448 réponses à ce sujet

[Iconoclaste]

Where's OP?

[Sisterofshane]

Gallifreya wrote...

Sisterofshane wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

Yup. And then they laughed it up. Sheeple.

Why?  Because they can approach something as disasterous as the ME3 ending with a little bit of creativity, and humility?  I find it damn classy that the IT people at PAX have enough deference to know when to laugh at themselves a little.

Nope. Because they cheered the hell out of it, and then the second a developer MIGHT have something dispariging to say about it, they flipped and laughed like it was a joke. Maybe I'm wrong, but it just seemed flip-floppy.

And I saw it as them being able to acknowledge that their ending has it's faults and was probably never intended by the writers (granted I doubt some of the more zealous IT defenders were at the PAX panel). 

They came to support their "theory" anyways, hence why they applauded it when it was mentioned. 
They laughed in acknowledgment of it's short comings .

[KevShep]

Iconoclaste wrote...

In fact, I think there is no point in arguing a theory where supporters take all nonsense in the game to try to make an intelligent statement about it, but then leave some nonsense out because it doesn't fit the theory. At the beginning, when the theory was proposed, it was kinda fun, because every idea brought by newcomers was easily integrated to it. But now that it has grown with so much speculation and counter-productive rejection of new proposals and ideas to make it sound, it has become tedious. If it still has a chance to gain anything, it might be a little more insight into what's reasonable to expect as "planned" by Bioware, and what' not.

Everyone "easily integrated" there findings into it because Bioware left us clues(hence the reason for "Speculations from Everyone" that Bioware wanted) ...Why are you not seeing this? are you a troll?

Your the only one not making any sense by not bringing us facts that ARE in the game. You still have not answered why we hear shepards voice in the catalyst and what' not.

[UrgentArchengel]

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

[majinbuu1307]

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

Let me say again, they confirmed that this was the end Shepards story. Simple logic- if this is the end of shepards story(and they said no DLC would be AFTER the end, but during) that means, if you believe indoc, that the ending is shepard awakens from the dream, which means, reapers still there. That means there would have to be ANOTHER game because shepard wouldnt just wake up and go, oh, the reapers are still there, let someone else deal with it. Dear lord.

[Peregrin25]

Funny thing is. In all that. You pointed out more evidence to support Indoctrination Theory lol. Or at least that is what I got from it. Even if it was unintentional. Regardless, there are lots of fine points.

[majinbuu1307]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

I like to think that Indoctrination is like A jedi mind trick, just more complicated(not completely lke a jedi mind trick so dont freak out at that) but the stronger someones intelligence or willpower, the less effective it would be against him. Shepard is clearly a Toydarian or however you spell Watto's species lol.

[majinbuu1307]

Peregrin25 wrote...

Funny thing is. In all that. You pointed out more evidence to support Indoctrination Theory lol. Or at least that is what I got from it. Even if it was unintentional. Regardless, there are lots of fine points.

How did I do that?

[Deuterium_Dawn]

So...Indoctrination War Thread II in a couple of days then?

[Galifreya]

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

Let me say again, they confirmed that this was the end Shepards story. Simple logic- if this is the end of shepards story(and they said no DLC would be AFTER the end, but during) that means, if you believe indoc, that the ending is shepard awakens from the dream, which means, reapers still there. That means there would have to be ANOTHER game because shepard wouldnt just wake up and go, oh, the reapers are still there, let someone else deal with it. Dear lord.

They confirmed that -what- is the end of Shepard's story? The game? As in, ME3 as a whole? Sure. But is the game done yet? No. More DLC to come. What is your point again?

[Iconoclaste]

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

I read your post on another thread. Because something is not proved to be "false" does not make it "true". I guess you knew that was coming.

For the rest, I want to believe IT is "flexible and open", and I'll still be looking into it. But I will not drink the Kool-Aid before it's a bit sweetened.

[majinbuu1307]

KevShep wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

In fact, I think there is no point in arguing a theory where supporters take all nonsense in the game to try to make an intelligent statement about it, but then leave some nonsense out because it doesn't fit the theory. At the beginning, when the theory was proposed, it was kinda fun, because every idea brought by newcomers was easily integrated to it. But now that it has grown with so much speculation and counter-productive rejection of new proposals and ideas to make it sound, it has become tedious. If it still has a chance to gain anything, it might be a little more insight into what's reasonable to expect as "planned" by Bioware, and what' not.

Everyone "easily integrated" there findings into it because Bioware left us clues(hence the reason for "Speculations from Everyone" that Bioware wanted) ...Why are you not seeing this? are you a troll?

Your the only one not making any sense by not bringing us facts that ARE in the game. You still have not answered why we hear shepards voice in the catalyst and what' not.

