309 réponses à ce sujet

[FemmeShep]

Most people think it's IT, because of Starchild, and how the ending is set up. This idea that three choices are given to you, and they each represent an aspect of Indoctrination.

But those people don't really understand the Crucible plot, and think Starchild is the one that came up with the choices. Overlooking the design of the weapon, and what it does when connecting to the Catalyst. There also seems to be a lack of understanding on how the Crucible works, and again - what happens as a result of your decision is something people point towards as being a reason it's IT. Truth is, people just overlooked the story.

Modifié par FemmeShep, 04 avril 2012 - 02:13 .

[Delta095]

DLC is meant to be stand-alone anyway. Think back to Mass Effect. They were side quests. Fallout 3 is the only game I saw with DLC that extended the ending but even then, it was completely optional. To make people pay for the real ending is insulting. It also acts as a terrible stand-alone ending. All it did was reopen and close the b-plot that was synthetics and their creators. It didn't even really bring an end to the story.

[Wolfen919]

FemmeShep wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Someone must have missed the video where Mac said there would not be any DLC after the end we saw.

Further, most IT believers don't really understand the ending. So there's that.

Oh? Do explain the ending. This should be good.

Also explain for me please: 

  

Why is the means to end the game (destroy, control, synthesis) built into the Citadel, a device that was created by the Reapers to trap the organic civilisations in each cycle?

Why does the ‘creator’ of the Reapers simply allow you to choose the fate of their ‘solution’, which also defies all logic, when this is a creature of pure logic?

If the Reapers knew that the organics would use the beam to get to the Citadel… why didn’t they just turn it off? And why the hell would the beam take you directly to the room right outside the control for the Crucible?

Why can’t you kill the Keeper that you find?

How does Hackett know that you’re on the Citadel? As far as everyone knows, you are dead, slain by Harbinger, as reported by Coates on the ground. Even if he knew that someone was on the Crucible, he wouldn’t know it was Shepard, and wouldn’t know to contact him/her when nothing happened with the Crucible.

How did Anderson get to the room before you, when there was only one visible entrance, and he was not ahead of you? He even admits to getting to the Citadel after you. Where did the beam send him? Moreover, how did he know you were in the Citadel?

How did the ‘creator’ know to appear as the child? Even if you’d told someone about the boy, you never told them what he looked like. How old he was. What he was wearing. How he sounded.

And why is Shepard bleeding from his/her left side? He/she was shot by the Marauder in the RIGHT shoulder/chest. Coincidentally, this is where the Illusive Man forces Shepard to shoot Anderson.

source: 
http://uninhibitedan.../mind-holy-fuck 

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 02:18 .

[cerberus1701]

Ultimately, I'm not really sure why anybody NEEDS to try to kill it. If someone has adopted IT as a means of making sense of the nonsense that is the ending, what do you care?

Certainly, what do you care enough that you have to go out of your way to cut it up?

[FemmeShep]

Wolfen919 wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Someone must have missed the video where Mac said there would not be any DLC after the end we saw.

Further, most IT believers don't really understand the ending. So there's that.

Oh? Do explain the ending. This should be good.

Explain: 

  Why is the means to end the game (destroy, control, synthesis) built into the Citadel, a device that was created by the Reapers to trap the organic civilisations in each cycle?-          Why does the ‘creator’ of the Reapers simply allow you to choose the fate of their ‘solution’, which also defies all logic, when this is a creature of pure logic?-          If the Reapers knew that the organics would use the beam to get to the Citadel… why didn’t they just turn it off? And why the hell would the beam take you directly to the room right outside the control for the Crucible?-          Why can’t you kill the Keeper that you find?-          How does Hackett know that you’re on the Citadel? As far as everyone knows, you are dead, slain by Harbinger, as reported by Coates on the ground. Even if he knew that someone was on the Crucible, he wouldn’t know it was Shepard, and wouldn’t know to contact him/her when nothing happened with the Crucible.-          How did Anderson get to the room before you, when there was only one visible entrance, and he was not ahead of you? He even admits to getting to the Citadel after you. Where did the beam send him? Moreover, how did he know you were in the Citadel?-          How did the ‘creator’ know to appear as the child? Even if you’d told someone about the boy, you never told them what he looked like. How old he was. What he was wearing. How he sounded.-          And why is Shepard bleeding from his/her left side? He/she was shot by the Marauder in the RIGHT shoulder/chest. Coincidentally, this is where the Illusive Man forces Shepard to shoot Anderson.

I think you are mistaking poor writing for brilliant genius my friend.

[Tiax Rules All]

FemmeShep wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Someone must have missed the video where Mac said there would not be any DLC after the end we saw.

Well I have certainly missed this all telling super important "video" that im sure you will not be able to find if I asked you to source.

