622 réponses à ce sujet

[dreman9999]

SubAstris wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Good post. Of course, many IT theorists will just say that it doesn't matter, however none have presented a very convincing reasons for why IT can still be true. Some say BW are playing games, but if so, how could you ever find out they are telling the truth? If IT is true, then he could have just have said, "wait and see", or "we want the players to decide", but instead he gave a decisive response assuming the ending to be taken as face value

You don't....not until the content is releases and we all see exactly what the EC contains. Also note that Gamble carefully chooses his words and says that "personally"....that means little, we have no idea where most of the team stands aside frrom the disgraced Casey and Walters.

Patrick Weekes refused to respond to the IT question by saying that any reply on the matter would be too spoilerish.

Presumably Gamble would stand by any creative decision BW make in regards to the ending (he would lose his job otherwise). The implication by using the word "personally" is that he does not like the ending of destroy taken at face value, because of the inevitable death of synthetics that will ensue. He is assuming the ending to be taken literally. For IT to work or be a possibility, Gamble would have said nothing, deflected the question or most unlikely, said destroy was the best option (as most IT theorists agree it is). However, such an event did not occur, even fact the exact opposite of what would have shown IT to be true would have happened. I think such comment from many IT theorists (I am not necessarily implicating you) shows a level of hypocrisy; if Gamble said something which alleged IT, then they would be screaming to the rafters that there was undeniable evidence, but now of course they can only deny and say that BW is playing games

I frankly don't care what Weekes said, we have evidence from another valid source; if he wants to give a little clue as to what actually happened in the end, or accidentally gave it away, then that is his choice and or problem. I can only go where the evidence leads, and seems as though Gamble was saying this in the context of the ending being taken at face value

Question, was his statement based on a perfenceon the base ending for Shepard or the dramaticly done ending?

[Darth_Trethon]

dreman9999 wrote...

PoliteAssasin wrote...

Lol Dreman if that's the best response you can come up with to my post then I feel sorry for you. Don't take this the wrong way, but I can't help but chuckle at the great lengths you guys go to justify this "theory". But if it makes you feel better about the endings, what can I say?

-Polite

Best reponse? Realy? I need to comment on something that made to be vague that you are using to try to disprove a theory with sound evidence? I'm sorry,what you areusing dispoves nothing, if it wasfalse BW would have debunkedit many times over. Please, use something that clear stated IT is false, not something that made to speculate. 
And still havn't dispove the facts I put up.

The most interesting comment was from Patrick Weekes who refused to answer by saying any comment on the matter would be spoilers. Now that does not absolutely have to mean they are adopting it but it does tell me a few things:

1) It's being taken seriously.
2) Probably still on the table.
3) Even if not adopted entirely parts of it may.
4) Even if not adopted it will be addressed in some kind of way as to why it's false and what exactly was happening.

[Darth_Trethon]

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Good post. Of course, many IT theorists will just say that it doesn't matter, however none have presented a very convincing reasons for why IT can still be true. Some say BW are playing games, but if so, how could you ever find out they are telling the truth? If IT is true, then he could have just have said, "wait and see", or "we want the players to decide", but instead he gave a decisive response assuming the ending to be taken as face value

You don't....not until the content is releases and we all see exactly what the EC contains. Also note that Gamble carefully chooses his words and says that "personally"....that means little, we have no idea where most of the team stands aside frrom the disgraced Casey and Walters.

Patrick Weekes refused to respond to the IT question by saying that any reply on the matter would be too spoilerish.

Presumably Gamble would stand by any creative decision BW make in regards to the ending (he would lose his job otherwise). The implication by using the word "personally" is that he does not like the ending of destroy taken at face value, because of the inevitable death of synthetics that will ensue. He is assuming the ending to be taken literally. For IT to work or be a possibility, Gamble would have said nothing, deflected the question or most unlikely, said destroy was the best option (as most IT theorists agree it is). However, such an event did not occur, even fact the exact opposite of what would have shown IT to be true would have happened. I think such comment from many IT theorists (I am not necessarily implicating you) shows a level of hypocrisy; if Gamble said something which alleged IT, then they would be screaming to the rafters that there was undeniable evidence, but now of course they can only deny and say that BW is playing games

I frankly don't care what Weekes said, we have evidence from another valid source; if he wants to give a little clue as to what actually happened in the end, or accidentally gave it away, then that is his choice and or problem. I can only go where the evidence leads, and seems as though Gamble was saying this in the context of the ending being taken at face value

Question, was his statement based on a perfenceon the base ending for Shepard or the dramaticly done ending?

