327 réponses à ce sujet

[zambot]

Our_Last_Scene wrote...

zambot wrote...

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

I'd include The Thing in there too.

The Thing is definitely cool, but I admit, I have not watched it enough to understand the director's intent with the ending.

[Makrys]

NS Wizdum wrote...

GiarcYekrub wrote...

IDT is rubbish because:

1.Ignores the major player decision at the end of the game
2.Fails to conclude the Reaper war
3.Fails to conclude Shepards story
4.It was all a dream is the worst cliche ever.

The only thing more cliche than "'it was all a dream" is "the hero sacrifices himself for the geater good". Nothing about the ending is revolutionary.

Those first 3 items are the same thing. How are you people forming ideas about the Indoc Theory, without actually reading about it to see what it is? I don't personally believe it, but atleast I know what it is. The original idea was that Bioware was holding the ending back to prevent the story from being leaked again (and to introduce the biggest twist gaming has ever seen). The theory states that, since Bioware failed to address the points you listed (and many more), then there must still be additional content that we have not seen. The theory is not meant to fill all the plot holes, it is only meant to explain why Bioware allowed them in the game.

Its not that fracking complicated people.

No, it really isn't.

[zambot]

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: the ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

All of those things didn't take over 100 hours to finish with extremely awesome characters that you bonded with and want some closure with. Also, in those movies you didn't make choices for 100 hours and then see almost none of them come to fruition in the end. Also, those movies have nothing at all in common with Mass Effect. That was a dumb argument, no offense.

What does any of what you said have to do with IT not providing an ending?  Your argument that IT is a good ending is predicated by the amount of time investment you put into ME and how good the characters are?  How does that make any sense?  No offense.

I'm saying the IT would be the ending because it would 'change' anything, but instead pick up where it left off. It would just add on to the ending. Not change what is currently there. And without changing the ending, the IT is the only thing that makes sense. 

In other words, IT is good because it allows us to scrap the "actual" ending (by having it be a hallucination), and gives Bioware the opportunity to create a good ending?  While I agree this would be better than the "actual ending", IT is not an ending.  It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created.

ie, IT is not an ending.

[Lesbian Wood Elf]

I would be angry as all hell if IT was true.

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

IT is not an ending. I don't want to discount all the hard work IT people put into coming up with it. The fact they were able to get so far with it is a testament to how deep ME actually is. But still, it is not an ending.

Let's look at some of the greatest ambiguous endings in modern story telling
- Blade Runner (was he a replicant?)
- Inception (is he still dreaming?)
- The Graduate (ok, now what?)

All of these movies ended ambiguously with a ton left open to interpretation to the viewer. However, they all have one thing in common: the ended the main story arc of the movie and anything left open to audience interpretation is not relevant to concluding the director's central theme of the movie. It doesn't matter whether Decker actually is a replicant: he now appreciates them as equals to himself. It doesn't matter whether Cobb is dreaming: he has released his obsession with knowing what is "real" and accepts a reality with his children. It doesn't matter whether Elaine and Benjamin actually live "happily ever after": they've made a decision to be together regardless of the future.

IT is different. Unlike Decker, Cobb, and Benjamin/Elaine, there is no moving on to the "next phase" which is open to interpretation by the viewer because the original phase, or the original conflict, is still UNRESOLVED. It would be like ending Blade Runner just before the fight with Roy and saying what happens next is up to you the viewers. That would make no sense at all, which is what we would be left with if IT were the actual ending.

tldr: IT is cool, but it is not an ending.

All of those things didn't take over 100 hours to finish with extremely awesome characters that you bonded with and want some closure with. Also, in those movies you didn't make choices for 100 hours and then see almost none of them come to fruition in the end. Also, those movies have nothing at all in common with Mass Effect. That was a dumb argument, no offense.

What does any of what you said have to do with IT not providing an ending?  Your argument that IT is a good ending is predicated by the amount of time investment you put into ME and how good the characters are?  How does that make any sense?  No offense.

