1057 réponses à ce sujet

[tute]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



Nonetheless, inserting a fully-formed hallucination still seems very invasive for a beginning thought pattern, don't you think?

But it's a subconcious thought pattern. It's not one that directly inflence's Shep's advance thought patterns. It's subtle...Like what indoctrination is decribed to be.

An example would be the cerberus scientists on the derelict reaper. They both have the same memories and same dreams about a wedding that they believe they experienced. At that moment they still had full control of themselves, but were being influenced by the reaper.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...


What I mean is that TIM wants to persuade Shep to believe his idea that control is the best method. Now bear with me. Assuming that the literal ending is the right one, it follows that TIM nor even the Reapers who now control him don't know what decision awaits (Shep with the Catalyst). They are not asking him to go with control later, because they don't know about later. The Reapers still want him in their thrall now. However, as I have said, the game changes with the arrival of the Catalyst, where the false promises given to TIM by Reapers become reality. When I choosing "control" would lead to Shephard's indoctrination, I really meant that if Shep is persuaded by TIM in that scene, he will become more indoctrinated and do the Reaper's bidding. I meant no reference to the Catalyst scene when talking about choosing "control"- that might not have been completely clear.

That still makes no sense. How does TIM persuading shepard make shepard indoctrinated in a literal scene. I thought Shep wasn't being indoctrinated, make up your mind.

Who's "them" when referring to TIM having Shep in a stasis hold?

Anderson too.

I was talking about Dark Energy, have you got any evidence from the writers that it was taken seriously as the ending and implemented before being scrapped?

Well there was the foreshadowing in ME2 with Tali's mission and Giana Parasini saying Noveria is concerned because a bunch of people were concerned about dark energy. And then there was the leaked script... so yeah.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If the cables are a symbol of indoctrination, and Shephard has just broken his hold on it , it follows that they, like other elements of indoctrination, must be by the end. You can't just slip from a symbolic to a literal meaning just because it fits IT, which is what you saying here.

How am I going from symbolic meaning to literal meaning? Where's the literal half of this. The breath scene is that 'gotcha' moment you wanted. It's a nod to the player about what just happened. Why put the cable there otherwise? Does it contribute anything to shepard breathing? No. The cables are at least indirectly associated with indoctrination. They're probably not necessary for it, that's fine. But the times you see them are prominent moments when significant characters are under Reaper control. The player (if he/she's paying attention) should associate the cables with that. What about this is ambiguous?

I realise that similar textures are used for both Earth and Citadel (although this would contradict the Codex, I guess it was done for the sake of ease), however the very fact that there are no such piles near the beam and where you fell unconscious (and so woke up) seems to indicate that you were not there.

Similar textures are reused because BW doesn't want to spend ages making different textures, hence why a lot of the worlds feature the same concrete for instance. Nor do we know what state Shephard is in necessarily at the end, it could be his last breath, he does seem rather out of it. We just don't know...but on the assumption that IT requires a lot more assumptions it is safe to say that it is more likely he is on the Citadel still.

Again the point is missed; cables aren't found on Earth, why not if they are meant to be there. And remember, don't mix supposed symbolism and literal meaning at will to fit your theory

Are you sure, have you looked everywhere? That's not the point. The last scene isn't a literal, he fell in this pile of rubble, scene at longitude 'x' latitude 'y'. It's an easter egg that clues the player into the truth. If it was literal, how did he survive the citadel blast? That fireball was >8km in diameter (presidium ring is 7.2km diameter, that explosion more than engulfed the ring). In the official IT thread someone pointed out that would be comparable to 100 kiloton nuke. And shepard is approximately at the center of it. The explosion is big enough to rip apart the quantum shielded citadel that is practically immune to conventional weapons. But shepard is in no worse shape than before?

YOU can't have it both ways, if you want to stick to the literal interpretation, you have to account for the consequences of what is "literally'' happening.

As for the textures. All those objects are unique. Either they took time to model them after debris on the citadel or debris on earth. If its modeled after citadel debris, why is the fracture pattern consistent with earth debris (crumbly like concrete or stone) rather than consistent with what you would expect from citadel (metal, fancy polymers) debris and look bent, mangled, sheared, and snapped.

I also don't know how IT requires more assumptions. It makes the statement (you can read assumption if you want) that everything after Harby's beam is some kind of indoctrination hallucination. The pieces fall clearly from there.

Literal translation requires you to believe (accept the assumption) that Harbinger has pinpoint accuracy when vaporizing NPCs but can only hit 20yds in front of you. That your squadmates are fine, but didn't enter the beam. The citadel is magical and anderson can beat you to the console, despite entering the beam after you and without you seeing him even though there is only one entrance to that room. TIM can control you and anderson, even though the game explicitly tells you you have no control chip. That TIM has some incentive to convince shepard to believe in control. Believe all the nonsense the catalyst says. Believe that synthesis will combine organic/synthetic DNA, even though synthetics don't have DNA, and if they did a magic green beam would be sufficient to accomplish this. That you can control them even though TIM couldn't. That shepard (despite the catalyst's implications otherwise) survived destroy and an explosion big enough to create an 8km fireball and tear apart the citadel. That Joker just happened to conveniently land on a garden planet, with your two not so loyal and unharmed squadmates.

How is that less assumptions?

[SirBob1613]

Shepard couldnt have been indcoctrinated the entire game maybe the ending part thats it. When you go to Thessia and you are speaking to the Prothean Ai or Vi thing the thing acutally spoke to you but when Chiang Yang or whatever his name showed up it said Indoctination presense detected then shut off it would have detected if shepard was in the process of indoctrination

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...


What I mean is that TIM wants to persuade Shep to believe his idea that control is the best method. Now bear with me. Assuming that the literal ending is the right one, it follows that TIM nor even the Reapers who now control him don't know what decision awaits (Shep with the Catalyst). They are not asking him to go with control later, because they don't know about later. The Reapers still want him in their thrall now. However, as I have said, the game changes with the arrival of the Catalyst, where the false promises given to TIM by Reapers become reality. When I choosing "control" would lead to Shephard's indoctrination, I really meant that if Shep is persuaded by TIM in that scene, he will become more indoctrinated and do the Reaper's bidding. I meant no reference to the Catalyst scene when talking about choosing "control"- that might not have been completely clear.

That still makes no sense. How does TIM persuading shepard make shepard indoctrinated in a literal scene. I thought Shep wasn't being indoctrinated, make up your mind.

Who's "them" when referring to TIM having Shep in a stasis hold?

Anderson too.

I was talking about Dark Energy, have you got any evidence from the writers that it was taken seriously as the ending and implemented before being scrapped?

Well there was the foreshadowing in ME2 with Tali's mission and Giana Parasini saying Noveria is concerned because a bunch of people were concerned about dark energy. And then there was the leaked script... so yeah.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If the cables are a symbol of indoctrination, and Shephard has just broken his hold on it , it follows that they, like other elements of indoctrination, must be by the end. You can't just slip from a symbolic to a literal meaning just because it fits IT, which is what you saying here.

How am I going from symbolic meaning to literal meaning? Where's the literal half of this. The breath scene is that 'gotcha' moment you wanted. It's a nod to the player about what just happened. Why put the cable there otherwise? Does it contribute anything to shepard breathing? No. The cables are at least indirectly associated with indoctrination. They're probably not necessary for it, that's fine. But the times you see them are prominent moments when significant characters are under Reaper control. The player (if he/she's paying attention) should associate the cables with that. What about this is ambiguous?

I realise that similar textures are used for both Earth and Citadel (although this would contradict the Codex, I guess it was done for the sake of ease), however the very fact that there are no such piles near the beam and where you fell unconscious (and so woke up) seems to indicate that you were not there.

Similar textures are reused because BW doesn't want to spend ages making different textures, hence why a lot of the worlds feature the same concrete for instance. Nor do we know what state Shephard is in necessarily at the end, it could be his last breath, he does seem rather out of it. We just don't know...but on the assumption that IT requires a lot more assumptions it is safe to say that it is more likely he is on the Citadel still.

Again the point is missed; cables aren't found on Earth, why not if they are meant to be there. And remember, don't mix supposed symbolism and literal meaning at will to fit your theory

Are you sure, have you looked everywhere? That's not the point. The last scene isn't a literal, he fell in this pile of rubble, scene at longitude 'x' latitude 'y'. It's an easter egg that clues the player into the truth. If it was literal, how did he survive the citadel blast? That fireball was >8km in diameter (presidium ring is 7.2km diameter, that explosion more than engulfed the ring). In the official IT thread someone pointed out that would be comparable to 100 kiloton nuke. And shepard is approximately at the center of it. The explosion is big enough to rip apart the quantum shielded citadel that is practically immune to conventional weapons. But shepard is in no worse shape than before?

YOU can't have it both ways, if you want to stick to the literal interpretation, you have to account for the consequences of what is "literally'' happening.

As for the textures. All those objects are unique. Either they took time to model them after debris on the citadel or debris on earth. If its modeled after citadel debris, why is the fracture pattern consistent with earth debris (crumbly like concrete or stone) rather than consistent with what you would expect from citadel (metal, fancy polymers) debris and look bent, mangled, sheared, and snapped.

I also don't know how IT requires more assumptions. It makes the statement (you can read assumption if you want) that everything after Harby's beam is some kind of indoctrination hallucination. The pieces fall clearly from there.

Literal translation requires you to believe (accept the assumption) that Harbinger has pinpoint accuracy when vaporizing NPCs but can only hit 20yds in front of you. That your squadmates are fine, but didn't enter the beam. The citadel is magical and anderson can beat you to the console, despite entering the beam after you and without you seeing him even though there is only one entrance to that room. TIM can control you and anderson, even though the game explicitly tells you you have no control chip. That TIM has some incentive to convince shepard to believe in control. Believe all the nonsense the catalyst says. Believe that synthesis will combine organic/synthetic DNA, even though synthetics don't have DNA, and if they did a magic green beam would be sufficient to accomplish this. That you can control them even though TIM couldn't. That shepard (despite the catalyst's implications otherwise) survived destroy and an explosion big enough to create an 8km fireball and tear apart the citadel. That Joker just happened to conveniently land on a garden planet, with your two not so loyal and unharmed squadmates.

How is that less assumptions?