Well, the Catalyst is clearly forming an image and sound based on what shepard knows, Shepard knows that kid, the Catalyst seems to be able to know this, or it was just convienent, Shepard knows his own voice, The catalyst can sound or look however it wants, maybe it possibly doesn't want to get destroyed, so it makes itself sound like shepard, making it sympathise with it. Speculations everywhere

[majinbuu1307]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

I read your post on another thread. Because something is not proved to be "false" does not make it "true". I guess you knew that was coming.

For the rest, I want to believe IT is "flexible and open", and I'll still be looking into it. But I will not drink the Kool-Aid before it's a bit sweetened.

Nice wordplay:P

[Iconoclaste]

KevShep wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

In fact, I think there is no point in arguing a theory where supporters take all nonsense in the game to try to make an intelligent statement about it, but then leave some nonsense out because it doesn't fit the theory. At the beginning, when the theory was proposed, it was kinda fun, because every idea brought by newcomers was easily integrated to it. But now that it has grown with so much speculation and counter-productive rejection of new proposals and ideas to make it sound, it has become tedious. If it still has a chance to gain anything, it might be a little more insight into what's reasonable to expect as "planned" by Bioware, and what' not.

Everyone "easily integrated" there findings into it because Bioware left us clues(hence the reason for "Speculations from Everyone" that Bioware wanted) ...Why are you not seeing this? are you a troll?

Your the only one not making any sense by not bringing us facts that ARE in the game. You still have not answered why we hear shepards voice in the catalyst and what' not.

Lol

And you're the one telling me I'm not paying attention!

[Galifreya]

Iconoclaste wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

I read your post on another thread. Because something is not proved to be "false" does not make it "true". I guess you knew that was coming.

For the rest, I want to believe IT is "flexible and open", and I'll still be looking into it. But I will not drink the Kool-Aid before it's a bit sweetened.

Yeah. And I answered you on the other thread. My only beef is with people who say, difinitively, "IT is false bunk GARBAGE." It's foolish. Because they do not know for certain.

I would never claim that IT is true FOR CERTAIN. It could be wrong. It could be that most of the pieces fell into place on accident. I don't know. It's just extremely frustrating to see so many people say, "IT is garbage. Get over it." Do I need to say it ten different ways?

[KevShep]

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

Yes...When that reaper on earth makes that sound that they make the kid looks RIGHT at Shepard as if he is telling him something.

[Iconoclaste]

And what if Bioware just picks it up and makes it his own AFTER the fact?

[Iconoclaste]

KevShep wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

Yes...When that reaper on earth makes that sound that they make the kid looks RIGHT at Shepard as if he is telling him something.

I answered this. Did you read?

And precisely what does that "sound" mean? "As if the kid was.."

Can you see what kind of crappy evidence you rely on to gain my vote? Can't you find better examples?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 avril 2012 - 02:54 .

[KevShep]

Iconoclaste wrote...

KevShep wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

In fact, I think there is no point in arguing a theory where supporters take all nonsense in the game to try to make an intelligent statement about it, but then leave some nonsense out because it doesn't fit the theory. At the beginning, when the theory was proposed, it was kinda fun, because every idea brought by newcomers was easily integrated to it. But now that it has grown with so much speculation and counter-productive rejection of new proposals and ideas to make it sound, it has become tedious. If it still has a chance to gain anything, it might be a little more insight into what's reasonable to expect as "planned" by Bioware, and what' not.

Everyone "easily integrated" there findings into it because Bioware left us clues(hence the reason for "Speculations from Everyone" that Bioware wanted) ...Why are you not seeing this? are you a troll?

Your the only one not making any sense by not bringing us facts that ARE in the game. You still have not answered why we hear shepards voice in the catalyst and what' not.

Lol

And you're the one telling me I'm not paying attention!

You have brought no facts to me! Only throwing a dart in the dark.

Modifié par KevShep, 13 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[balance5050]

Iconoclaste wrote...

And what if Bioware just picks it up and makes it his own AFTER the fact?

Fact: They were still playing with the idea of an indoctrinated shepard in Novemeber, two months before the game went gold. They wouldn't be taking the idea because it was their's to begin with.

Modifié par balance5050, 13 avril 2012 - 03:00 .

[Iconoclaste]

I doubt they would have reached the same state of "development" the thread attained, the players having "play tested" it much more than they could have. They could as well dig into the present content to add to their starting ideas. How will anyone see then what was their "original intent", and what was "proposed" by the community?

Modifié par Iconoclaste, 13 avril 2012 - 02:58 .

[KevShep]

Iconoclaste wrote...

KevShep wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

Yes...When that reaper on earth makes that sound that they make the kid looks RIGHT at Shepard as if he is telling him something.

I answered this. Did you read?

And precisely what does that "sound" mean? "As if the kid was.."

Can you see what kind of crappy evidence you relie on to gain my vote? Can't you find better examples?

Thats not the evidence I am backing, That is only the speculation to that evidence that Iam backing. Stop trying to pick apart everything I say and start looking at my MAIN POINTS!

