless more reasons.

There are other details that are pieced together into a theory. My preference? Intoxication theory. Makes so much more sense. Specially when you use whiskey. All will become extremely clear by the eight glass.

The point in a theory is that it is a theory!!! No one is claiming to know that the indoctrination theory is true - unlike religious people who claim with absolute certainty that god exists. That is why this is more like a scientific theory. We were waiting patiently on the results.

Sure. But theories can also be divided between good, bad and extraordinarily ugly pieces of crap. Indoctrination theory is a bad theory. Sorry.

[ThomasakaDes_]

"One more story", at the very end right.
Hope thats an Easter Egg

Btw, about this IT:
Don`t read under here unless you`ve played the end game:
-
-
-
-
-
-
.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
How do you guys explain how Shepard got that bullet wound on the exact same place as she was forced to shoot Anderson at?
Yeah, I know it can be explained with "Oh, thats just a wound she got from fighting back on Earth", but I don`t belive that.

Modifié par ThomasakaDes_, 02 avril 2012 - 06:44 .

[nevar00]

Because the alternative is far, far worse, and that is that Bioware actually thought this plot hole-ridden, universe-torching, dues ex machina-using, theme, main antagonist, and main plot-changing utter mess pampered up by lies and false promises would work as a satisfying ending.

[G4m3r D4d]

I haven't had chance to read most of the thread, but... The Indoctrination Theory, whether it is plausible or not, is certainly a lot easier to take as an ending rather than just thinking that BioWare screwed up.

[ThomasakaDes_]

Gah, not possible to change text colour on my replies?

[Arkitekt]

How do you guys explain how Shepard got that bullet wound on the exact same place as she was forced to shoot Anderson at?

COINCIDENCE?

Yeah, I know it can be explained with "Oh, thats just a wound she got from fighting back on Earth"

Oh darn, it was that easy...

Modifié par Arkitekt, 02 avril 2012 - 06:47 .

[The Interloper]

I get the impression that BW was working towards indoctrination, then ran out of time and said "hey, let's make this the real ending!" Which is why parts like Anderson's death feel very dramatic and final while the rest of it feels bizzare and surreal. They couldn't make up their minds.

Modifié par The Interloper, 02 avril 2012 - 06:49 .

[j78]

I’m not for or against IT but I do know that some of IT must be interwoven in to the game if the only reason it wasn’t one of the ending options is just mechanical one .   As late as November, the developers were considering at least one drastically different ending that was eventually scrapped. The sequence would have seen the player lose control of Commander Shepard, revealing that he or she had actually been indoctrinated by the Reapers. This ending was eventually cut for technical reasons, as the team was having a hard time making the gameplay mechanic work alongside dialogue choices. http://www.gameranx....versial-ending/

Modifié par j78, 02 avril 2012 - 06:52 .

[nycmode75]

I believe in indoctrination based on how my buddies have been brainwashed by their wives after getting married. Must resist!

[stonbw1]

G4m3r D4d wrote...

I haven't had chance to read most of the thread, but... The Indoctrination Theory, whether it is plausible or not, is certainly a lot easier to take as an ending rather than just thinking that BioWare screwed up.

 I disagree.  If IT holds true (which I don't think it is), then it means that BW purposely sold an incomplete game ...an illusion of a complete game...a sham, if you will.  That would be a bigger insult, in my opinion.

[EHondaMashButton]

I'm not seeing the anti-IT people offer any actual arguments against it. All I see is people saying IT cherry picks XYZ and ignores ABC. What exactly does IT ignore?

People keep saying oh, it means we got no ending. Or tearing down a false argument that Shep was indoctrinated the entire game. Nobody is saying that. We're saying shep has free will going into the finale, his/her will is weakened, and at least 1 of the choices is giving in to indoctrination.

The other argument is that its due to bad writing/being rushed. Bad writing is a massive leap, considering the quality of writing in the rest of the game. I can't think of any plot holes elsewhere in the game. But the game is definitely rushed. Being rushed and IT aren't mutually exclusive. It can be an ambitious ending that ran out of time.

What we know for FACT (based on the final hours app):
Indoctrination was considered by the writing team
The ending wasn't made until the last minute (nov/dec)
The main writer wanted "lots of speculation" while PR was promising closure

Its not illogical to presume that IT was removed 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 into development for a "simpler" ending when they realized...
- their fans don't use the codex and probably won't connect the dots from prior games
- they didn't have enough time to make the foreshadowing more apparent but not totally obvious
- people dont react well to being tricked
- mass effect 2 & 3 weren't marketed as intellectual games so it'd be a bit unfair to start throwing in twists now

Its also not illogical to presume that some bits of IT were left in/reinterpreted, where removing it would make things even worse. The endings we got are a rush job. That doesn't invalidate IT.