I'm saying the IT would be the ending because it would 'change' anything, but instead pick up where it left off. It would just add on to the ending. Not change what is currently there. And without changing the ending, the IT is the only thing that makes sense. 

In other words, IT is good because it allows us to scrap the "actual" ending (by having it be a hallucination), and gives Bioware the opportunity to create a good ending?  While I agree this would be better than the "actual ending", IT is not an ending.  It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created.

ie, IT is not an ending.

You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

[LelianaHawke]

One major issue I have with the IT is the time plot hole.

Reapers are all around the Citadel and the opportunity to take the shot is fast diminishing as shield fleet starts getting torn up.

If Shepard wastes 10 minutes on fighting indoctrination, the reapers win. Shepard needs to make her choice as soon as possible.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 04:37 .

[HiddenKING]

Makrys wrote...

There is no explanation for the ending besides the IT. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.


Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

(Also: I posted a thread yesterday pinpointing the things about the IT that fascinate me, and also providing logical arguments on why it seems to be the only explanation of the end. Here is the link if you're interested: http://social.biowar...ndex/11663568/1)

The Illusive Man uses Biotics, you see his hand glow in the usual fashion when that occurs. 

Shepard is wounded, in more than he is aware of. It can easily be explain as shrapnel from Harbinger's dubstep laser hittin in front of him.

Children symbolize innocence, or they're supposed to. Bioware used the kid to make the game more emotional, like many movies, stories, and games. The Catalyst is supposed to seem innocent, and trustworthy. Incapable of discipherin right from wrong. That's the reason why Bioware used the kid in the dreams. Game point of view, there's not reason, but it can be easily be explained in the Extended cut.

Destroy is negative, as it isn't a solution to the synthetic v. organic conflict. It's merely removin the solution to see if a new outcome will occur. You can't guarantee that peace will last and/or that a new synthetic lifeform will ever be created. 

Again the boy is an emotinal trigger.

TIM had Reaper nanotechnology implanted on himself in order to "gain control" we also know that Reapers have the ability to use the body of an indoctrinated victim to amplify it's signal. It doesn't mean that Shepard is Indoctrinated. It means that TIM is tryin to control Shepard.

You can explain everythin with "it never happened" or "it was a dream" but the Indoctrination Idea has no concrete evidence to support it.

[cyborg2501]

Because game developers are not in the business of just taking an answer the fans created and making it their own. Mass Effect is Bioware's creation, not the fans'. The only thing we create is our own version of Shepard within the Mass Effect story.

[Makrys]

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

There is no explanation for the ending besides the IT. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.


Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

(Also: I posted a thread yesterday pinpointing the things about the IT that fascinate me, and also providing logical arguments on why it seems to be the only explanation of the end. Here is the link if you're interested: http://social.biowar...ndex/11663568/1)

The Illusive Man uses Biotics, you see his hand glow in the usual fashion when that occurs. 

Shepard is wounded, in more than he is aware of. It can easily be explain as shrapnel from Harbinger's dubstep laser hittin in front of him.

Children symbolize innocence, or they're supposed to. Bioware used the kid to make the game more emotional, like many movies, stories, and games. The Catalyst is supposed to seem innocent, and trustworthy. Incapable of discipherin right from wrong. That's the reason why Bioware used the kid in the dreams. Game point of view, there's not reason, but it can be easily be explained in the Extended cut.

Destroy is negative, as it isn't a solution to the synthetic v. organic conflict. It's merely removin the solution to see if a new outcome will occur. You can't guarantee that peace will last and/or that a new synthetic lifeform will ever be created. 

Again the boy is an emotinal trigger.

TIM had Reaper nanotechnology implanted on himself in order to "gain control" we also know that Reapers have the ability to use the body of an indoctrinated victim to amplify it's signal. It doesn't mean that Shepard is Indoctrinated. It means that TIM is tryin to control Shepard.

You can explain everythin with "it never happened" or "it was a dream" but the Indoctrination Idea has no concrete evidence to support it.