While I see why you would think that means no ending DLC he says there will be nothing after ME3 meaning ME4 will not be post reaper war.

remember ME3 ending DLC is STILL technically ME3 its not after ending it IS the ending.

[Wolfen919]

FemmeShep wrote...
I think you are mistaking poor writing for brilliant genius my friend.

Not quite. Just want to believe Bioware didn't make this ending in 2 minutes. Either we did get an ending, or we didn't. IT explains the ending in the best possible way without Bioware having to edit one single thing. We only require an apology and a finish to the series. Not a big deal.

Also, if it is poor writing, then are you basically saying there is no greater understanding to the ending? In that case, none of the IT believers misunderstood the ending, just in denial.

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 02:25 .

[Tiax Rules All]

FemmeShep wrote...

I think you are mistaking poor writing for brilliant genius my friend.

and I think you are refusing to give it a chance to be genius. *shrug*

[DocJill]

Delta095 wrote...

DLC is meant to be stand-alone anyway. Think back to Mass Effect. They were side quests. Fallout 3 is the only game I saw with DLC that extended the ending but even then, it was completely optional. To make people pay for the real ending is insulting. It also acts as a terrible stand-alone ending. All it did was reopen and close the b-plot that was synthetics and their creators. It didn't even really bring an end to the story.

I would say that Lair of the Shadow Broker and Arrival, while not 100% necessary, are very integral to the plot of ME3. 

[FemmeShep]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Tiax Rules All wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players.

Someone must have missed the video where Mac said there would not be any DLC after the end we saw.

Well I have certainly missed this all telling super important "video" that im sure you will not be able to find if I asked you to source.

While I see why you would think that means no ending DLC he says there will be nothing after ME3 meaning ME4 will not be post reaper war.

remember ME3 ending DLC is STILL technically ME3 its not after ending it IS the ending.

I would like to know how the Crucible fits into your hardcore belief that IT is the answer to all answers. It's already been said in canon, that past races debated how the Crucible would harness the energy. And the choices in the end are a reflection of this.

So that kind of kicks out the legs under the theory that all 3 choices are an aspect of IT. They aren't. They were the options the people that built the crucible designed into the weapon. Hence why Starchild says: "the crucible, it changed me".

Modifié par FemmeShep, 04 avril 2012 - 02:22 .

[Keldaurz]

Apollo-XL5 wrote...

Because the haters dont like the idea that bioware pulled the wool over their eyes and basically indoctrinated the players so they could sell the ending apart on a DLC on a dick-move.

Fixed it for you.

You are welcome.

[FemmeShep]

Wolfen919 wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...
I think you are mistaking poor writing for brilliant genius my friend.

Not quite. Just want to believe Bioware didn't make this ending in 2 minutes. Either we did get an ending, or we didn't. IT explains the ending in the best possible way without Bioware having to edit one single thing. We only require an apology and a finish to the series. Not a big deal.

Also, if it is poor writing, then are you basically saying there is no greater understanding to the ending? In that case, none of the IT believes misunderstood the ending, just in denial.

I don't want to put you down, that was not my intention so I apologize. I guess my stance is: sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

I understand the want/need for IT to be true. There is a lot of things in the ending that don't make sense, that are sloppy. And it you could easily explain those sloppy things as being apart of a hallucination. But just look at the Crucible plot. Look at how poor that plot arc was told...

And the Crucible was like THE thing to stop the entire conflict. So it's not like BioWare is above making poor decisions, and fumbling when it comes to story execution.

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

[Wolfen919]

FemmeShep wrote...
I would like to know how the Crucible fits into your hardcore belief that IT is the answer to all answers. It's already been said in canon, that past races debated how the Crucible would harness the energy. And the choices in the end are a reflection of this.

So that kind of kicks out the legs under the theory that all 3 choices are an aspect of IT. They aren't. They were the options the people that built the crucible designed into the weapon. Hence why Starchild says: "the crucible, it changed me".

IT states that basically anything that happened after the beam is null and void. Next question.

I'm sure there's plotholes in IT, however I would argue that there are more within the given ending. I'm willing to settle in whichever ending gives me the most logical sense. 

Modifié par Wolfen919, 04 avril 2012 - 02:26 .

[Ariella]

Tiax Rules All wrote...

Ariella wrote...
That makes no sense in the context of the end game.

The dreams were manifestations of Shepard's psyche trying to deal with what s/he saw on Earth.

Occum's razor. Simplest answer is often the correct one. The first dream takes place the first time Shepard has a chance to stop moving and actually sleep. His/her subconcious is trying to deal with the fact he/she couldn't save that child. It wasn't some faceless red shirt #5. He/she probably had seen the kid out the window of his.her confinement multiple times beyond the beginning of ME 3. He/she spoke to said kid, tried to get him to come out to safety, and then watched him get on a shuttle which proceeds to be shot down by a Reaper.