The writers may have been rushed, but these are intelligent people we're talking about here. Their context either got cut, or they didnt have time to explain everything. But some of the stuff you guys are claiming is lazy is based on EXTRA work.

The dream sequences mean SOMETHING. A good writer doesn't put in multiple vivid dream sequences without some symbolism. You go from not being able to save the kid, to slowly burning alive with him and not even flinching.

Deep breath should NOT happen. You're were in space. Thats a point blank detonation. That choice is supposed to kill you anyway. This either never happened or the starchild lied to you. Either way, the guy in charge of cinematography is smart enough to know that massive explosion in space =/= deep breath withouht good explanation.

Its going to take a helluva re-write to explain some of these character's leaving you and teleporting back, when they're just 40 yards from the site.
Javik - the embodiment of vengeance, who's plan is to kill himself anyway
Liara- who brought you back from the dead once already
Garrus- shepard and stopping the reapers are literally all he has in life
Tali- who just promised to be at your side always like 5 minutes ago
Joker- who keeps coming back for multiple suicide missions

Its one thing to rush, its another to violate the spirit of the characters. Like shep going from shouting down TiM to being docile as a kitten with a VI. They have editors and lead writers to keep shepard's tone consistent. They could've stopped at TiM, let he or anderson inform you of the 3 choices (Or have Liara,Javik, or EDI decepher it via remote link or whatever), sent you upstairs to do the deed, and had a very clear/literal ending.

Instead they chose to create a cryptic ai kid who matches your dreams, looks like a ghost and is voiced by both meer and hale. They give you TiM eyes. These mean something. They could've left it a scramble of light to represent the catalyst and used any voice actor/actress. They could've left your eyes alone.

A montage of clips recycled from the game with a slow background audio track would be less work than the crash, stargazer, and deep breath scenes.

Im not claiming it all points to IT, but Bioware are not bad writers. There are waaaaay easier ways to do this ending. They went out of their way to choose this course of events. Some of these things clearly mean SOMETHING. Not everything about this ending is literal. They wanted speculation. IT can't explain it all, but neither can a literal interpretation.


Again, explain where the IT cherry picks and/or ignores evidence.

But do it without tearing down the straw man argument that IT means shep was indoctrinated the entire time. Nobody is saying that. Indoctrination has never been presented as an on-off switch. Its always been a slow process too subtle for the victim to perceive until it was too late. You CAN be halfway in a delusion (biotic god). You CAN move in and out of indoctrination (ardat yakshi monastery)

And do it without answering with "that means we didn't get an ending". IT or no IT we already didn't get an ending. Releasing the energy of mass relays (what the kid says) destroys solar systems if they blow up (what the Arrival says) and at minimum the energy/radiation makes planets uninhabitable (what the codex says).

[woodbyte]

EHondaMashButton wrote wall of text.

Why is it then that if you have less than 1750 EMS your only choice is the "Destroy" one? [1]
What, the reapers consider you have no chance anyway and don't even bother to trick you?

Those lazy ass bots!

edit: added reference.

Modifié par woodbyte, 02 avril 2012 - 07:19 .

[Random citizen]

Its a very human reaction. People try to make sense out of something pretty nonsensical.

[Izhalezan]

Alot of it makes sense, but in some parts it feels like it's really reaching out for any kind of hope.

[EHondaMashButton]

Whoa, i wrote way too much.
TLDR

What little ending we do have (aside from the colors) is NOT lazy and can't be dismissed. It is a product of concious decisions on the part of the devs. Explain what evidence IT ignores wihout resorting to strawman arguments.

[EHondaMashButton]

woodbyte wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote wall of text.

Why is it then that if you have less than 1750 EMS your only choice is the "Destroy" one? [1]
What, the reapers consider you have no chance anyway and don't even bother to trick you?

Lazy ass bots.

edit: added reference.

My last playthrough 2 days ago, my only option was control.  I did no fetch quests and barely any n7.  I'll have to check my TMS, but it was low.  I literally had one ramp going to blue, and the kid said I know you came here to control us.  I couldn't do the other 2.  Take that for what its worth.  My 1st playthrough i did everything and had all options available.