I assume you have not seen Acavyos's youtube video.

[zambot]

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

So what then?  Shepard resists the indoctrination, wakes up on Earth, and the reapers all...go home?  "Oh crap guys, we failed to get that Shepard guy, guess the gig is up.  Time to get the heck out of here!"

In order for IT to be an ending it has to conclude something.  The only thing IT concludes is whether or not Shepard gets indoctrinated.  I guess if the entire ME series were all a hallucination and it was entirely about trying to indoctrinate Shepard, then yes, IT would wrap all that up nicely.  But I can't buy that.

[LelianaHawke]

I agree that Bioware won't use player fanfic due to copyright issues, but players have the freedom to make their own story.

I believe the ending was purposely left vague to encourage this. But people enjoy being spoonfed.

[Makrys]

cyborg2501 wrote...

Because game developers are not in the business of just taking an answer the fans created and making it their own. Mass Effect is Bioware's creation, not the fans'. The only thing we create is our own version of Shepard within the Mass Effect story.

The IT was Bioware's idea to begin with. Not the fans. Evidence of it was in their leaked script. It was also in the "Final Hours" app. It was Bioware who started the theory, not the fans. We just saw the evidence and ran with it.

[HiddenKING]

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

There is no explanation for the ending besides the IT. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.


Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

(Also: I posted a thread yesterday pinpointing the things about the IT that fascinate me, and also providing logical arguments on why it seems to be the only explanation of the end. Here is the link if you're interested: http://social.biowar...ndex/11663568/1)

The Illusive Man uses Biotics, you see his hand glow in the usual fashion when that occurs. 

Shepard is wounded, in more than he is aware of. It can easily be explain as shrapnel from Harbinger's dubstep laser hittin in front of him.

Children symbolize innocence, or they're supposed to. Bioware used the kid to make the game more emotional, like many movies, stories, and games. The Catalyst is supposed to seem innocent, and trustworthy. Incapable of discipherin right from wrong. That's the reason why Bioware used the kid in the dreams. Game point of view, there's not reason, but it can be easily be explained in the Extended cut.

Destroy is negative, as it isn't a solution to the synthetic v. organic conflict. It's merely removin the solution to see if a new outcome will occur. You can't guarantee that peace will last and/or that a new synthetic lifeform will ever be created. 

Again the boy is an emotinal trigger.

TIM had Reaper nanotechnology implanted on himself in order to "gain control" we also know that Reapers have the ability to use the body of an indoctrinated victim to amplify it's signal. It doesn't mean that Shepard is Indoctrinated. It means that TIM is tryin to control Shepard.

You can explain everythin with "it never happened" or "it was a dream" but the Indoctrination Idea has no concrete evidence to support it.

I assume you have not seen Acavyos's youtube video.

I have, but takin out of context information and usin it to support your idea with completely circumstancial evidence and/or lack of evidence. Does not make said Idea or "Theory", if you want to call it that, true.

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

So what then?  Shepard resists the indoctrination, wakes up on Earth, and the reapers all...go home?  "Oh crap guys, we failed to get that Shepard guy, guess the gig is up.  Time to get the heck out of here!"

In order for IT to be an ending it has to conclude something.  The only thing IT concludes is whether or not Shepard gets indoctrinated.  I guess if the entire ME series were all a hallucination and it was entirely about trying to indoctrinate Shepard, then yes, IT would wrap all that up nicely.  But I can't buy that.

Watch Acayvos' youtube video. Search it up. If that doesn't help you understand it at all, I never will. The theory applies that when Shepard wakes up, he still has to defeat the Reapers. The Reapers are not destroyed yet. Of course, this implies that Bioware sold us an imcomplete game, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised. I think the DLC was planned from the get go, there is evidence of that. And also the amount of speculation about the ending was intended. I believe they wanted this to happen, and then when the DLC comes out, boom, IT is true and the shock factor is higher for everyone because by that time  most people will have given up on the IT. None of us know. I just think the IT is the most reasonable explanation. We may have to agree to disagree. I do not intend to argue if it goes down that path. 