I will clarify if I didn't make it clear. TIM persuading Shephard would not mean instant indoctrination, however it could lead to him being more open to the suggestions of the Reapers further down the line (and so become indoctrinated)

Have you got a link for the leaked script? Just would like to see it

Ok you so believe the cables shows indoctrination? Their presence is symbolic of indoctrination there, yes? Now if they are truly only symbolic and wild thoughts of the imagination, then how come they exist in reality at the end on Earth when there are no other such cables around the beam? There weren't such cables before on Earth around the beam,. You can't hide from this, they are only found on the Citadel. And if they are symbolic of indoc., surely at the end, when indoc. has been rejected by Shep, the cables are exactly what you wouldn't have thought would be there since they are, as you say, would be a sign of indoctrination. Unless cables are indicative of being indoctrinated and not being indoctrinated.

Your belief that the ending is not meant to exist in some sort of known location is crazy. If you believe in IT, then Shephard has to be in London near the beam. Now BW can have some artistic license when it comes to those scenes, since what works in cutscenes doesn't always work in gameplay, however there is still enough evidence to make it very plausible that he wasn't in London then.

I don't know where that IT theorist is getting his figures (I would be interested to see the calculations but anyway). But even if there is only a small chance of Shep surviving, IT has absolutely no credible explanation for why Shep would dream of such a thing anyway. And Weekes has already said that you should assume that every plot-important character on the Citadel survives, and I guess you don't think that Shep wasn't plot important...

I don't remember us ever seeing Citadel rubble before in the ME Trilogy in a cutscene so we didn't know exactly what to expect. However, the manufactured nature of the rubble seems to indicate that it came from a building or structure and we know that where Shephard went unconscious was completely without buildings nearby (and I would argue BW did that deliberately so that people didn't think that the ending scene was on Earth) . Make your own conclusion

It's a game, what exactly do you expect when it comes to Harbinger's aim. It is like in a movie when the hero manages to shoot with pinpoint accuracy but the enemy can't shoot for s**t. Nothing should be read into it.

If you actually have look, there are other potential passages that Anderson could have taken to get to the beam. Also we don't know exactly what injuries Anderson sustained, Shephard looked bad and was limping and it is entirely possible that Anderson was in a much better state. Furthermore, the in game dialogue says that the walls are moving and he could have used a much quicker way to get to the console.

We have been told that TIM has acquired new power (remember his facility on Horizon, also the Cerberus base)

TIM has an incentive to get you to believe control is the only option because he wants reassurances that he wants is right. If he can persuade him that he is right, or even get Shep to do nothing, then he believes his aims will be closer to fulfillment.

The Catalyst does say some non-sensical things. However how exactly do you identify this as genuine evidence for IT or BW not thinking properly through it? You can't, it is impossible, and that is IT, like all conspiracy theorists, is illogical. You just assume that everything you hate in the ending is evidence for IT. I'm asserting that Shephard was actually transported to a parallel universe at the time, the Catalyst + co exist outside of this universe,is there genuinely more evidence for IT than that?

[M. Hanky]

Hawk227 wrote...

M. Hanky wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

M. Hanky wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Am I invisible? He's not indoctrinated yet! Until he/you adopts the reaper worldview (control/synthesis) he's not indoctrinated.

and this would be the only sound arguement made against this particular hole with IT overall, but it doesn't address the many other issues with IT.

Like?

PS: I'm going to bed, happy to address them tomorrow.

Everything that happens after his supposed indoctrination. What evidence is out there that the Normandy's crash landing is some ellaborate daydream of Shepard's hopes and dreams? It's far more likely that it's crappy writing. This thread is about pointing out plot holes in the IT. if you're going to bother to explain this one, please do so in a manner other than "it doesn't make sense that Joker's running away, IT is the ONLY explaination" because there's always another explaination.

I explained this earlier... in this thread... to your original query. Shepards mind doesn't know it was an hallucination. He thinks its all real. When he triggers his choice, his mind (maybe with reaper help?) gives him satisfaction and closure by showing him what he would expect to happen (the crucible firing, relays blowing up) but also what he hopes will happen (his friends surviving on a reaper free garden planet).

From a storytelling perspective, it does the same thing for the player (since it's really US being indoctrinated), but its filled with weird inconsistencies to put us off and get us thinking (joker abandoning the fight, with your two perfectly healthy squadmates who didn't go up the beam with you). These inconsistencies are literary breadcrumbs to get you thinking about what's really going on.

And once again you've completely failed to actually answer my "query" with any actual evidence. This right here is nothing more than simply stretching the one thing that makes NO SENSE with IT to make it make some kind of sense maybe. It doesn't work unless you have any kind of evidence to support it, or even some kind of precedent where Bioware did something similar earlier. Storytellers use foreshadowing to set the reader/viewer/player up for this kind of thing, and something as significant as Shepard hallucinating his ship crash-landing on some remote planet because he hopes it's true has no evidence whatsoever!

Modifié par M. Hanky, 17 avril 2012 - 12:31 .

[Hawk227]

M. Hanky wrote...

And once again you've completely failed to actually answer my "query" with any actual evidence. This right here is nothing more than simply stretching the one thing that makes NO SENSE with IT to make it make some kind of sense maybe. It doesn't work unless you have any kind of evidence to support it, or even some kind of precedent where Bioware did something similar earlier. Storytellers use foreshadowing to set the reader/viewer/player up for this kind of thing, and something as significant as Shepard hallucinating his ship crash-landing on some remote planet because he hopes it's true has no evidence whatsoever!

Well, then we're at an impasse. Because the literal ending can't explain it either. You specifically have conversations with Garrus and Joker about standing by you no matter what. So the forshadowing here would predict the opposite. Not to mention the lack of foreshadowing for anything else that happens once you meet the catalyst.

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...


I will clarify if I didn't make it clear. TIM persuading Shephard would not mean instant indoctrination, however it could lead to him being more open to the suggestions of the Reapers further down the line (and so become indoctrinated)

That still makes no sense

Have you got a link for the leaked script? Just would like to see it

Not at this time, if you google it you ought to be able to find it.

Ok you so believe the cables shows indoctrination? Their presence is symbolic of indoctrination there, yes? Now if they are truly only symbolic and wild thoughts of the imagination, then how come they exist in reality at the end on Earth when there are no other such cables around the beam? There weren't such cables before on Earth around the beam,. You can't hide from this, they are only found on the Citadel. And if they are symbolic of indoc., surely at the end, when indoc. has been rejected by Shep, the cables are exactly what you wouldn't have thought would be there since they are, as you say, would be a sign of indoctrination. Unless cables are indicative of being indoctrinated and not being indoctrinated.

Being symbolic and tangible are not mutually exclusive. The American flag exists in the real world as a piece of cloth with 13 red and white stripes and 50 white stars. Those features have a symbolic meaning to anyone that views it.

The cable is physically there, its an object that has its own associations tied to it. They are NOT only found on the citadel. They are ubiquitous where there are reapers, its possible there aren't any on the route to the beam, but you weren't actually wearing those N7 tags while talking to the catalyst either.

Your belief that the ending is not meant to exist in some sort of known location is crazy. If you believe in IT, then Shephard has to be in London near the beam. Now BW can have some artistic license when it comes to those scenes, since what works in cutscenes doesn't always work in gameplay, however there is still enough evidence to make it very plausible that he wasn't in London then.

I'll concede I didn't articulate that well. According to IT he wakes up in london, in some proximity to where he was hit by the harbingers blast. I just think that from a cinematic point of view, the lack of cables and clearly conspicuous piles of rubble in the run isn't a substantial flaw. You're welcome to disagree, but you're unlikely to persuade me.

It's completely implausible he's on the citadel, he was near the center of an 8km fireball! More on this in a second.

I don't know where that IT theorist is getting his figures (I would be interested to see the calculations but anyway). But even if there is only a small chance of Shep surviving, IT has absolutely no credible explanation for why Shep would dream of such a thing anyway. And Weekes has already said that you should assume that every plot-important character on the Citadel survives, and I guess you don't think that Shep wasn't plot important...

They got it from this. Looking at it again, I think 100 kilotons is an understatement. Something closer to 400 kilotons seems better. For added context the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a ~15 kiloton nuke. The fireball it created was a mere 370m in diameter. This is a tiny fraction the size of the blast on the citadel tower.

I don't know what you mean by shep dreaming such a thing?

You're ignoring important context to the weekes interview. The question was about when the reapers moved it (ie: could Aria and Bailey survived that process). He specified that the wards had special reinforced emergency bunkers. Shepard is not on the wards, he is not in a bunker, he IS in the middle of an 8km wide fireball. How did he survive?

I don't remember us ever seeing Citadel rubble before in the ME Trilogy in a cutscene so we didn't know exactly what to expect. However, the manufactured nature of the rubble seems to indicate that it came from a building or structure and we know that where Shephard went unconscious was completely without buildings nearby (and I would argue BW did that deliberately so that people didn't think that the ending scene was on Earth) . Make your own conclusion

There weren't buildings nearby anymore, because the reaper bulldozed them. The rest is cognitive dissonance. The citadel is made of some unknown resilient polymer. Why would you expect it to crumble like concrete. I would say that where shepard just was was engulfed in an 8km fireball and he didn't even have any armor anymore. BW wouldn't expect anyone to think he could survive that.

It's a game, what exactly do you expect when it comes to Harbinger's aim. It is like in a movie when the hero manages to shoot with pinpoint accuracy but the enemy can't shoot for s**t. Nothing should be read into it.

his aim was fine a half second ago when he was vaporizing anonymous marines at will. What changed?

If you actually have look, there are other potential passages that Anderson could have taken to get to the beam. Also we don't know exactly what injuries Anderson sustained, Shephard looked bad and was limping and it is entirely possible that Anderson was in a much better state. Furthermore, the in game dialogue says that the walls are moving and he could have used a much quicker way to get to the console.

NO. It appears there are more passages along the chasm. But precisely zero are connected to that room with the console. There is one entrance to that room. You walked through it. I think its clear he was unharmed, but there is only one route. Go to the top of the ramp and look for another entrance into that room. There is none.

We have been told that TIM has acquired new power (remember his facility on Horizon, also the Cerberus base)

TIM has an incentive to get you to believe control is the only option because he wants reassurances that he wants is right. If he can persuade him that he is right, or even get Shep to do nothing, then he believes his aims will be closer to fulfillment.