I doubt he is dropping hints on the EC but even if he is I doubt his judgement is really one that can be trusted...BioWare has favored either synthesis or control in the past and thought their deus-ex ripoff was brilliant....

Aside from that the IT is just a means to wipe the slate clean and start over....they could go into a better presented and thought-out way of the same three choices....more or less which would be a sort of shenanigans to try to please people on both sides of the IT....at any rate I don't think there is a whole lot to be taken out of this comment.

[dreman9999]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Darth_Trethon wrote...

SubAstris wrote...

Good post. Of course, many IT theorists will just say that it doesn't matter, however none have presented a very convincing reasons for why IT can still be true. Some say BW are playing games, but if so, how could you ever find out they are telling the truth? If IT is true, then he could have just have said, "wait and see", or "we want the players to decide", but instead he gave a decisive response assuming the ending to be taken as face value

You don't....not until the content is releases and we all see exactly what the EC contains. Also note that Gamble carefully chooses his words and says that "personally"....that means little, we have no idea where most of the team stands aside frrom the disgraced Casey and Walters.

Patrick Weekes refused to respond to the IT question by saying that any reply on the matter would be too spoilerish.

Presumably Gamble would stand by any creative decision BW make in regards to the ending (he would lose his job otherwise). The implication by using the word "personally" is that he does not like the ending of destroy taken at face value, because of the inevitable death of synthetics that will ensue. He is assuming the ending to be taken literally. For IT to work or be a possibility, Gamble would have said nothing, deflected the question or most unlikely, said destroy was the best option (as most IT theorists agree it is). However, such an event did not occur, even fact the exact opposite of what would have shown IT to be true would have happened. I think such comment from many IT theorists (I am not necessarily implicating you) shows a level of hypocrisy; if Gamble said something which alleged IT, then they would be screaming to the rafters that there was undeniable evidence, but now of course they can only deny and say that BW is playing games

I frankly don't care what Weekes said, we have evidence from another valid source; if he wants to give a little clue as to what actually happened in the end, or accidentally gave it away, then that is his choice and or problem. I can only go where the evidence leads, and seems as though Gamble was saying this in the context of the ending being taken at face value

Question, was his statement based on a perfenceon the base ending for Shepard or the dramaticly done ending?

I doubt he is dropping hints on the EC but even if he is I doubt his judgement is really one that can be trusted...BioWare has favored either synthesis or control in the past and thought their deus-ex ripoff was brilliant....

Aside from that the IT is just a means to wipe the slate clean and start over....they could go into a better presented and thought-out way of the same three choices....more or less which would be a sort of shenanigans to try to please people on both sides of the IT....at any rate I don't think there is a whole lot to be taken out of this comment.

I don't thinks so at all. If they did it would mean they would of ignore their own plot. Remeber everything said about indoctrination, the star kid matches it. He is from a race of machine with a history of great deception. To say by preferse control or synthises is to say the star child is telling the truth...Their is not proof of that...Also, they would not have the breath scene at the end of destroy.

[Darth_Trethon]

dreman9999 wrote...

I don't thinks so at all. If they did it would mean they would of ignore their own plot. Remeber everything said about indoctrination, the star kid matches it. He is from a race of machine with a history of great deception. To say by preferse control or synthises is to say the star child is telling the truth...Their is not proof of that...Also, they would not have the breath scene at the end of destroy.

And that's one of the main problems with the endings they have now....they forced the player in a deffinite no compromise stance on control and synthesis(TIM and Saren respectively) and then expected us to just accept them as valid options just like that with zero explanation or reason and our character just forgot himself or herself and just accepted the presented options without question or comment. This is exactly what makes the present endings absolute garbage. The very presentation of those choices completely negates and ignores their own plot.

[KevShep]

ashwind wrote...

KevShep wrote...