[cyborg2501]

Makrys wrote...

cyborg2501 wrote...

Because game developers are not in the business of just taking an answer the fans created and making it their own. Mass Effect is Bioware's creation, not the fans'. The only thing we create is our own version of Shepard within the Mass Effect story.

The IT was Bioware's idea to begin with. Not the fans. Evidence of it was in their leaked script. It was also in the "Final Hours" app. It was Bioware who started the theory, not the fans. We just saw the evidence and ran with it.

Assuming that IT is correct (which I believe is likely), then it was obviously part of a larger plan that involves the element of surprise. It's great that fans have picked up on it and ran with it, but I don't understand why so many people expect Bioware to just come out and say "Ok, IT is right, now you know what to expect from the dlc". Talk about ruining the impact and a major buzzkill. People just have no patience

[LelianaHawke]

If Shepard 'wakes up' then the reapars win, because there's not enough time to fire the Death Star after spending 10 minutes wandering aroudn in a hallucination. Shield Fleet is getting cut up all during the time Shepard is talking to the Catalyst.

Modifié par LelianaHawke, 26 avril 2012 - 04:48 .

[zambot]

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

So what then?  Shepard resists the indoctrination, wakes up on Earth, and the reapers all...go home?  "Oh crap guys, we failed to get that Shepard guy, guess the gig is up.  Time to get the heck out of here!"

In order for IT to be an ending it has to conclude something.  The only thing IT concludes is whether or not Shepard gets indoctrinated.  I guess if the entire ME series were all a hallucination and it was entirely about trying to indoctrinate Shepard, then yes, IT would wrap all that up nicely.  But I can't buy that.

Watch Acayvos' youtube video. Search it up. If that doesn't help you understand it at all, I never will. The theory applies that when Shepard wakes up, he still has to defeat the Reapers. The Reapers are not destroyed yet. Of course, this implies that Bioware sold us an imcomplete game, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised. I think the DLC was planned from the get go, there is evidence of that. And also the amount of speculation about the ending was intended. I believe they wanted this to happen, and then when the DLC comes out, boom, IT is true and the shock factor is higher for everyone because by that time  most people will have given up on the IT. None of us know. I just think the IT is the most reasonable explanation. We may have to agree to disagree. I do not intend to argue if it goes down that path. 

There...read what you just said.  I am not arguing whether IT is real or has merit.  I am saying that it is not an ENDING.  You just said that if IT is true, then Bioware sold us an incomplete game (ie a game without an ENDING).  I agree with that.  That's my entire point.  IT, regardless of whether it is "true" or was Bioware's intention all along is not an ending.  It doesn't end anything.  To accept IT is to accept ME3 has no ending.  Which is fine.  I have no problems with people who do.  I actually think Acayvos' video is really cool.

Modifié par zambot, 26 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[Makrys]

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

HiddenKING wrote...

Makrys wrote...

There is no explanation for the ending besides the IT. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.


Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

(Also: I posted a thread yesterday pinpointing the things about the IT that fascinate me, and also providing logical arguments on why it seems to be the only explanation of the end. Here is the link if you're interested: http://social.biowar...ndex/11663568/1)

The Illusive Man uses Biotics, you see his hand glow in the usual fashion when that occurs. 

Shepard is wounded, in more than he is aware of. It can easily be explain as shrapnel from Harbinger's dubstep laser hittin in front of him.

Children symbolize innocence, or they're supposed to. Bioware used the kid to make the game more emotional, like many movies, stories, and games. The Catalyst is supposed to seem innocent, and trustworthy. Incapable of discipherin right from wrong. That's the reason why Bioware used the kid in the dreams. Game point of view, there's not reason, but it can be easily be explained in the Extended cut.

Destroy is negative, as it isn't a solution to the synthetic v. organic conflict. It's merely removin the solution to see if a new outcome will occur. You can't guarantee that peace will last and/or that a new synthetic lifeform will ever be created. 