The experiments on Sanctuary were about subverting the frequencies reapers use to command their ground forces. Unless Shepard and Anderson were husks, it wouldn't work on them.

He seems pretty darn sure he's right. He's been undermining you all game. Why bother with you now, why not just kill you? He said shepard is no longer useful. Now your just making stuff up. How is this different than what you accuse me of?

The Catalyst does say some non-sensical things. However how exactly do you identify this as genuine evidence for IT or BW not thinking properly through it? You can't, it is impossible, and that is IT, like all conspiracy theorists, is illogical. You just assume that everything you hate in the ending is evidence for IT. I'm asserting that Shephard was actually transported to a parallel universe at the time, the Catalyst + co exist outside of this universe,is there genuinely more evidence for IT than that?

Because Bioware are professional storytellers. They know how to and not to tell a story. This is apparent in the entire rest of the series. You don't change the conflict at the last second. You don't use the ending to negate the journey. These are basic rules of storytelling. But the ending did that. Over and over again. The journey intentionally allowed you to befriend EDI and the Geth, the Journey intentionally had Joker and Garrus tell you they would follow you into hell, the journey intentionally told you that an exploding relay resulted in a supernova, and everything that happened once you went up that magic elevator negated those things and more.

Is there more evidence for IT that that? Are you trolling me? Yes there is, it's called ME1-ME3. Special mentions for Saren, Benezia, Virmire, Dead Reaper in ME2, Arrival, Geth Consensus, Harbinger's taunts, Oily shadows, the codex, rana thanoptis, TIM, Vigil, Vendetta, Javik. And that was just off the top of my head, and ignored everything that happened after Harbinger's beam. Indoctrination is a hugely prevalent plot point throughout the series. All your major antagonists have succumbed to one extent or another. Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it?

Modifié par Hawk227, 17 avril 2012 - 05:45 .

[llbountyhunter]

SirBob1613 wrote...

Shepard couldnt have been indcoctrinated the entire game maybe the ending part thats it. When you go to Thessia and you are speaking to the Prothean Ai or Vi thing the thing acutally spoke to you but when Chiang Yang or whatever his name showed up it said Indoctination presense detected then shut off it would have detected if shepard was in the process of indoctrination

yeah because the protheans have perfect indoctrination detectors right? I mean its not like the were infiltradted from within by indoctrinated people that led to their collapse.....

oh wait.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 17 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[KevShep]

M. Hanky wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

M. Hanky wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

M. Hanky wrote...

Hawk227 wrote...

Am I invisible? He's not indoctrinated yet! Until he/you adopts the reaper worldview (control/synthesis) he's not indoctrinated.

and this would be the only sound arguement made against this particular hole with IT overall, but it doesn't address the many other issues with IT.

Like?

PS: I'm going to bed, happy to address them tomorrow.

Everything that happens after his supposed indoctrination. What evidence is out there that the Normandy's crash landing is some ellaborate daydream of Shepard's hopes and dreams? It's far more likely that it's crappy writing. This thread is about pointing out plot holes in the IT. if you're going to bother to explain this one, please do so in a manner other than "it doesn't make sense that Joker's running away, IT is the ONLY explaination" because there's always another explaination.

I explained this earlier... in this thread... to your original query. Shepards mind doesn't know it was an hallucination. He thinks its all real. When he triggers his choice, his mind (maybe with reaper help?) gives him satisfaction and closure by showing him what he would expect to happen (the crucible firing, relays blowing up) but also what he hopes will happen (his friends surviving on a reaper free garden planet).

From a storytelling perspective, it does the same thing for the player (since it's really US being indoctrinated), but its filled with weird inconsistencies to put us off and get us thinking (joker abandoning the fight, with your two perfectly healthy squadmates who didn't go up the beam with you). These inconsistencies are literary breadcrumbs to get you thinking about what's really going on.

And once again you've completely failed to actually answer my "query" with any actual evidence. This right here is nothing more than simply stretching the one thing that makes NO SENSE with IT to make it make some kind of sense maybe. It doesn't work unless you have any kind of evidence to support it, or even some kind of precedent where Bioware did something similar earlier. Storytellers use foreshadowing to set the reader/viewer/player up for this kind of thing, and something as significant as Shepard hallucinating his ship crash-landing on some remote planet because he hopes it's true has no evidence whatsoever!

To answer your question about why do we have the cut scenes after I.T. (like the normandy crash) is because you cant indoctrinate YOUR shepard without making the PLAYER think they are NOT indoctrinated....Thats how indoctrination works!

BTW..did you know that you can hear Shepard's voice wispering in the back ground of the catalyst's voice? Shepard is saying everything that the catalyst is saying! You HAVE to use headphones to hear it and you can only have one in at a time...Right ear piece is Maleshep and left ear piece is femshep. You cant really hear it at the start but as you go on you can hear it more and more clearly.

[dreman9999]

tute wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...



Nonetheless, inserting a fully-formed hallucination still seems very invasive for a beginning thought pattern, don't you think?

But it's a subconcious thought pattern. It's not one that directly inflence's Shep's advance thought patterns. It's subtle...Like what indoctrination is decribed to be.

An example would be the cerberus scientists on the derelict reaper. They both have the same memories and same dreams about a wedding that they believe they experienced. At that moment they still had full control of themselves, but were being influenced by the reaper.

That's still  subconcious thought patterns.

Modifié par dreman9999, 17 avril 2012 - 03:36 .

[SubAstris]

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...


I will clarify if I didn't make it clear. TIM persuading Shephard would not mean instant indoctrination, however it could lead to him being more open to the suggestions of the Reapers further down the line (and so become indoctrinated) [/quote]

That still makes no sense

[quote]Have you got a link for the leaked script? Just would like to see it[/quote]

Not at this time, if you google it you ought to be able to find it.

[quote]
Ok you so believe the cables shows indoctrination? Their presence is symbolic of indoctrination there, yes? Now if they are truly only symbolic and wild thoughts of the imagination, then how come they exist in reality at the end on Earth when there are no other such cables around the beam? There weren't such cables before on Earth around the beam,. You can't hide from this, they are only found on the Citadel. And if they are symbolic of indoc., surely at the end, when indoc. has been rejected by Shep, the cables are exactly what you wouldn't have thought would be there since they are, as you say, would be a sign of indoctrination. Unless cables are indicative of being indoctrinated and not being indoctrinated. [/quote]

Being symbolic and tangible are not mutually exclusive. The American flag exists in the real world as a piece of cloth with 13 red and white stripes and 50 white stars. Those features have a symbolic meaning to anyone that views it.

The cable is physically there, its an object that has its own associations tied to it. They are NOT only found on the citadel. They are ubiquitous where there are reapers, its possible there aren't any on the route to the beam, but you weren't actually wearing those N7 tags while talking to the catalyst either.

[quote]Your belief that the ending is not meant to exist in some sort of known location is crazy. If you believe in IT, then Shephard has to be in London near the beam. Now BW can have some artistic license when it comes to those scenes, since what works in cutscenes doesn't always work in gameplay, however there is still enough evidence to make it very plausible that he wasn't in London then.[/quote]

I'll concede I didn't articulate that well. According to IT he wakes up in london, in some proximity to where he was hit by the harbingers blast. I just think that from a cinematic point of view, the lack of cables and clearly conspicuous piles of rubble in the run isn't a substantial flaw. You're welcome to disagree, but you're unlikely to persuade me.

It's completely implausible he's on the citadel, he was near the center of an 8km fireball! More on this in a second.

[quote]I don't know where that IT theorist is getting his figures (I would be interested to see the calculations but anyway). But even if there is only a small chance of Shep surviving, IT has absolutely no credible explanation for why Shep would dream of such a thing anyway. And Weekes has already said that you should assume that every plot-important character on the Citadel survives, and I guess you don't think that Shep wasn't plot important...[/quote]

They got it from this. Looking at it again, I think 100 kilotons is an understatement. Something closer to 400 kilotons seems better. For added context the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a ~15 kiloton nuke. The fireball it created was a mere 370m in diameter. This is a tiny fraction the size of the blast on the citadel tower.

I don't know what you mean by shep dreaming such a thing?

You're ignoring important context to the weekes interview. The question was about when the reapers moved it (ie: could Aria and Bailey survived that process). He specified that the wards had special reinforced emergency bunkers. Shepard is not on the wards, he is not in a bunker, he IS in the middle of an 8km wide fireball. How did he survive?

[quote]I don't remember us ever seeing Citadel rubble before in the ME Trilogy in a cutscene so we didn't know exactly what to expect. However, the manufactured nature of the rubble seems to indicate that it came from a building or structure and we know that where Shephard went unconscious was completely without buildings nearby (and I would argue BW did that deliberately so that people didn't think that the ending scene was on Earth) . Make your own conclusion[/quote]

There weren't buildings nearby anymore, because the reaper bulldozed them. The rest is cognitive dissonance. The citadel is made of some unknown resilient polymer. Why would you expect it to crumble like concrete. I would say that where shepard just was was engulfed in an 8km fireball and he didn't even have any armor anymore. BW wouldn't expect anyone to think he could survive that.

[quote]It's a game, what exactly do you expect when it comes to Harbinger's aim. It is like in a movie when the hero manages to shoot with pinpoint accuracy but the enemy can't shoot for s**t. Nothing should be read into it.[/quote] his aim was fine a half second ago when he was vaporizing anonymous marines at will. What changed?

[quote]If you actually have look, there are other potential passages that Anderson could have taken to get to the beam. Also we don't know exactly what injuries Anderson sustained, Shephard looked bad and was limping and it is entirely possible that Anderson was in a much better state. Furthermore, the in game dialogue says that the walls are moving and he could have used a much quicker way to get to the console.[/quote]

NO. It appears there are more passages along the chasm. But precisely zero are connected to that room with the console. There is one entrance to that room. You walked through it. I think its clear he was unharmed, but there is only one route. Go to the top of the ramp and look for another entrance into that room. There is none.

[quote] We have been told that TIM has acquired new power (remember his facility on Horizon, also the Cerberus base)

TIM has an incentive to get you to believe control is the only option because he wants reassurances that he wants is right. If he can persuade him that he is right, or even get Shep to do nothing, then he believes his aims will be closer to fulfillment.[/quote]

The experiments on Sanctuary were about subverting the frequencies reapers use to command their ground forces. Unless Shepard and Anderson were husks, it wouldn't work on them.