The voices in the following dreams are those he/she lost: Ash or Kaiden, Mordin, Thane etc. It PTSD more than any attempt at indoctrination. The loss and inability to save everyone is repeated time and time again as a theme in ME 3. Garrus and Shepard talk about it. So does Liara...

you see it differently thats for sure.

I see the nightmares as a warning. following /comprimising /helping the kid and you will burn.

Its a warning, one you did not heed. Yes Shepard is having coping issues (ptsd as you say) but cant they be a little bit of both. or dreams at first then Indoctrination later.

speak about time and time again. Indoctrination, what to look for, what to avoid. Its there too.

we will never see eye to eye.  Its not necessarily an insult by me saying "you are indoctrinated" its just the truth as I see it. The game fooled you. You have not come to terms with the deception yet.

This makes no sense, unless you're now claiming that Shepard is psychic/clarivoyant. They're dreams dealing with the stresses of a war which seems to rest on one human being, Why is this so hard to understand?

The kid is not the Catalyst, it's just a conveniant shape Cat uses for it conversation with Shepard at the end or even a shape that Shepard's subconcious provides for Cat in the same way Legion shapes the Geth Consensus into something coherent that Shepard would understand. The are more logical reasons Cat takes the form of the kid rather than Shepard becoming the new Nostrodamus. And you don't address the fact that the kid isn't the only dead person in dreams 2 and 3. Again, Occum's razor. Shepard is having nightmares because he feels so much is riding on him as people die around him, he's feeling the weight of his dead. It's part of connecting to Shepard on an emotional level we all experience in some form at some time in our lives. Loss, grief. No more, no less. Trying to turn it into something else not only makes no sense, but makes it trite, robbing it of its emotional power.

[ShadowNinja1129]

Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...

The facts point towards Indoc not being true. It was never Bioware's intention for Shep to be indoctrinated. That is the TRUTH.

Err, you might want to do your research first before making such brazen assertions:

The Final Hours App wrote...
"And even in November the gameplay team was still experimenting with an endgame sequence where players would suddenly lose control of Shepard's movement and fall under full reaper control. (This sequence was dropped because the gameplay mechanic proved too troublesome to implement alongside dialogue choices)"

Not saying this proves IDT is true(the whole sequence at the end with TIM was probably a watered-down version of this), but it proves that your sudden outburst of supposed "truth" was indeed false.

Samuel_Valkyrie wrote...

However, like religious people, you don't care about the truth. You want the subjective experience, and your subjective experience prefers you to have Indoc. It's not true, but you want it to be.
 

Woah there Bessie, you're getting into some very dangerous territory. I'd recommend keeping such inflammatory statements to yourself, even if you're just trying to make a point you're only destroying your ethos when you make a derogatory statement like that.

Back on topic: I know I'd love for IDT to be true, not just because its a much better and more clever ending than what we have (Shepard becomes a galatic criminal by commiting genocide, slavery, or genetic homogenization (i.e. Hitler-stylin' it)), but because it would do that crazy "break the fourth wall" thing by indoctrinating the player *brain explodes*. Talk about pushing the limits of the medium!

TudorWolf wrote...

My main problem is the fact that people overlook the canon to make it fit.

Since when have we had "indoctrination attempts" and my personal peeve, "overcoming" such an attempt? Every single time indoctrination has appeared, it's been portrayed as irresistible and impossible to recover from once it's set in. The best hope an indoctrinated person has is still having enough free will to be talked into realizing the fact and being able to kill themselves. 

Well Benezia was able to seal off parts of her mind from indoctrination's influence. Besides, Commander Shepard isn't your usual pile of grey matter up there. They say it a lot in the first game since the Beacon's non-compatible biological messages "would've destroyed a lesser mind".

Liara said...

You must be remarkably strong-willed, Commander.

Shepard's made a career out of defying the odds and doing the impossible, if Shepard can survive a suicide mission with his squaddies and ship intact I can easily believe Shepard could fight off indoctrination attempts.

Like I said, IDT would be a much more clever ending that was actually hinted at throughout the game, compared to the pile of crud we have now. I recognize that, as it is completely fan-made, it is inherently nothing more than SPECULATION until Bioware makes an official statement, but man is it a compelling piece of speculation!

[FemmeShep]

Wolfen919 wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...
I would like to know how the Crucible fits into your hardcore belief that IT is the answer to all answers. It's already been said in canon, that past races debated how the Crucible would harness the energy. And the choices in the end are a reflection of this.

So that kind of kicks out the legs under the theory that all 3 choices are an aspect of IT. They aren't. They were the options the people that built the crucible designed into the weapon. Hence why Starchild says: "the crucible, it changed me".

IT states that basically anything that happened after the beam is null and void. Next question.