No. What I "perceive" to be there is speculations, but what is in the game CAN BE SEEN AND HEARED! THAT is the evidence!

You just said that it was never intended to be the I.T.? How do you know that? dont be a hypocrite if your going to say that Iam being contradicting.

If you go to the catalyst as fast as you can the catalyst says somthing different then "wake up"...He says "what are you doing here" as if he is not ready for you. This also fits with indoctrination. 

I said that the ending is never intended to be indoctrination with certainty in response to your certainty. If you are certain that IT is intended, I am certain that IT is NOT intended or are IT believers all so arrogant that they refuse to analyze actual data but insists on telling us their interpretations are irrefutable evidence. 

Oh yeah? Show me a vid that you have HIGH EMS and the Catalyst does not say "Wake up". Show me a vid with LOW EMS that the Catalyst does not say "What are you doing here". Try going in with 3500+ EMS and RUN as fast as you can and get him to say "Why are you here". Try going with < 1600 EMS and get him to say "Wake Up"

You do not SEE this contradiction?? The Reapers are NOT prepared for you and has NO Chance of indoctrinating you because what, your EMS SUCKS!!! Because that is what IT says, if you have LOW EMS, if you SUCK, you only get to DESTROY!!!! INDOCTRINATION ATTEMPTS ALWAYS FAIL!!!

If you cannot fathom such simple logic, I rest my case. Yeah, indoctrination theory rulez!!! so much "evidence"!!! The king with his invisible suit that only the "wise" can see. 

Your logic is not that sound...You first off STILL have no idea WHAT was intended so stop saying you do UNLESS you have some evidence, which you do not. I on the other hand do so that is why I believe it.

Second, If you have a low EMS that only have destroy option then then you die! You CANT fight off indoctrination!

[dreman9999]

Darth_Trethon wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

I don't thinks so at all. If they did it would mean they would of ignore their own plot. Remeber everything said about indoctrination, the star kid matches it. He is from a race of machine with a history of great deception. To say by preferse control or synthises is to say the star child is telling the truth...Their is not proof of that...Also, they would not have the breath scene at the end of destroy.

And that's one of the main problems with the endings they have now....they forced the player in a deffinite no compromise stance on control and synthesis(TIM and Saren respectively) and then expected us to just accept them as valid options just like that with zero explanation or reason and our character just forgot himself or herself and just accepted the presented options without question or comment. This is exactly what makes the present endings absolute garbage. The very presentation of those choices completely negates and ignores their own plot.

http://masseffect.wi...#Indoctrination 
  The Reaper's resulting control over the limbic system leaves the victim highly susceptible to its suggestions. 

 A Reaper's "suggestions" can manipulate victims into betraying friends, trusting enemies, or viewing the Reaper itself with superstitious awe.
Also...This....  http://www.youtube.c...eDWAhhNw#t=263s

If something is off with Shepard just agreeing with every thing that star child say....There's a reason.

[FS3D]

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

How about Matrix Revolutions. Lot's of unanswered questions there.

And the ending of that movie was so well-received, too.

Ugh... Jesus sacrifice and redemption of the entire world is so 2012 years ago...

[Taboo]

FS3D wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

How about Matrix Revolutions. Lot's of unanswered questions there.

And the ending of that movie was so well-received, too.

Ugh... Jesus sacrifice and redemption of the entire world is so 2012 years ago...

[Newnation]

FS3D wrote...

Mr. Big Pimpin wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

How about Matrix Revolutions. Lot's of unanswered questions there.

And the ending of that movie was so well-received, too.

Ugh... Jesus sacrifice and redemption of the entire world is so 2012 years ago...

Which is also not well-received by a lot of people.

[Pelle6666]

Why, destroy is the ending that indoctrination theory is based on, isn't it?

[christrek1982]

HopHazzard wrote...

The thing I don't get about IT, and maybe I'm wrong, is that it seems to rely on the notion that BioWare sold us a game without an ending. At least that's the impression I get. I don't see how that's actually preferable to BioWare selling us a game with a bad ending.

also do you get the shep breaths CGI regardless your EMS cos if not then IT dose not work how can assets in the real world like ships and men affect how you do in a mind control situasion? Shepherd eather picks right choice and beats indoc or he dose not. what dose EMS have to do with it?