He seems pretty darn sure he's right. He's been undermining you all game. Why bother with you now, why not just kill you? He said shepard is no longer useful. Now your just making stuff up. How is this different than what you accuse me of?

[quote]The Catalyst does say some non-sensical things. However how exactly do you identify this as genuine evidence for IT or BW not thinking properly through it? You can't, it is impossible, and that is IT, like all conspiracy theorists, is illogical. You just assume that everything you hate in the ending is evidence for IT. I'm asserting that Shephard was actually transported to a parallel universe at the time, the Catalyst + co exist outside of this universe,is there genuinely more evidence for IT than that?[/quote]

Because Bioware are professional storytellers. They know how to and not to tell a story. This is apparent in the entire rest of the series. You don't change the conflict at the last second. You don't use the ending to negate the journey. These are basic rules of storytelling. But the ending did that. Over and over again. The journey intentionally allowed you to befriend EDI and the Geth, the Journey intentionally had Joker and Garrus tell you they would follow you into hell, the journey intentionally told you that an exploding relay resulted in a supernova, and everything that happened once you went up that magic elevator negated those things and more.

Is there more evidence for IT that that? Are you trolling me? Yes there is, it's called ME1-ME3. Special mentions for Saren, Benezia, Virmire, Dead Reaper in ME2, Arrival, Geth Consensus, Harbinger's taunts, Oily shadows, the codex, rana thanoptis, TIM, Vigil, Vendetta, Javik. And that was just off the top of my head, and ignored everything that happened after Harbinger's beam. Indoctrination is a hugely prevalent plot point throughout the series. All your major antagonists have succumbed to one extent or another. Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it?
[/quote]



That's not my problem. I have clarified it in the simplest terms possible.



The fact is that the Dark Endings weren't ever in the leaked ending, the
endings that we got were always going to be. So there was never any change, IT
wasn't a last minute gamble as you say, but must, if true, have been planned
out for a long time (as I expected). Yet they never included a true ending,
which they would have cleared time for if there was one. And before you say,
"they are going to release it later", you realise that this goes
against every marketing tip in the book? It makes little financial sense nor
does anything else except annoy your audience. I know you keep on sweeping
these things criticisms away as if they are nothing, but the actions of BW seem
to contradict IT somewhat, don't they?



You miss the point, yes they are not only found on the Citadel, that is not the
point I'm making, merely the fact that they are nowhere to be seen in London
and there is frankly no good reason for the placement there without BW giving
us a hint that he actually is on the Citadel where those cables are last
prominent. True we don't find N7 tags either, however it has been firmly
established that N7=Shepard, which has been not been the case for cables. They are often around when indoctrination is occuring, however that doesn't cement them as a symbolic of the whole process. So what exactly do the cables symbolise in your opinion on London? Why did BW put it in, to make it look pretty?

For someone who thrives on symbolism and picking up on every detail during the last ten minutes, you sure do become more slapdash when analysing things which don't fit your theory, a bit like the mass relays destroyed, or Stargazer? It seems as though you applying different methods of analysis to suit IT rather than take in all the evidence.

Next you would be saying that the fact that there is no fire in space means that the Citadel "fireball", as you call it, couldn't have happened and was all a dream!

Dreaming about the Mass Relays exploding, the Citadel exploding, Joker's escape, why exactly would Shep dream these things?

I'm getting my info straight from Unofficial Interivew Thread. The question is, "Did anyone on the Citadel", the answer to which is "you should assume that every plot-important (character) on the Citadel survives". There is no indication  (if had wished to clarify what he said about the Citadel he could have tweeted about and it seems he did on issues on which he thought he was misquoted) it was about when the Reapers moved, you are either misrememerbing or making it up.

We don't know how exactly the Citadel material would react to such an event, you and me can only guess.

Give me any game and I will give examples with things like that. You are simply confusing a game mechanic with evidence of indoctrination theory, you are twisting facts that can be explained away easily to fit IT.

You say precisely zero are connected. That is an obvious falsehood. If you look back from the top of the stairs, there are more passages from which it is possible to reach the console, there is no blocked way. Furthermore, don't forget the moving walls (which IT conveniently forgets)
 
You know my position on TIM...

The ending was bad (although I think some of the criticism is unfair and people do like to exaggerate for their own personal reasons). Literally you are right with the EDI/Geth thing, . I don't see how this is evidence for IT rather than evidence of a bad ending. You just choose to believe that it is not out of any rational cause.

If you read Weekes' interview, he addresses the "supernova mass relay" thing, saying that the mass relays overloaded and weren't destroyed Arrival-esque. This wasn't made clear, but according to Weekes, BW didn't realise people would make that connection. Now, I don't want to make too much out of this comment, but it does seem to indicate that BW didn't put as much thought into the ending as many IT theorists would have you believe. Furthermore, if it truly was all a dream, why would Weekes comment in such a way? Whether the mass relays blew up or were destroyed, it doesn't matter if it were all a dream? I would like to see your response to this.

Ok, just spouting names is not sufficient. If you want to persuade people write a cogent argument for them


The question," Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it" always seems to miss the point in the same way that a 9/11 truther does when he says "Why trust the US government's account?". I just find insufficient for the indoctrination, that is all

Modifié par SubAstris, 17 avril 2012 - 12:44 .

[rachellouise]

There's not really much point. it sort of goes like this..

"How did Hackett know there was anyone to contact?"
"the citadel arms just opened, so that was a big clue."
"yeah, but how did Hackett know there was anyone to contact"

[SubAstris]

rachellouise wrote...

There's not really much point. it sort of goes like this..

"How did Hackett know there was anyone to contact?"
"the citadel arms just opened, so that was a big clue."
"yeah, but how did Hackett know there was anyone to contact"

Conspiracy theorists believe what they want to believe...

[Cazychel]

The problems with IT:

It is unfalsifiable: Nothing said in IT can be disproven, because everything can be explained. And thus it is not really debateable, it is a valid interpretation of the ending, though.

It is endless: If Shepard is indoctrinated, how would you know he is not after choosing destroy. It could be multiple layers of indoctrination. So in IT you could never be sure the ending you got was real.

Also it might originate in the statement Bioware themselve made, when pointing out that they experimented with a section where Shepard was indoctrinated but dropped that due to issues with the game engine and dialogue options.

[SubAstris]

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...


I will clarify if I didn't make it clear. TIM persuading Shephard would not mean instant indoctrination, however it could lead to him being more open to the suggestions of the Reapers further down the line (and so become indoctrinated) [/quote]

That still makes no sense

[quote]Have you got a link for the leaked script? Just would like to see it[/quote]

Not at this time, if you google it you ought to be able to find it.

[quote]
Ok you so believe the cables shows indoctrination? Their presence is symbolic of indoctrination there, yes? Now if they are truly only symbolic and wild thoughts of the imagination, then how come they exist in reality at the end on Earth when there are no other such cables around the beam? There weren't such cables before on Earth around the beam,. You can't hide from this, they are only found on the Citadel. And if they are symbolic of indoc., surely at the end, when indoc. has been rejected by Shep, the cables are exactly what you wouldn't have thought would be there since they are, as you say, would be a sign of indoctrination. Unless cables are indicative of being indoctrinated and not being indoctrinated. [/quote]

Being symbolic and tangible are not mutually exclusive. The American flag exists in the real world as a piece of cloth with 13 red and white stripes and 50 white stars. Those features have a symbolic meaning to anyone that views it.

The cable is physically there, its an object that has its own associations tied to it. They are NOT only found on the citadel. They are ubiquitous where there are reapers, its possible there aren't any on the route to the beam, but you weren't actually wearing those N7 tags while talking to the catalyst either.

[quote]Your belief that the ending is not meant to exist in some sort of known location is crazy. If you believe in IT, then Shephard has to be in London near the beam. Now BW can have some artistic license when it comes to those scenes, since what works in cutscenes doesn't always work in gameplay, however there is still enough evidence to make it very plausible that he wasn't in London then.[/quote]

I'll concede I didn't articulate that well. According to IT he wakes up in london, in some proximity to where he was hit by the harbingers blast. I just think that from a cinematic point of view, the lack of cables and clearly conspicuous piles of rubble in the run isn't a substantial flaw. You're welcome to disagree, but you're unlikely to persuade me.

It's completely implausible he's on the citadel, he was near the center of an 8km fireball! More on this in a second.

[quote]I don't know where that IT theorist is getting his figures (I would be interested to see the calculations but anyway). But even if there is only a small chance of Shep surviving, IT has absolutely no credible explanation for why Shep would dream of such a thing anyway. And Weekes has already said that you should assume that every plot-important character on the Citadel survives, and I guess you don't think that Shep wasn't plot important...[/quote]

They got it from this. Looking at it again, I think 100 kilotons is an understatement. Something closer to 400 kilotons seems better. For added context the bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a ~15 kiloton nuke. The fireball it created was a mere 370m in diameter. This is a tiny fraction the size of the blast on the citadel tower.

I don't know what you mean by shep dreaming such a thing?

You're ignoring important context to the weekes interview. The question was about when the reapers moved it (ie: could Aria and Bailey survived that process). He specified that the wards had special reinforced emergency bunkers. Shepard is not on the wards, he is not in a bunker, he IS in the middle of an 8km wide fireball. How did he survive?

[quote]I don't remember us ever seeing Citadel rubble before in the ME Trilogy in a cutscene so we didn't know exactly what to expect. However, the manufactured nature of the rubble seems to indicate that it came from a building or structure and we know that where Shephard went unconscious was completely without buildings nearby (and I would argue BW did that deliberately so that people didn't think that the ending scene was on Earth) . Make your own conclusion[/quote]

There weren't buildings nearby anymore, because the reaper bulldozed them. The rest is cognitive dissonance. The citadel is made of some unknown resilient polymer. Why would you expect it to crumble like concrete. I would say that where shepard just was was engulfed in an 8km fireball and he didn't even have any armor anymore. BW wouldn't expect anyone to think he could survive that.

[quote]It's a game, what exactly do you expect when it comes to Harbinger's aim. It is like in a movie when the hero manages to shoot with pinpoint accuracy but the enemy can't shoot for s**t. Nothing should be read into it.[/quote] his aim was fine a half second ago when he was vaporizing anonymous marines at will. What changed?