Not so fast. Prior to the beam, it's already been said that the Crucible had different functions as designed by past creators/cycles. So I still don't get why you are ignoring the Crucible plot, and saying the 3 options are that of IT and not by the design of the weapon.

IMO the Crucible plot takes precedent.

Modifié par FemmeShep, 04 avril 2012 - 02:27 .

[Wolfen919]

FemmeShep wrote...

Wolfen919 wrote...

FemmeShep wrote...
I would like to know how the Crucible fits into your hardcore belief that IT is the answer to all answers. It's already been said in canon, that past races debated how the Crucible would harness the energy. And the choices in the end are a reflection of this.

So that kind of kicks out the legs under the theory that all 3 choices are an aspect of IT. They aren't. They were the options the people that built the crucible designed into the weapon. Hence why Starchild says: "the crucible, it changed me".

IT states that basically anything that happened after the beam is null and void. Next question.

Not so fast. Prior to the beam, it's already been said that the Crucible had different functions. So I still don't get why you are ignoring the Crucible plot.

uhh. what? who/what stated it had different functions? I believe no one knew the function of the Crucible nor the Catalyst. What was supposed to happen was all just speculation.

[Tiax Rules All]

Ariella wrote...
...Why is this so hard to understand?...

i feel the same way.

[killnoob]

Atheists: how do you explain all the suffering in this world?
Religion-ists: the Lord/Alla/whateva has his plan, all we need to do is to believe in him

Non-IT-ers: how do you explain all the plot holes?
IT-ers: All of them are part of Bioware's great plan

I wonder if IT-ers worship Hudson/Walters, do you guys have shrine for them?

Modifié par killnoob, 04 avril 2012 - 02:32 .

[Tiax Rules All]

FemmeShep wrote...

I would like to know how the Crucible fits into your hardcore belief that IT is the answer to all answers. It's already been said in canon, that past races debated how the Crucible would harness the energy. And the choices in the end are a reflection of this.

So that kind of kicks out the legs under the theory that all 3 choices are an aspect of IT. They aren't. They were the options the people that built the crucible designed into the weapon. Hence why Starchild says: "the crucible, it changed me".

My Shep is in a pile of rubble in London waiting for a hand to get up and continue the fight.

That is not imagination, I saw it. I saw the breath, I saw the rubble.

DLC:  Garrus "here, lets get you out of there Shepard" ... continue with ending. Maybe it involves more crucible maybe not, I dont care, as long as its good.

[Tiax Rules All]

FemmeShep wrote...

Not so fast. Prior to the beam, it's already been said that the Crucible had different functions as designed by past creators/cycles. So I still don't get why you are ignoring the Crucible plot, and saying the 3 options are that of IT and not by the design of the weapon.

IMO the Crucible plot takes precedent.

nobody ever has any idea what the crucible does. They just build it. This im sure of. Liara mentions many times that we dont know what it does or how it "fires"

[zimm2142]

tinfoil everywhere!

[Wolfen919]

killnoob wrote...

Atheists: how do you explain all the suffering in this world?
Religion-ists: the Lord/Alla/whateva has his plan, all we need to do is to believe in him

Non-IT-ers: how do you explain all the plot holes?
IT-ers: All of them are part of Bioware's great plan

I wonder if IT-ers worship Hudson/Walters, do you guys have shrine for them?

..........

That's a pretty bad analogy. I'm going to assume trolling on this one.

[Ariella]

FemmeShep wrote...

Most people think it's IT, because of Starchild, and how the ending is set up. This idea that three choices are given to you, and they each represent an aspect of Indoctrination.

But those people don't really understand the Crucible plot, and think Starchild is the one that came up with the choices. Overlooking the design of the weapon, and what it does when connecting to the Catalyst. There also seems to be a lack of understanding on how the Crucible works, and again - what happens as a result of your decision is something people point towards as being a reason it's IT. Truth is, people just overlooked the story.

Thank you!

One of my biggest issues with the whole IT is that Shepard's come in contact with how many Reapers, Reaper artifacts, etc by the time ME 3 even begins and shows no signs of any indoctrination, where as say Rana Thanopolis, who also didn't show in 2 did in 3 when the Reapers were pretty much taking up square kilometers the real estate in the Milky Way. So did Shiala, but because of the whole Thorian thing, she also has the voices of all the other affected colonists which drown out the Reapers' voice.

And there's that bit where Cat says that TIM couldn't control the Reapers because they already controlled him, but Shepard could control the reapers because he was NOT indoctrinated.Plus the Prothean VI sensed no indoctrination in Shepard either on Thessia or at Chronos base, so when was Shepard supposed to get hit with the psychic whammy? It makes no sense to be resistant for so long then boom.

So once again, Thanks Femshep for being a voice of reason.

[Jedifan421]

This is what BioWare wanted...SPECULATION FROM EVERYONE!