[Arkitekt]

[quote]EHondaMashButton wrote...

I'm not seeing the anti-IT people offer any actual arguments against it.[/quote]

Some glasses will help you. Really. I mean WTF. 

[quote] All I see is people saying IT cherry picks XYZ and ignores ABC. What exactly does IT ignore?[/quote]

The basic fact that you have a finished product in your hands. The basic fact that IT *needs* extra content that would only reach half (or way less) of the clients who are just wtf righ now.

The basic fact that all the clues you gather for indoctrination theory are just overreaching.
Shepard is wounded in the same spot as Anderson? INDOCTRINATION HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?
Shepard eyes become huskified when he goes to Control? INDOCTRINATION HOW COULD IT BE OTHERWISE?

And so on and so on. It's pathetic.

[quote]People keep saying oh, it means we got no ending. Or tearing down a false argument that Shep was indoctrinated the entire game. Nobody is saying that. We're saying shep has free will going into the finale, his/her will is weakened, and at least 1 of the choices is giving in to indoctrination.[/quote]

You missed the point. Since Shep can be indoctrinated, who's to say when this happened? Why not accept the other ton of possibilties for *which there are also "evidence" for them?*

[quote]The other argument is that its due to bad writing/being rushed. Bad writing is a massive leap, considering the quality of writing in the rest of the game.[/quote]

Massive leap my backside! BioWare is nowhere near the perfect gods of writing you make them out to be. ME plots have holes the size of Chewbacca since the first installment. Nobody cared too much (except for Smudboy) since the games felt right anyway. ME3 ending didn't because they tried too hard to come up with something amazingly original (since 95% of the rest of ME is pretty much a mish mash of homages of a loooot of sci fi).

[quote]I can't think of any plot holes elsewhere in the game. But the game is definitely rushed. Being rushed and IT aren't mutually exclusive. It can be an ambitious ending that ran out of time. [/quote]

They *did* try to make indoctrination and didn't work out so they scrapped it. But you say there are no plot holes elsewhere? O RLY? So please enlighten me how the hell is Ashley Lieutenant Commander at the start of ME3. What is the "S1" doing in her armor plate? Why is the Illusive Man trying so hard to defeat Shepard purposes when he needs the Crucible being done anyway? And these just of the top of my head. ME3 script is filled with holes. I didn't mind however, most of it just felt right.

[quote]What we know for FACT (based on the final hours app):
Indoctrination was considered by the writing team
The ending wasn't made until the last minute (nov/dec)
The main writer wanted "lots of speculation" while PR was promising closure[/quote]

All that this entails is that there wasn't enough time to create said closure, so they went with the "cheapest" solution, i.e., "lots of speculation!" However, the end product is what it is, and millions of people have played it already. They have their own finale and for them, that's the finale they believe is canon. To go around now and say "TROLLFACE!" is just beyond dumb and illogical.

[quote]Its not illogical to presume that IT was removed 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 into development for a "simpler" ending when they realized...
- their fans don't use the codex and probably won't connect the dots from prior games
- they didn't have enough time to make the foreshadowing more apparent but not totally obvious
- people dont react well to being tricked
- mass effect 2 & 3 weren't marketed as intellectual games so it'd be a bit unfair to start throwing in twists now[/quote]

It would have been good, not bad. There was the slight danger of repeating one of the most remembered bosses, one which would directly mess up with your control of the character and make you do the exact opposite. But other than that, yes it would have been awesome. They scrapped it and went towards a different direction.

The one we got. The canon.

[quote]Its also not illogical to presume that some bits of IT were left in/reinterpreted, where removing it would make things even worse. The endings we got are a rush job. That doesn't invalidate IT.[/quote]

Of course it does. The way they weaved the last minutes concluding the story without any of IT is enough proof.

[quote]The writers may have been rushed, but these are intelligent people we're talking about here. Their context either got cut, or they didnt have time to explain everything. But some of the stuff you guys are claiming is lazy is based on EXTRA work.

The dream sequences mean SOMETHING. A good writer doesn't put in multiple vivid dream sequences without some symbolism. You go from not being able to save the kid, to slowly burning alive with him and not even flinching. [/quote]

Other explanations abound. Nothing to do with indoctrination. After ME2, BioWare was heavily criticized for Shepard not being "humanized" and able to express his emotions. Shep was a blank state. So, they made Shep more human. They gave shep dreams. Dreams are not necessarily indoctrination. Most likely (90%) they are just the effects of fatigue and wear.