[quote]If you actually have look, there are other potential passages that Anderson could have taken to get to the beam. Also we don't know exactly what injuries Anderson sustained, Shephard looked bad and was limping and it is entirely possible that Anderson was in a much better state. Furthermore, the in game dialogue says that the walls are moving and he could have used a much quicker way to get to the console.[/quote]

NO. It appears there are more passages along the chasm. But precisely zero are connected to that room with the console. There is one entrance to that room. You walked through it. I think its clear he was unharmed, but there is only one route. Go to the top of the ramp and look for another entrance into that room. There is none.

[quote] We have been told that TIM has acquired new power (remember his facility on Horizon, also the Cerberus base)

TIM has an incentive to get you to believe control is the only option because he wants reassurances that he wants is right. If he can persuade him that he is right, or even get Shep to do nothing, then he believes his aims will be closer to fulfillment.[/quote]

The experiments on Sanctuary were about subverting the frequencies reapers use to command their ground forces. Unless Shepard and Anderson were husks, it wouldn't work on them.

He seems pretty darn sure he's right. He's been undermining you all game. Why bother with you now, why not just kill you? He said shepard is no longer useful. Now your just making stuff up. How is this different than what you accuse me of?

[quote]The Catalyst does say some non-sensical things. However how exactly do you identify this as genuine evidence for IT or BW not thinking properly through it? You can't, it is impossible, and that is IT, like all conspiracy theorists, is illogical. You just assume that everything you hate in the ending is evidence for IT. I'm asserting that Shephard was actually transported to a parallel universe at the time, the Catalyst + co exist outside of this universe,is there genuinely more evidence for IT than that?[/quote]

Because Bioware are professional storytellers. They know how to and not to tell a story. This is apparent in the entire rest of the series. You don't change the conflict at the last second. You don't use the ending to negate the journey. These are basic rules of storytelling. But the ending did that. Over and over again. The journey intentionally allowed you to befriend EDI and the Geth, the Journey intentionally had Joker and Garrus tell you they would follow you into hell, the journey intentionally told you that an exploding relay resulted in a supernova, and everything that happened once you went up that magic elevator negated those things and more.

Is there more evidence for IT that that? Are you trolling me? Yes there is, it's called ME1-ME3. Special mentions for Saren, Benezia, Virmire, Dead Reaper in ME2, Arrival, Geth Consensus, Harbinger's taunts, Oily shadows, the codex, rana thanoptis, TIM, Vigil, Vendetta, Javik. And that was just off the top of my head, and ignored everything that happened after Harbinger's beam. Indoctrination is a hugely prevalent plot point throughout the series. All your major antagonists have succumbed to one extent or another. Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it?
[/quote]



That's not my problem. I have clarified it in the simplest terms possible.



The fact is that the Dark Endings weren't ever in the leaked ending, the
endings that we got were always going to be. So there was never any change, IT
wasn't a last minute gamble as you say, but must, if true, have been planned
out for a long time (as I expected). Yet they never included a true ending,
which they would have cleared time for if there was one. And before you say,
"they are going to release it later", you realise that this goes
against every marketing tip in the book? It makes little financial sense nor
does anything else except annoy your audience. I know you keep on sweeping
these things criticisms away as if they are nothing, but the actions of BW seem
to contradict IT somewhat, don't they?



You miss the point, yes they are not only found on the Citadel, that is not the
point I'm making, merely the fact that they are nowhere to be seen in London
and there is frankly no good reason for the placement there without BW giving
us a hint that he actually is on the Citadel where those cables are last
prominent. True we don't find N7 tags either, however it has been firmly
established that N7=Shepard, which has been not been the case for cables. They are often around when indoctrination is occuring, however that doesn't cement them as a symbolic of the whole process. So what exactly do the cables symbolise in your opinion on London? Why did BW put it in, to make it look pretty?

For someone who thrives on symbolism and picking up on every detail during the last ten minutes, you sure do become more slapdash when analysing things which don't fit your theory, a bit like the mass relays destroyed, or Stargazer? It seems as though you applying different methods of analysis to suit IT rather than take in all the evidence.

Next you would be saying that the fact that there is no fire in space means that the Citadel "fireball", as you call it, couldn't have happened and was all a dream!

Dreaming about the Mass Relays exploding, the Citadel exploding, Joker's escape, why exactly would Shep dream these things?

I'm getting my info straight from Unofficial Interivew Thread. The question is, "Did anyone on the Citadel", the answer to which is "you should assume that every plot-important (character) on the Citadel survives". There is no indication  (if had wished to clarify what he said about the Citadel he could have tweeted about and it seems he did on issues on which he thought he was misquoted) it was about when the Reapers moved, you are either misrememerbing or making it up.

We don't know how exactly the Citadel material would react to such an event, you and me can only guess.

Give me any game and I will give examples with things like that. You are simply confusing a game mechanic with evidence of indoctrination theory, you are twisting facts that can be explained away easily to fit IT.

You say precisely zero are connected. That is an obvious falsehood. If you look back from the top of the stairs, there are more passages from which it is possible to reach the console, there is no blocked way. Furthermore, don't forget the moving walls (which IT conveniently forgets)
 
You know my position on TIM...

The ending was bad (although I think some of the criticism is unfair and people do like to exaggerate for their own personal reasons). Literally you are right with the EDI/Geth thing, . I don't see how this is evidence for IT rather than evidence of a bad ending. You just choose to believe that it is not out of any rational cause.

If you read Weekes' interview, he addresses the "supernova mass relay" thing, saying that the mass relays overloaded and weren't destroyed Arrival-esque. This wasn't made clear, but according to Weekes, BW didn't realise people would make that connection. Now, I don't want to make too much out of this comment, but it does seem to indicate that BW didn't put as much thought into the ending as many IT theorists would have you believe. Furthermore, if it truly was all a dream, why would Weekes comment in such a way? Whether the mass relays blew up or were destroyed, it doesn't matter if it were all a dream? I would like to see your response to this.

Ok, just spouting names is not sufficient. If you want to persuade people write a cogent argument for them. Why don't you provide your best 5 evidences for IT, and let's see if they can't genuinely be answered through alternative means


The question," Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it" always seems to miss the point in the same way that a 9/11 truther does when he says "Why trust the US government's account?". I just find insufficient for the indoctrination, that is all





[/quote]

[balance5050]

 
The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

  

 

Also, the white light "dream transition effect is very telling that the ending could be a combination of a dream and being somehow mentally linked to some reaper somehow.


Dreams
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

  
Shepard in Geth consensus



The ending

  

Also, look at Shepards eyes when he chooses either control or synthesize

 


Reposting for justice

[SubAstris]

balance5050 wrote...

 
The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

  

 

Also, the white light "dream transition effect is very telling that the ending could be a combination of a dream and being somehow mentally linked to some reaper somehow.


Dreams
http://desmond.image...jpg&res=landing

  
Shepard in Geth consensus



The ending

  

Also, look at Shepards eyes when he chooses either control or synthesize

 


Reposting for justice

I am only relaying what BW (you know, the ones who write the lore) have said. Your pictures show nothing by themselve. The white effect is used time and time again in games and movies. Move along, nothing to see here

[Hawk227]

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

That's not my problem. I have clarified it in the simplest terms possible. [/quote]

This is how I feel about 90% of your post. For some reason I'm still responding to most of it.



[quote]The fact is that the Dark Endings weren't ever in the leaked ending, the
endings that we got were always going to be. So there was never any change, IT
wasn't a last minute gamble as you say, but must, if true, have been planned
out for a long time (as I expected). Yet they never included a true ending,
which they would have cleared time for if there was one. And before you say,
"they are going to release it later", you realise that this goes
against every marketing tip in the book? It makes little financial sense nor
does anything else except annoy your audience. I know you keep on sweeping
these things criticisms away as if they are nothing, but the actions of BW seem
to contradict IT somewhat, don't they?[/quote]

1) yes they were, that's how people know about them. 2) We've been over this. IT annoying the audience and is bad for business is not a a counter argument. They've accomplished that in spades with the literal ending, right here right now. At least with IT a subset of the people that are pissed will forgive them in the summer.



[quote]You miss the point, yes they are not only found on the Citadel, that is not the
point I'm making, merely the fact that they are nowhere to be seen in London
and there is frankly no good reason for the placement there without BW giving
us a hint that he actually is on the Citadel where those cables are last
prominent. True we don't find N7 tags either, however it has been firmly
established that N7=Shepard, which has been not been the case for cables. They are often around when indoctrination is occuring, however that doesn't cement them as a symbolic of the whole process. So what exactly do the cables symbolise in your opinion on London? Why did BW put it in, to make it look pretty?[/quote]

No, You missed the point. Maybe you don't understand what symbolism means? Those cables are NOT prominent on the citadel, at least no where close to where shepard would be after that (8km wide!) explosion. The N7 tags and reaper cables are literally, physically there in the end (despite neither being there before) for the purpose of eliciting an understanding from the player. N7 = Shepard. Cables = Indoctrination. With two objects they just told you what happened.

[quote]For someone who thrives on symbolism and picking up on every detail during the last ten minutes, you sure do become more slapdash when analysing things which don't fit your theory, a bit like the mass relays destroyed, or Stargazer? It seems as though you applying different methods of analysis to suit IT rather than take in all the evidence.

Next you would be saying that the fact that there is no fire in space means that the Citadel "fireball", as you call it, couldn't have happened and was all a dream!

Dreaming about the Mass Relays exploding, the Citadel exploding, Joker's escape, why exactly would Shep dream these things?[/quote]

No, this is scifi. Sci Fi always has fireballs in space. I've long since gotten over it. The mass relays are destroyed in the cinematic because the Harbinger (the space ghost kid) tells you they are. I can't explain stargazer, fine. You can't explain any of it without falling back on "bioware is lazy".

He's imagining Joker's escape because he wants the people he cares about to be safe and at peace. Random garden world practically screams "eden".



[quote]I'm getting my info straight from Unofficial Interivew Thread. The question is, "Did anyone on the Citadel", the answer to which is "you should assume that every plot-important (character) on the Citadel survives". There is no indication  (if had wished to clarify what he said about the Citadel he could have tweeted about and it seems he did on issues on which he thought he was misquoted) it was about when the Reapers moved, you are either misrememerbing or making it up.[/quote]

Fail. You should try a little harder next time. Here is that thread. I've copied the relevant part below:

[quote] Patrick weekes paraphrased...