[KevShep]

christrek1982 wrote...

HopHazzard wrote...

The thing I don't get about IT, and maybe I'm wrong, is that it seems to rely on the notion that BioWare sold us a game without an ending. At least that's the impression I get. I don't see how that's actually preferable to BioWare selling us a game with a bad ending.

also do you get the shep breaths CGI regardless your EMS cos if not then IT dose not work how can assets in the real world like ships and men affect how you do in a mind control situasion? Shepherd eather picks right choice and beats indoc or he dose not. what dose EMS have to do with it?

You asking about things that happen AFTER the I.T.. These things we dont know yet because the E.C. is not out yet.

[Bill Casey]

christrek1982 wrote...

also do you get the shep breaths CGI regardless your EMS cos if not then IT dose not work how can assets in the real world like ships and men affect how you do in a mind control situasion? Shepherd eather picks right choice and beats indoc or he dose not. what dose EMS have to do with it?

EMS = Hope...
Saving Anderson from the Illusive Man lowers the requirement for Shepard to wake up, even though Anderson dies right afterwards...

Modifié par Bill Casey, 27 avril 2012 - 01:06 .

[Makrys]

Yeah, but Magnenite, the endings are SO vague (though i believe the IT) that its almost rediculous. I like the IT but i also want some damn answers and closure to my favorite trilogy. Plus it deserves it.

[Darth_Trethon]

magnetite wrote...

I think people need to have a spoon fed ending instead of trying to piece together the puzzle that was given to you. They laid all the facts out for you. You just need to put them together.

This isn't one of those endings which is spelled out for people. They pretty much admitted it in that Final Hours app. They did not want a spoon fed ending, but rather one where people have to think about it.

There's a lot of people who want an instant gratification ending where every plot hole is closed and every story wrapped up. That wasn't their plan.

Some of the best sci-fi is not about having spoon fed ending for the masses, but rather a deep thought proking ending

There's just too much evidence to say that this theory is not credible. It's just a theory, after all.

Look, the IT is great, I fully support and approve of it but it is not an ending.....the most the IT will give us is that the crap we just saw wasn't real....that's it, no ending....now I want my bloody ending. Thought provoking and all that is great but the game is plain and simply missing an ending...at best we know the reapers were destroyed but that is NOT even remotely close to enough....that is at the very best a garbage excuse of an ending. Reapers destroyed, game over.....wait a second.....WTF happened to my party, my allies and my LI....all I get instead are garbage dream sequences that make no freaking sense at all.

[DTKT]

You think the endings are there to "cloud" your judgement and make you blind to the real truth. Aka, it's all an elaborated hoax and the endings were all false. Everything is fine and you will be satisfied with the EE endings. They just wasted at least two months of dev time, killed any excitement there was for anything ME related, caused a PR nightmare for EA. But all that stuff doesn't matter because you saw the Mako wheels in two scenes! There is also that oily shrubbery.

I assume that Bioware ran out of time/resources and the endings suffered. 

Call me crazy.

Modifié par DTKT, 27 avril 2012 - 01:46 .

[dreman9999]

Pelle6666 wrote...

Why, destroy is the ending that indoctrination theory is based on, isn't it?

No, destory iswhat the theory stated will break indoctrination.

[dreman9999]

DTKT wrote...

You think the endings are there to "cloud" your judgement and make you blind to the real truth. Aka, it's all an elaborated hoax and the endings were all false. Everything is fine and you will be satisfied with the EE endings. They just wasted at least two months of dev time, killed any excitement there was for anything ME related, caused a PR nightmare for EA. But all that stuff doesn't matter because you saw the Mako wheels in two scenes! There is also that oily shrubbery.

I assume that Bioware ran out of time/resources and the endings suffered. 

Call me crazy.

But they are making EC.wHAT'S YOUR POINT?

[DTKT]

dreman9999 wrote...

DTKT wrote...

You think the endings are there to "cloud" your judgement and make you blind to the real truth. Aka, it's all an elaborated hoax and the endings were all false. Everything is fine and you will be satisfied with the EE endings. They just wasted at least two months of dev time, killed any excitement there was for anything ME related, caused a PR nightmare for EA. But all that stuff doesn't matter because you saw the Mako wheels in two scenes! There is also that oily shrubbery.