[quote]Deep breath should NOT happen. You're were in space. Thats a point blank detonation. That choice is supposed to kill you anyway. This either never happened or the starchild lied to you. Either way, the guy in charge of cinematography is smart enough to know that massive explosion in space =/= deep breath withouht good explanation.[/quote]

Because Chuck-Norris-type characters never survive big explosions.... lol

[quote]Its going to take a helluva re-write to explain some of these character's leaving you and teleporting back, when they're just 40 yards from the site.[/quote]

Yes. Well, the algorithm that chooses the three occupants of the Normandy is complex, but depends heavily on your past choices. However, they clearly forgot to add the last choice of whoever goes with you.

[quote]Javik - the embodiment of vengeance, who's plan is to kill himself anyway
Liara- who brought you back from the dead once already
Garrus- shepard and stopping the reapers are literally all he has in life
Tali- who just promised to be at your side always like 5 minutes ago
Joker- who keeps coming back for multiple suicide missions[/quote]

Fleeing from a huge RGB ball is not treason, it's basic survival instinct.

[quote]Its one thing to rush, its another to violate the spirit of the characters. Like shep going from shouting down TiM to being docile as a kitten with a VI. They have editors and lead writers to keep shepard's tone consistent. They could've stopped at TiM, let he or anderson inform you of the 3 choices (Or have Liara,Javik, or EDI decepher it via remote link or whatever), sent you upstairs to do the deed, and had a very clear/literal ending.

Instead they chose to create a cryptic ai kid who matches your dreams, looks like a ghost and is voiced by both meer and hale. They give you TiM eyes. These mean something. They could've left it a scramble of light to represent the catalyst and used any voice actor/actress. They could've left your eyes alone.[/quote]

They could do a ton of things. For instance, they could have not frakked up the ending. The fact that they did frak up is not evidence that the ending is not what we've seen however, which is the ridiculous reasoning you are making here! Bad endings are always bad, even if they are only meant to troll you. If that was their intention, they *still* shouldn't have frakked up so badly like they did. That is, the endings we got are *still* bad. But wasn't that impossible? Aren't BioWare infallible or some such shenanigan?

[quote]A montage of clips recycled from the game with a slow background audio track would be less work than the crash, stargazer, and deep breath scenes.[/quote]

Dunno what a montage of recycled clips could do.

[quote]Im not claiming it all points to IT, but Bioware are not bad writers. There are waaaaay easier ways to do this ending. They went out of their way to choose this course of events. Some of these things clearly mean SOMETHING. Not everything about this ending is literal. They wanted speculation. IT can't explain it all, but neither can a literal interpretation. [/quote]

A literal interpretation is clearly easy to follow. And it doesn't contradict the game we got. Which is what really counts here.

[quote]And do it without answering with "that means we didn't get an ending". IT or no IT we already didn't get an ending. Releasing the energy of mass relays (what the kid says) destroys solar systems if they blow up (what the Arrival says) and at minimum the energy/radiation makes planets uninhabitable (what the codex says). [/quote]

Bullpoop. We *did* get an ending, just one we didn't like. Wake up, you're indoctrinated!

[kalle90]

woodbyte wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote wall of text.

Why is it then that if you have less than 1750 EMS your only choice is the "Destroy" one? [1]
What, the reapers consider you have no chance anyway and don't even bother to trick you?

Those lazy ass bots!

edit: added reference.

What does EMS have to do with the availability of choices in the first place?

"You gathered such a massive army I allow you to choose synthesis"?

To me it makes just as much sense to say "You are not worthy, we will not accept you, your only option is "destroy""

[Arkitekt]

It's bioware way of saying that the "choices matter in the end!!!!"

[killnoob]

kalle90 wrote...

woodbyte wrote...

EHondaMashButton wrote wall of text.

Why is it then that if you have less than 1750 EMS your only choice is the "Destroy" one? [1]
What, the reapers consider you have no chance anyway and don't even bother to trick you?

Those lazy ass bots!

edit: added reference.

What does EMS have to do with the availability of choices in the first place?

"You gathered such a massive army I allow you to choose synthesis"?

To me it makes just as much sense to say "You are not worthy, we will not accept you, your only option is "destroy""

lol  IT cult got decimated....

[Travie]

The indoctrination is just wish-thinking.

I know anything would be better than what we got... but we got what we got.

[The man of myth]

EHondaMashButton wrote...