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?Did anyone on the Citadel survive?
-Did anyone on the Citadel Survive

Yes.
We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay,
that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died.
The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it
blows up, millions might survive.  You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.  [/quote]

I'm not sure where I saw the context in regards to moving the citadel. Must have been twitter. That was,however, the least important aspect of my argument though, so I don't care.

[quote]We don't know how exactly the Citadel material would react to such an event, you and me can only guess. [/quote]

That's not my problem, I've clarified it in the simplest terms.


[quote]Give me any game and I will give examples with things like that. You are simply confusing a game mechanic with evidence of indoctrination theory, you are twisting facts that can be explained away easily to fit IT. [/quote]

This isn't evidence for IT, I was countering something you said 3 or 4 posts ago. It was evidence against whatever your claim was. We can drop it.

[quote]You say precisely zero are connected. That is an obvious falsehood. If you look back from the top of the stairs, there are more passages from which it is possible to reach the console, there is no blocked way. Furthermore, don't forget the moving walls (which IT conveniently forgets)[/quote]

There are other walkways in the chasm. Yes. None of them connect to the console room.  There is only one access point to the console room. You walk through it. You are on the walkway at the same time Anderson says he's on the walkway. Even if there was a magical invisible door on an adjacent walkway, you should be able to see him. You can't. This entire sequence isn't possible.
 
[quote]You know my position on TIM...[/quote]

Yes. It makes no sense.

[quote]The ending was bad (although I think some of the criticism is unfair and people do like to exaggerate for their own personal reasons). Literally you are right with the EDI/Geth thing, . I don't see how this is evidence for IT rather than evidence of a bad ending. You just choose to believe that it is not out of any rational cause. [/quote]

Because they are clearly capable of much better. The endings aren't kind of bad. They're terrible. There's no reason to think BW is capable of this level of incompetence. It doesn't prove anything, but it ought to make you a little suspicious.

[quote]If you read Weekes' interview, he addresses the "supernova mass relay" thing, saying that the mass relays overloaded and weren't destroyed Arrival-esque. This wasn't made clear, but according to Weekes, BW didn't realise people would make that connection. Now, I don't want to make too much out of this comment, but it does seem to indicate that BW didn't put as much thought into the ending as many IT theorists would have you believe. Furthermore, if it truly was all a dream, why would Weekes comment in such a way? Whether the mass relays blew up or were destroyed, it doesn't matter if it were all a dream? I would like to see your response to this.[/quote]

They didn't think the fans would make the connection? Arrival was the tie-in between ME2 and ME3. The Batarians mention you blowing up Aratoht 2 or 3 times in ME3. They worked on it and ME3 simultaneously. Why wouldn't they think we'd make the connection? 

Bioware has said they wanted speculation. They don't want to be prescriptive. If Weekes is asked why the relays don't go supernova, he can't very well say "because it was all in his head!" because that would be prescriptive. So he responds as though it was hypothetical.



[quote]Ok, just spouting names is not sufficient. If you want to persuade people write a cogent argument for them[/quote]

If you played the games then you know the significance of all of those people or events. You asked me if I had better evidence for IT than your alternate universe, I gave you a list. That list should have a meaning to you. If it doesn't than I don't know why we're even having this conversation.


[quoteThe question," Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it" always seems to miss the point in the same way that a 9/11 truther does when he says "Why trust the US government's account?". I just find insufficient for the indoctrination, that is all.[/quote]

Bringing in the truthers, huh? How long till your envoking godwin's law?

I'm describing a prominent element in the game that many prominent characters succumb to and saying "is it so crazy the devs might want to expose the player to it?". Answer: no its not. The Final Hours app says they did.

You find everything insufficient for indoctrination. I'm still waiting for an answer on how Shepard survived an 8km wide fireball that he was in the middle of. Answer: He can't! He wasn't on the Citadel. If he wasn't on the citadel, what was that whole 20 minutes "on the citadel" about?

If you want the evidence for IT, look it up. Why are you even debating this if you don't know the basics?

Modifié par Hawk227, 17 avril 2012 - 08:00 .

[Hawk227]

balance5050 wrote...

 
The evidence is that he wakes up amongst concrete rubble after just being in the middle of this:

 

This. A thousand times this. The other pictures are compelling. This is irrefutable. 8+km wide fireball! Hiroshima's fireball was 22x smaller than that.

[DJBare]

Wow, such a long and complex debate when the first problem is Shepard getting up after being hit by harby, no armor, only a pistol, radio still functioning despite armor being incinerated, no HUD for access to biotics or tech powers, no omnitool which is a holographic device.

The brain power in this thread is enough to burn off armor, there are two possibilities, a dream, OR Bioware screwed up the writing, after the last two games, I find the latter hard to accept.

[SubAstris]

[quote]Hawk227 wrote...

[quote]SubAstris wrote...

That's not my problem. I have clarified it in the simplest terms possible. [/quote]

This is how I feel about 90% of your post. For some reason I'm still responding to most of it.



[quote]The fact is that the Dark Endings weren't ever in the leaked ending, the
endings that we got were always going to be. So there was never any change, IT
wasn't a last minute gamble as you say, but must, if true, have been planned
out for a long time (as I expected). Yet they never included a true ending,
which they would have cleared time for if there was one. And before you say,
"they are going to release it later", you realise that this goes
against every marketing tip in the book? It makes little financial sense nor
does anything else except annoy your audience. I know you keep on sweeping
these things criticisms away as if they are nothing, but the actions of BW seem
to contradict IT somewhat, don't they?[/quote]

1) yes they were, that's how people know about them. 2) We've been over this. IT annoying the audience and is bad for business is not a a counter argument. They've accomplished that in spades with the literal ending, right here right now. At least with IT a subset of the people that are pissed will forgive them in the summer.



[quote]You miss the point, yes they are not only found on the Citadel, that is not the
point I'm making, merely the fact that they are nowhere to be seen in London
and there is frankly no good reason for the placement there without BW giving
us a hint that he actually is on the Citadel where those cables are last
prominent. True we don't find N7 tags either, however it has been firmly
established that N7=Shepard, which has been not been the case for cables. They are often around when indoctrination is occuring, however that doesn't cement them as a symbolic of the whole process. So what exactly do the cables symbolise in your opinion on London? Why did BW put it in, to make it look pretty?[/quote]

No, You missed the point. Maybe you don't understand what symbolism means? Those cables are NOT prominent on the citadel, at least no where close to where shepard would be after that (8km wide!) explosion. The N7 tags and reaper cables are literally, physically there in the end (despite neither being there before) for the purpose of eliciting an understanding from the player. N7 = Shepard. Cables = Indoctrination. With two objects they just told you what happened.

[quote]For someone who thrives on symbolism and picking up on every detail during the last ten minutes, you sure do become more slapdash when analysing things which don't fit your theory, a bit like the mass relays destroyed, or Stargazer? It seems as though you applying different methods of analysis to suit IT rather than take in all the evidence.

Next you would be saying that the fact that there is no fire in space means that the Citadel "fireball", as you call it, couldn't have happened and was all a dream!

Dreaming about the Mass Relays exploding, the Citadel exploding, Joker's escape, why exactly would Shep dream these things?[/quote]

No, this is scifi. Sci Fi always has fireballs in space. I've long since gotten over it. The mass relays are destroyed in the cinematic because the Harbinger (the space ghost kid) tells you they are. I can't explain stargazer, fine. You can't explain any of it without falling back on "bioware is lazy".

He's imagining Joker's escape because he wants the people he cares about to be safe and at peace. Random garden world practically screams "eden".



[quote]I'm getting my info straight from Unofficial Interivew Thread. The question is, "Did anyone on the Citadel", the answer to which is "you should assume that every plot-important (character) on the Citadel survives". There is no indication  (if had wished to clarify what he said about the Citadel he could have tweeted about and it seems he did on issues on which he thought he was misquoted) it was about when the Reapers moved, you are either misrememerbing or making it up.[/quote]

Fail. You should try a little harder next time. Here is that thread. I've copied the relevant part below:

[quote] Patrick weekes paraphrased...

-Did anyone on the Citadel survive?Did anyone on the Citadel survive?
-Did anyone on the Citadel Survive

Yes.
We would never, ever do anything that made the player feel, on replay,
that it would be better for everyone on the Citadel if they just died.
The Citadel has emergency shelters and kinetic barriers - even if it
blows up, millions might survive.  You should assume that everyone plot-important on the Citadel survived.  [/quote]

I'm not sure where I saw the context in regards to moving the citadel. Must have been twitter. That was,however, the least important aspect of my argument though, so I don't care.

[quote]We don't know how exactly the Citadel material would react to such an event, you and me can only guess. [/quote]

That's not my problem, I've clarified it in the simplest terms.


[quote]Give me any game and I will give examples with things like that. You are simply confusing a game mechanic with evidence of indoctrination theory, you are twisting facts that can be explained away easily to fit IT. [/quote]

This isn't evidence for IT, I was countering something you said 3 or 4 posts ago. It was evidence against whatever your claim was. We can drop it.

[quote]You say precisely zero are connected. That is an obvious falsehood. If you look back from the top of the stairs, there are more passages from which it is possible to reach the console, there is no blocked way. Furthermore, don't forget the moving walls (which IT conveniently forgets)[/quote]

There are other walkways in the chasm. Yes. None of them connect to the console room.  There is only one access point to the console room. You walk through it. You are on the walkway at the same time Anderson says he's on the walkway. Even if there was a magical invisible door on an adjacent walkway, you should be able to see him. You can't. This entire sequence isn't possible.
 
[quote]You know my position on TIM...[/quote]

Yes. It makes no sense.

[quote]The ending was bad (although I think some of the criticism is unfair and people do like to exaggerate for their own personal reasons). Literally you are right with the EDI/Geth thing, . I don't see how this is evidence for IT rather than evidence of a bad ending. You just choose to believe that it is not out of any rational cause. [/quote]

Because they are clearly capable of much better. The endings aren't kind of bad. They're terrible. There's no reason to think BW is capable of this level of incompetence. It doesn't prove anything, but it ought to make you a little suspicious.