I assume that Bioware ran out of time/resources and the endings suffered. 

Call me crazy.

But they are making EC.wHAT'S YOUR POINT?

That it's just going to provide more information and context for the current endings? Aka, more cutscenes, we might see what happens to the fleet after the battle. Small stuff that provide a bit more closure than what we currently have.

But please, keep living the dream. I wish I was so sure about Bioware craftmanship and competence myself. Alas, I'm not.

Modifié par DTKT, 27 avril 2012 - 01:55 .

[liggy002]

Pelle6666 wrote...

Why, destroy is the ending that indoctrination theory is based on, isn't it?

  We don't know.  It's possible that destroy is the most correct choice that will lead to Shepard resisting indoctrination.  The other choices don't necessarily mean game over.  We will have to wait and see what Bioware does here.  I can guarantee you though that I will hate Mass Effect if they just try to clarify what is already out there.  I mean, I will still love the other parts of Mass Effect, but the ending will turn me away from it forever unless the IT is true.  And then I wont want to buy Bioware and EA products again.

Modifié par liggy002, 27 avril 2012 - 02:00 .

[zambingo]

I love parts of the IT, especially when pics are so awesomely put together (eyes matching) et al. There is just so much cool going on. However the worst part of IT is that it probably should require additional gameplay... you know gameplay for after the Indoctrination attempt is broken.

Considering BioWare said they don't intend to change the ending(s), I can really only see a few clarifications/extensions they can make...

Step 1: Make it to the Beam
Step 2: Get Blasted by Harbinger
Step 3: Kill the Husks
Step 4: Get to Marauder Shields
Step 5: [1st clarification] Defeat Marauder Shields faster than Harbinger can ASSUME DIRECT CONTROL
Step 6: Beam up to the Citadel.
Step 7: [2nd clarification] Start to get heavily assaulted by Harbinger's Indoctrination attempt.
Step 8: Argue with the actual Anderson and TIM, [3rd clarification] while being pressured by an Indoctrination assault.
Step 9: Get to the Crucible
Step 10: [4th clarification] Harbinger, who presents himself as the Starchild, makes his final Indoctrination attempt.
Step 11: Choose the fate of the Galaxy.

Fate A: BLUE, Control, Commander Reaper
* Shepard destroys the present Reaper threat by becoming the Reaper Big Boss.
* The Reapers go away.
* The Relays just overload.
* The Citadel/Crucible breaks apart, but slips into a temporally stable orbit of Earth.

Fate B: GREEN, Synthesis, Commander Borg
* Shepard destroys the present Reaper threat by achieving a forced apex of Unity with Diversity.
* The Reapers cease to function, programming fulfilled.
* The Relays just overload.
* The Citadel/Crucible breaks apart, but slips into a temporally stable orbit of Earth.

Fate C: RED, Destroy, Commander Hope For The Best
* Shepard destroys the present Reaper threat by literally destroying the Reapers.
* Without high EMS Shepard joins the fate of his last two selected squad mates... dead.
* Without high EMS the Relays explode with devastating force.
* Without high EMS destruction can sweep out from the Crucible (endangering all life nearby).
* Without high EMS the Citadel/Crucible is destroyed and crashes into the Earth.

After ^all that, Bioware just needs to come up with a satisfactory sequence for how [fill in the blank] squad mate(s) got on board the Normandy prior to it crashing.

The rest is fine to speculate about. eg. If my Shep lives, I can imagine happy retirement days in a beach house with my Shep's LI. If my Shep doesn't live, I can imagine my LI/BFFs mourn Shep and then go about forming a United Federation of Planets, fixing the Relays and/or advancing FTL speeds. etc. If my Shep was full of fail and EMS wasn't high enough, I can imagine that life finds a way, it's a slow, struggle filled process but the galaxy finds a way to recover.

These clarifications and changes involve; The fan favorite Harby (who was mysteriously absent). Establish and/or Maintain debatable pros and cons for all three ending variations.

Modifié par zambingo, 27 avril 2012 - 05:04 .

[MegumiAzusa]

The problem with showing it was indoctrination would be what it would devalue everything but the red ending.