[majinbuu1307]

Gallifreya wrote...

majinbuu1307 wrote...

Gallifreya wrote...

My reply to you from the other thread. Which you heartily ignored:

"WOW. You're incredibly rude. And I already am at home.

I asked you to tell me where BioWare specifically dismisses IT. I've seen the PAX panel. I've read the announcements. I know BioWare's stance on the ending.

Where do they say that IT is false? Also, I never said IT would absolutely HAVE to mean that the Reapers aren't defeated. That is an assuption made by several IT enthusiasts, but not all of us subscribe to that. Your EMS could determine whether or not you defeat the Reapers after Shep wakes up. Which is why you need an extremely high EMS to have Shepard live at all, and why Shep only lives at the end of Destroy. The EMS determines a victory or a defeat. The galaxy MUST defeat the Reapers conventionally, and they -can- do it. Thannix cannons and the cooperation of the 4000 EMS. The Reapers are SCARED. This is their last attempt to try and find a victory. TIM found a way to control them. Shepard and Anderson found a way to kill them.

Extra cut-scenes MAY explain that the breaking of the indoctrination attempt is the victory. And because Shepard is free in his/her mind, Shepard can then rally the forces of the galaxy (via an empowered speech or something) in order to beat the Reapers. It will be a long, hard battle, but it CAN be explained in only a few cutscenes.

Why are IT naysayers so virulent and pissy?"

There. A way in which IT can still be true even if there is no additional game-play. And yeah. I read your whole post. You seem to take the word of Casey Hudson as the end all be all of what's true about the ME universe, when we all know Casey Hudson hasn't been completely truthful in the past (that or he changed his mind and it just appeared as if he was being untruthful). I'm not saying this is a bad thing. He has every right to protect the secret of the ending, IF there is one. We IT enthusiasts love the word IF. Because we don't like to set things in stone. That's a silly habit to get into.

Another thing: Shepard doesn't have to be on the streets of London for IT to be true, either. That is a heavily agreed upon idea, but it is not a fact, and I personally have never claimed as such. Shepard could have been hallucinating and still have been on the Citadel/Crucible.

The IT theory is amiable (that means flexible). That's the wonderful thing about -theories-. Nothing about a THEORY is set in stone. A theory is constantly discussed and worked over and debated by a lot of people. Is this possible? Is it impossible? What about -this-? Oh nevermind, but what about THIS?

You, however, are setting things in STONE that you have no right to. Using such words as "obviously" when you don't know "OBVIOUSLY" is for sure. You're being super assumptive about a lot of things.

I want to know why IT offends the likes of you. I want to know why the idea strikes you as so abysmally stupid. Because it is not. It's an open discussion about something that is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE, while you claim it is entirely IMPOSSIBLE.

Just gonna call it like it is: unfair.

Let me say again, they confirmed that this was the end Shepards story. Simple logic- if this is the end of shepards story(and they said no DLC would be AFTER the end, but during) that means, if you believe indoc, that the ending is shepard awakens from the dream, which means, reapers still there. That means there would have to be ANOTHER game because shepard wouldnt just wake up and go, oh, the reapers are still there, let someone else deal with it. Dear lord.

They confirmed that -what- is the end of Shepard's story? The game? As in, ME3 as a whole? Sure. But is the game done yet? No. More DLC to come. What is your point again?

My point, DLC after the ending or Extended Cut version, which is the same ending but "clarified" not clarified as in they will bring in this HUGE plot twist like he is indoctrinated. That would change the ending, they said they aren't changing it. Plus, like i said, him waking up after being indoctrinated, would mean the reapers are still there, there will be no DLC AFTERwards, meaning its not an ending, and not closure, at ALL. Nuff said.

[majinbuu1307]

KevShep wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

KevShep wrote...

UrgentArchengel wrote...

Here's some good questions. Can Shepard get indoctrinated? Can Reaper tech affect Shepard's mind? Not going to answer these. I am just going to let all of you do that.

Yes...When that reaper on earth makes that sound that they make the kid looks RIGHT at Shepard as if he is telling him something.

I answered this. Did you read?

And precisely what does that "sound" mean? "As if the kid was.."

Can you see what kind of crappy evidence you relie on to gain my vote? Can't you find better examples?

Thats not the evidence I am backing, That is only the speculation to that evidence that Iam backing. Stop trying to pick apart everything I say and start looking at my MAIN POINTS!

Eh they never look at main points, they look for any weak links in the chain and gnaw at that.

[majinbuu1307]

balance5050 wrote...

Iconoclaste wrote...

And what if Bioware just picks it up and makes it his own AFTER the fact?

Fact: They were still playing with the idea of an indoctrinated shepard in Novemeber, two months before the game went gold. They wouldn't be taking the idea because it was their's to begin with.

They where also playing around with the Dark Energy ending, things change.