[quote]If you read Weekes' interview, he addresses the "supernova mass relay" thing, saying that the mass relays overloaded and weren't destroyed Arrival-esque. This wasn't made clear, but according to Weekes, BW didn't realise people would make that connection. Now, I don't want to make too much out of this comment, but it does seem to indicate that BW didn't put as much thought into the ending as many IT theorists would have you believe. Furthermore, if it truly was all a dream, why would Weekes comment in such a way? Whether the mass relays blew up or were destroyed, it doesn't matter if it were all a dream? I would like to see your response to this.[/quote]

They didn't think the fans would make the connection? Arrival was the tie-in between ME2 and ME3. The Batarians mention you blowing up Aratoht 2 or 3 times in ME3. They worked on it and ME3 simultaneously. Why wouldn't they think we'd make the connection? 

Bioware has said they wanted speculation. They don't want to be prescriptive. If Weekes is asked why the relays don't go supernova, he can't very well say "because it was all in his head!" because that would be prescriptive. So he responds as though it was hypothetical.



[quote]Ok, just spouting names is not sufficient. If you want to persuade people write a cogent argument for them[/quote]

If you played the games then you know the significance of all of those people or events. You asked me if I had better evidence for IT than your alternate universe, I gave you a list. That list should have a meaning to you. If it doesn't than I don't know why we're even having this conversation.


[quoteThe question," Why is it so crazy they would try to expose the player to it" always seems to miss the point in the same way that a 9/11 truther does when he says "Why trust the US government's account?". I just find insufficient for the indoctrination, that is all.[/quote]

Bringing in the truthers, huh? How long till your envoking godwin's law?

I'm describing a prominent element in the game that many prominent characters succumb to and saying "is it so crazy the devs might want to expose the player to it?". Answer: no its not. The Final Hours app says they did.

You find everything insufficient for indoctrination. I'm still waiting for an answer on how Shepard survived an 8km wide fireball that he was in the middle of. Answer: He can't! He wasn't on the Citadel. If he wasn't on the citadel, what was that whole 20 minutes "on the citadel" about?

If you want the evidence for IT, look it up. Why are you even debating this if you don't know the basics?
[/quote]


Any chance you could provide any evidence for that claim on dark energy? I know you have said you can't (or don't want to) but it is not good to simply assert something like that to be true, you need good evidence. You have
already misremembered other stuff (and me doubtless as well), so can you?

The reason people know about IT was because of an inteview with one of the writers of ME1 and ME2, Drew K, who said that a dark energy plot was considered. He never stated that it was actually implemented.

"Those cables aren't prominent"- But they are. Look at when Shephard enters the Citadel, cables are prominent there, and on the Destroy Option bit at least (not on the ceilings just so you know).

So what exactly do the cables mean at the end? That Shephard is still indoctrinated (since cables symbolise indoctrination? How do you twist that to mean a release from indoctrination?

You aren't even going to explain the Starchild? Surely all good theories should account for all the evidence, not just selective bits, which IT does here? Are you admitting that it doesn't have a reason? But I thought BW put layers of symbolism in their work and EVERYTHING has a reason, are we actually led to believe for that they didn't here? But of course the ten minutes before that are littered with symbolism? There is no way that that could happen!

Saying I rely on saying BW is lazy is a complete strawman.

So BW spent a lot of time in resources into some well-craft cinematics just to give the simple message that Joker is all right? No, just no, that's nigh on just wasting money, and you know EA doesn't do that. Why spend time on this frankly useless cutscene when you haven't even finished the ending? It seems illogical from an objective point of view.

Fail?

None of them connect? Are you saying doors can't be opened or something? None of them connect directly to the control room, you have to walk around this circular promenade area before walking up the stairs but you could easily get there. And you keep forgetting the fact that the walls are moving.

Endings are bad, terrible is definitely not far off the mark. I agree, but as you must know, even the great storytellers can make mistakes, even really big ones, for whatever reason.

It seems as though you are blaming me for BW's response! But anyway, your response just goes to show the disconnect between fans and BW; it seems as though the fans put much more thought into the endings than the developers. This might be hard to stomach, but just look how you replied.

There is no indication that he meant it to be hypothetical. It would have been so much easier for BW to say about the relays, or in fact a lot of stuff, that you would have to "wait and see until the DLC".  Instead he said it in frank terms that the relays overloaded.

Or perhaps BW are playing the meta-game of indoctrination too, trying to lead you off the scent? If so, that makes IT unfalsifiable, that is what your responses suggest, since not even BW effectively saying that IT is not real is enough to disprove it.

I am not closed to indoctrination completely, I just find it hard to believe. You, again, create a strawman of my position

[Hawk227]

SubAstris wrote...

"Those cables aren't prominent"- But they are. Look at when Shephard enters the Citadel, cables are prominent there, and on the Destroy Option bit at least (not on the ceilings just so you know).

So what exactly do the cables mean at the end? That Shephard is still indoctrinated (since cables symbolise indoctrination? How do you twist that to mean a release from indoctrination?

You see them in the keeper tunnel. Shepard does not wake up on the keeper tunnel. You can see them with the flycam up high on the crucible. The player can't see them without the flycam. It can't be a nod to the player that he woke up on the citadel if the player is highly unlikely to know they were there. Plus... 8km wide fireball! He couldn't be alive on the citadel anyway. The cables tell you that the reapers tried to indoctrinate you.

You aren't even going to explain the Starchild? Surely all good theories should account for all the evidence, not just selective bits, which IT does here? Are you admitting that it doesn't have a reason? But I thought BW put layers of symbolism in their work and EVERYTHING has a reason, are we actually led to believe for that they didn't here? But of course the ten minutes before that are littered with symbolism? There is no way that that could happen!

I said I can't explain stargazer. Not the Starchild. The starchild is the manifestation of Harbinger/Reapers in Shepards mind. Just because I don't know the reason, doesn't mean it doesn't have one. You can't explain anything without falling back on the non argument that "IT is illogical". Why is it illogical?

Saying I rely on saying BW is lazy is a complete strawman.


So BW spent a lot of time in resources into some well-craft cinematics just to give the simple message that Joker is all right? No, just no, that's nigh on just wasting money, and you know EA doesn't do that. Why spend time on this frankly useless cutscene when you haven't even finished the ending? It seems illogical from an objective point of view.

Considering a majority of your arguments have been strawmen (including this very paragraph), I don't think you know what a straw man is.

The scene shows Joker... AND your LI, and one of your squadmates safe. And the whole point is to not explicitly tell the player (YOU) that the game isn't finished. YOU'RE the one being indoctrinated. I've explained this repeatedly in the simplest terms.

Fail?

None of them connect? Are you saying doors can't be opened or something? None of them connect directly to the control room, you have to walk around this circular promenade area before walking up the stairs but you could easily get there. And you keep forgetting the fact that the walls are moving.

There is only one ramp up to that room. Even if Anderson climbed over the moving capacitor things to get there, you would have seen him. Because he says "I see a place to cross over" when YOU are already on that place to cross over. He says "I see a some sort of console" when you are at the base of the ramp. There are other entrances into the chasm. There are NO other entrances into the room with the console. 3:20 for the entrance to that room. Notice Shepard is standing on the only way in. If Anderson could get there another way, why not just draw an additional access point?

Endings are bad, terrible is definitely not far off the mark. I agree, but as you must know, even the great storytellers can make mistakes, even really big ones, for whatever reason.

I agree. Still makes me suspicious.

There is no indication that he meant it to be hypothetical. It would have been so much easier for BW to say about the relays, or in fact a lot of stuff, that you would have to "wait and see until the DLC".  Instead he said it in frank terms that the relays overloaded.

I'm not saying that he was absolutely being hypothetical. I'll say right now that IT may be wrong. I'm pointing out how his statements can't be construed as proof that IT is wrong. Bioware doesn't want to be prescriptive (at least until the DLC comes out, maybe ever). If they say the relays didn't supernova, because it was all in his head. That's being prescriptive.

Or perhaps BW are playing the meta-game of indoctrination too, trying to lead you off the scent? If so, that makes IT unfalsifiable, that is what your responses suggest, since not even BW effectively saying that IT is not real is enough to disprove it.

Bioware has never said IT is not real. They've been exceptionally careful not to confirm or deny it. If its totally wrong, why let it stand? If IT had nothing going for it, it would be falsifiable. If Bioware comes out and says the words "Shepard was never indoctrinated, the ending really happened" that would falsify it. If anyone could come up with an actual counterargument to things like:

-How can shepard survive an 8km wide fireball?
-Why does shepards eyes turn the same as TIM's during Synthesis and Control Endings?
-Why is the same fade to white segue used exactly 4 times in the game prior to the beam run and each time Shepard is either entering or exiting a virtual reality/dream?
-Why does the Starchild talk to you like your a nuisance with low EMS but not high EMS?
- How does Anderson get to the console without being seen?
-Why did your squadmates, who were unharmed by Harbinger, not continue up the beam with you, but rather flee with joker?
-Why did joker flee?
-Why did harbinger fly off while there were still humans at the base of the beam? 
-Why is the catalyst's favorite choices the same as TIM and Saren's respectively?
-How does TIM control you and Anderson when neither of you are husks?
- Why can femshep (left channel) and broshep's(right channel) voices be heard behind the catalyst?
-Why does the catalyst take the form of the child from earth?
- Why is the kid from earth always seen in close proximity to warning signs?
- What's the point of exposing shepard to Object Rho for 2 days if he's never going to face indoctrination?

If you're argument is more elaborate than Bioware is lazy/out of touch/screwed up. I apologize. Please feel free to enlighten me.

Modifié par Hawk227, 18 avril 2012 - 08:29 .

[SubAstris]

Hawk227 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

"Those cables aren't prominent"- But they are. Look at when Shephard enters the Citadel, cables are prominent there, and on the Destroy Option bit at least (not on the ceilings just so you know).

So what exactly do the cables mean at the end? That Shephard is still indoctrinated (since cables symbolise indoctrination? How do you twist that to mean a release from indoctrination?

You see them in the keeper tunnel. Shepard does not wake up on the keeper tunnel. You can see them with the flycam up high on the crucible. The player can't see them without the flycam. It can't be a nod to the player that he woke up on the citadel if the player is highly unlikely to know they were there. Plus... 8km wide fireball! He couldn't be alive on the citadel anyway. The cables tell you that the reapers tried to indoctrinate you.

You aren't even going to explain the Starchild? Surely all good theories should account for all the evidence, not just selective bits, which IT does here? Are you admitting that it doesn't have a reason? But I thought BW put layers of symbolism in their work and EVERYTHING has a reason, are we actually led to believe for that they didn't here? But of course the ten minutes before that are littered with symbolism? There is no way that that could happen!