I'm not seeing the anti-IT people offer any actual arguments against it. All I see is people saying IT cherry picks XYZ and ignores ABC. What exactly does IT ignore?

People keep saying oh, it means we got no ending. Or tearing down a false argument that Shep was indoctrinated the entire game. Nobody is saying that. We're saying shep has free will going into the finale, his/her will is weakened, and at least 1 of the choices is giving in to indoctrination.

The other argument is that its due to bad writing/being rushed. Bad writing is a massive leap, considering the quality of writing in the rest of the game. I can't think of any plot holes elsewhere in the game. But the game is definitely rushed. Being rushed and IT aren't mutually exclusive. It can be an ambitious ending that ran out of time.

What we know for FACT (based on the final hours app):
Indoctrination was considered by the writing team
The ending wasn't made until the last minute (nov/dec)
The main writer wanted "lots of speculation" while PR was promising closure

Its not illogical to presume that IT was removed 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 into development for a "simpler" ending when they realized...
- their fans don't use the codex and probably won't connect the dots from prior games
- they didn't have enough time to make the foreshadowing more apparent but not totally obvious
- people dont react well to being tricked
- mass effect 2 & 3 weren't marketed as intellectual games so it'd be a bit unfair to start throwing in twists now

Its also not illogical to presume that some bits of IT were left in/reinterpreted, where removing it would make things even worse. The endings we got are a rush job. That doesn't invalidate IT.

The writers may have been rushed, but these are intelligent people we're talking about here. Their context either got cut, or they didnt have time to explain everything. But some of the stuff you guys are claiming is lazy is based on EXTRA work.

The dream sequences mean SOMETHING. A good writer doesn't put in multiple vivid dream sequences without some symbolism. You go from not being able to save the kid, to slowly burning alive with him and not even flinching.

Deep breath should NOT happen. You're were in space. Thats a point blank detonation. That choice is supposed to kill you anyway. This either never happened or the starchild lied to you. Either way, the guy in charge of cinematography is smart enough to know that massive explosion in space =/= deep breath withouht good explanation.

Its going to take a helluva re-write to explain some of these character's leaving you and teleporting back, when they're just 40 yards from the site.
Javik - the embodiment of vengeance, who's plan is to kill himself anyway
Liara- who brought you back from the dead once already
Garrus- shepard and stopping the reapers are literally all he has in life
Tali- who just promised to be at your side always like 5 minutes ago
Joker- who keeps coming back for multiple suicide missions

Its one thing to rush, its another to violate the spirit of the characters. Like shep going from shouting down TiM to being docile as a kitten with a VI. They have editors and lead writers to keep shepard's tone consistent. They could've stopped at TiM, let he or anderson inform you of the 3 choices (Or have Liara,Javik, or EDI decepher it via remote link or whatever), sent you upstairs to do the deed, and had a very clear/literal ending.

Instead they chose to create a cryptic ai kid who matches your dreams, looks like a ghost and is voiced by both meer and hale. They give you TiM eyes. These mean something. They could've left it a scramble of light to represent the catalyst and used any voice actor/actress. They could've left your eyes alone.

A montage of clips recycled from the game with a slow background audio track would be less work than the crash, stargazer, and deep breath scenes.

Im not claiming it all points to IT, but Bioware are not bad writers. There are waaaaay easier ways to do this ending. They went out of their way to choose this course of events. Some of these things clearly mean SOMETHING. Not everything about this ending is literal. They wanted speculation. IT can't explain it all, but neither can a literal interpretation.


Again, explain where the IT cherry picks and/or ignores evidence.

But do it without tearing down the straw man argument that IT means shep was indoctrinated the entire time. Nobody is saying that. Indoctrination has never been presented as an on-off switch. Its always been a slow process too subtle for the victim to perceive until it was too late. You CAN be halfway in a delusion (biotic god). You CAN move in and out of indoctrination (ardat yakshi monastery)

And do it without answering with "that means we didn't get an ending". IT or no IT we already didn't get an ending. Releasing the energy of mass relays (what the kid says) destroys solar systems if they blow up (what the Arrival says) and at minimum the energy/radiation makes planets uninhabitable (what the codex says).

Well said and spot on. For all anyone knows, the crash landing could be skipping forward a bit in time. Some DLC could be released to bridge that gap, and it will show Shepard walk out of the ship soon after. Who knows. But Bioware's intent was what you see, people discussing the game, not crying and foot stomping.

Modifié par The man of myth, 02 avril 2012 - 08:19 .