I said I can't explain stargazer. Not the Starchild. The starchild is the manifestation of Harbinger/Reapers in Shepards mind. Just because I don't know the reason, doesn't mean it doesn't have one. You can't explain anything without falling back on the non argument that "IT is illogical". Why is it illogical?

Saying I rely on saying BW is lazy is a complete strawman.


So BW spent a lot of time in resources into some well-craft cinematics just to give the simple message that Joker is all right? No, just no, that's nigh on just wasting money, and you know EA doesn't do that. Why spend time on this frankly useless cutscene when you haven't even finished the ending? It seems illogical from an objective point of view.

Considering a majority of your arguments have been strawmen (including this very paragraph), I don't think you know what a straw man is.

The scene shows Joker... AND your LI, and one of your squadmates safe. And the whole point is to not explicitly tell the player (YOU) that the game isn't finished. YOU'RE the one being indoctrinated. I've explained this repeatedly in the simplest terms.

Fail?

None of them connect? Are you saying doors can't be opened or something? None of them connect directly to the control room, you have to walk around this circular promenade area before walking up the stairs but you could easily get there. And you keep forgetting the fact that the walls are moving.

There is only one ramp up to that room. Even if Anderson climbed over the moving capacitor things to get there, you would have seen him. Because he says "I see a place to cross over" when YOU are already on that place to cross over. He says "I see a some sort of console" when you are at the base of the ramp. There are other entrances into the chasm. There are NO other entrances into the room with the console. 3:20 for the entrance to that room. Notice Shepard is standing on the only way in. If Anderson could get there another way, why not just draw an additional access point?

Endings are bad, terrible is definitely not far off the mark. I agree, but as you must know, even the great storytellers can make mistakes, even really big ones, for whatever reason.

I agree. Still makes me suspicious.

There is no indication that he meant it to be hypothetical. It would have been so much easier for BW to say about the relays, or in fact a lot of stuff, that you would have to "wait and see until the DLC".  Instead he said it in frank terms that the relays overloaded.

I'm not saying that he was absolutely being hypothetical. I'll say right now that IT may be wrong. I'm pointing out how his statements can't be construed as proof that IT is wrong. Bioware doesn't want to be prescriptive (at least until the DLC comes out, maybe ever). If they say the relays didn't supernova, because it was all in his head. That's being prescriptive.

Or perhaps BW are playing the meta-game of indoctrination too, trying to lead you off the scent? If so, that makes IT unfalsifiable, that is what your responses suggest, since not even BW effectively saying that IT is not real is enough to disprove it.

Bioware has never said IT is not real. They've been exceptionally careful not to confirm or deny it. If its totally wrong, why let it stand? If IT had nothing going for it, it would be falsifiable. If Bioware comes out and says the words "Shepard was never indoctrinated, the ending really happened" that would falsify it. If anyone could come up with an actual counterargument to things like:

-How can shepard survive an 8km wide fireball?
-Why does shepards eyes turn the same as TIM's during Synthesis and Control Endings?
-Why is the same fade to white segue used exactly 4 times in the game prior to the beam run and each time Shepard is either entering or exiting a virtual reality/dream?
-Why does the Starchild talk to you like your a nuisance with low EMS but not high EMS?
- How does Anderson get to the console without being seen?
-Why did your squadmates, who were unharmed by Harbinger, not continue up the beam with you, but rather flee with joker?
-Why did joker flee?
-Why did harbinger fly off while there were still humans at the base of the beam? 
-Why is the catalyst's favorite choices the same as TIM and Saren's respectively?
-How does TIM control you and Anderson when neither of you are husks?
- Why can femshep (left channel) and broshep's(right channel) voices be heard behind the catalyst?
-Why does the catalyst take the form of the child from earth?
- Why is the kid from earth always seen in close proximity to warning signs?
- What's the point of exposing shepard to Object Rho for 2 days if he's never going to face indoctrination?

If you're argument is more elaborate than Bioware is lazy/out of touch/screwed up. I apologize. Please feel free to enlighten me.

This is rubbish, the cables are clearly visible when you first enter the Citadel from the beam. Furthermore, your answer to the cables was poor, it is high unlikely that BW would randomly put in the same cables that were on the Citadel in London where there aren't any at all. The only reason you go for a "symbolic" intepretation is because it fits IT, not because it is the most rational one. Did Harbinger tie you in up in those cables at the end or something? Funny that you don't take the rubble as symbolic, just the things you want. The most logical answer is that the answers are meant to tell you your location i.e. the Citadel.
And why in your mind does what BW say NOT prevail over what happens in game? If they say all plot important should be assumed to survive why can't you assume that Shepard, the main character, does as well! Again you downplay BW, who create the lore and whose word should be taken as gospel, for your own benefit. Conspiracy theorist is an apt comparison, you might not like it but nonetheless it is valid.

Not one of the many thousands of indoctrination theorists has ever been able to come up with something vaguely worthless on SC? Highly surprising, given their brilliant research into the previous minutes of the game. Of course, StarChild can be aptly explained if you take it literally, maybe because they intended it to infact be that way...

"-The starchild is the manifestation of Harbinger/Reapers in Shepards mind"- And...
You can't pick and choose, it ain't no sweetshop!

I say that it is illogical primarily because of its unfalsifiability, as you indeed have shown. It would be more or less impossible to completely disprove IT (although the evidence can and does point away from it). You can never know the difference between a genuine plot mistake and evidence for IT. It presumes a level of competency by BW way above they have shown in ME3 and with their comments ("we don't know people would intepret Arrival in that way...". It is just desparate fans not wanting to see their franchise ruined, and so they create this interesting but on inspection insubstantial theory.

Are we agreed that BW wanted that ending the whole time, just to clarify? So they would have allowed developmental time for an ending, yes? That begs the question why exactly nothing is being released now if it were all ready.

Weekes' comments don't absolutely prove IT wrong however, the excuse that he is talking hypothetically seems inanely poor. Again, the default and simple answer would be, remember this is the same line that they have been going with since the big DLC announcement, that you need to wait for DLC. Why not here? It would be a perfect time. That's not being perscriptive at all, fits in with what BW have said before etc. , yet they didn't use that line, and instead said completely unnecessary about overloading relays. Right...

"Why let it stand"- IT theorists are generally happy about the ending and even laud BW as geniuses. They make happy fans, ones who are not going to sully the BW and EA brand. Why rain on their parade even if they are wrong? BW hopes that people take what they want from the game.

Glad to see that you would admit that if BW came out and said "Shephard was not indoctrinated" IT would be wrong. I fear others would create further conspiracy theories, thinking that BW actually initially went with IT but for whatever reason changed their mind with the DLC (perhaps because it was hard to implement). Because IT involves a meta-game experience, your Shepard is not just indoctrinated but you yourself aswell. What's to say then that even someone like BW is wrong? Of course, you don't believe this, but this is possible for IT theorists to believe, given their current logic.


1) Read BW's comments again, they write the lore, their word above any others, people can survive
2) Because he comes into contact with Reaper tech, in Control, he touches it, in Synthesis, he melds himself with all other organics and synthetic (something like that); with the Destroy option all he does is shoot the chamber. Furthermore, coming into contact with Reaper tech doesn't mean indoctrination all the time; EDI is made partly from the same tech, can she indoctrinate Shepard? And what about the Citadel?
3) A white segues are incredibly common in films and games. There is no reason to believe there is a connection. Furthermore, you presume a dream to prove a dream here.
4) He doesn't. Unless you can provide damning proof. It does it based on your paragon/renegade score
5) Moving walls, you are on a different path to Anderson. Also builds up dramatic suspense when you get to see him
6) Comes down to genuine plot hole v genuine evidence for IT, can't tell
7) Ditto. Although I would hazard a guess that it wanted to get out of the vicinity before the Crucible released its charge, esp. because he didn't know how powerful it was.
8) Because all he sees are a pile of dead bodies. There is no resistence. He could have easily just turned off the beam to the Citadel aswell, didn't do it. Harbinger flies off after Shep and Anderson get up, he presumes they are dead.
9) The Catalyst has no choice which he wants you to do more than the others since it is your choice, he explains the costs and benefits of each of them. Whether you like them or not is your decision. I think saying that synthesis is equivalent to what Saren wanted is an oversimplification, he joined the Reapers more out of selfish desire to save his own skin. He was the only one up to that point to fully realise the scale of this threat, and so allied himself with the Reapers in the hope that he would be spared (see ME1 dialogue).
10) TIM doesn't have full control of you, as is seen, only control of some of your physical movements.
11) I don't know whether it is the both Shepards, it is unclear whether it is just a female and male voice. But regardless, does the BroShep imagine a female version of himself and then attach it to the Catalyst, and vice versa? Would seem very strange.
12) The only time I can think where he is actually near a warning sign is in the vent. He is in a warzone, of course there are going to be warning signs!
13) Because that is not the point of Arrival. The point is to find out a plan to stop the potential Arrival of the Reapers. The two days you spend with the object are meant to build suspense. You think that with two days you can easily stop the Reaper threat, and then suddenly you have no time at all and there is a race to the finish

Also found evidence that TIM hasn't completely ruled out Shephard as someone he can work with. If you listen to one of the logs on the Cerberus base, TIM says, in reply to Leng saying "Should I kill Shephard", "No, I'm not Shepard off as a total loss just yet"

Modifié par SubAstris, 18 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[tractrpl]

So Bioware would deliberately engineer a massive drop in stock for their artistic vision? They would risk alienating their fans over this? IT depends on the writers being brilliant infallible literary geniuses, but they're just as capable of derping as anyone. Given the fan reaction, I doubt this is what they would have wanted. The messed up the ending. Incorporating IT to salvage their reputation is possible, but it's highly unlikely this is what they wanted from the beginning.

[balance5050]

tractrpl wrote...

So Bioware would deliberately engineer a massive drop in stock for their artistic vision? They would risk alienating their fans over this? IT depends on the writers being brilliant infallible literary geniuses, but they're just as capable of derping as anyone. Given the fan reaction, I doubt this is what they would have wanted. The messed up the ending. Incorporating IT to salvage their reputation is possible, but it's highly unlikely this is what they wanted from the beginning.

The fans wrote it... So I guess we're all geniuses!!!

Even though IT is based on things that are actually IN THE GAME, which bioware wrote.