Again the boy is an emotinal trigger.

TIM had Reaper nanotechnology implanted on himself in order to "gain control" we also know that Reapers have the ability to use the body of an indoctrinated victim to amplify it's signal. It doesn't mean that Shepard is Indoctrinated. It means that TIM is tryin to control Shepard.

You can explain everythin with "it never happened" or "it was a dream" but the Indoctrination Idea has no concrete evidence to support it.

I assume you have not seen Acavyos's youtube video.

I have, but takin out of context information and usin it to support your idea with completely circumstancial evidence and/or lack of evidence. Does not make said Idea or "Theory", if you want to call it that, true.

There are way too many 'coincidences' that people who don't believe in the IT use to explain things. Frankly, I find it much easier to think that idoctrination, being a very key role throughout the series, would then come to play a heavy heavy role in the end and with no one other than Shepard himself. I encourage you to read my thread I posted yesterday if you want to know my full thoughts. The IT explains what other people call 'coincidences' or 'luck'. I'd rather have a solid explanation that makes perfect sense rather than just throw it in the air and say "Oh, well that was just a coincidence. Or... I don't know how that happened, so we'll just say it was luck'. Seriously, I have a lot more faith in Bioware's writers than that. 

[OdanUrr]

Makrys wrote...

I can see no other explanation for the ending besides the IT. There are just so many things that point towards it. Please, someone explain these few things here without using the IT:

I'm going to do something I'll probably regret: I'm going to provide an alternate explanation for the points you brought up. You don't have to like the explanations, that's not what you asked for. You don't even have to agree with them either.

Makrys wrote... 

During the scene with TIM, Shepard shoots Anderson. Why the hell would be shoot Anderson?

TIM controls Shepard's movements at that point and has him pull the trigger.

Makrys wrote... 

Later, you see Shepard clutching his side with blood pouring out, and its EXACTLY WHERE HE SHOT ANDERSON! What?!

He was clutching that same side before. Remember, Shepard's been shot all over, he may have exerted himself too much and the wound opened and blood started pouring out. Personally, I think it serves no further purpose than to indicate Shepard himself is dying.

Makrys wrote... 

So... the Catalyst is just coincidentally the SAME boy in Shepard's nightmares/hallucinations? Explain that without the IT.

Shepard has been having recurring nightmares about the boy. It is possible that the Catalyst took the form of the kid because he was strongest in Shepard's mind. In essence, the Catalyst didn't choose the form, Shepard did.

Makrys wrote... 

When telling Shepard about the three choices, the Catalyst deliberately paints a negative like on the 'destroy' ending, and a very positive light on the 'synthesis' ending? Why? (because one leads to indoctrination and the other to breaking free)

I think he's fairly objective about it. He says he knows Shepard's thought about destroying the Reapers and explains what that would mean: it would also destroy all synthetic life in the galaxy, including the Geth. He also says, "even you are partly synthetic," implying Shepard could also die, but Shepard has always known from the get-go that the mission could take his life, so this isn't much of an argument. Furthermore, the Catalyst states, he doesn't imply, that control will kill him, "you will die, you will control us, but you will lose everything you have." Personally, I don't think the Catalyst is arguing against something but for something: he's making a case for synthesis, a poor case but a case nonetheless. Ultimately, the choice is left to Shepard.

Makrys wrote... 

What is the point of the boy throughout the game in the first place? Without applying the IT, why did Bioware even insert some random kid into the game? And do you REALLY think he could have survived that Reaper laser on the room he was in at the beginning of the game?

Well, that small book that came with the CE says Bioware wanted the kid to represent all the people Shepard couldn't save at the beginning of the game when the Reapers attack Earth. This is probably why every scene with the kid is a bit too dramatic and some are symbolic in nature (e.g. the dreams). If you want to talk realism, that room would have been blown to kingdom come and Shepard and Anderson would've had to find another way through.

Makrys wrote... 

Also, why throughout the whole scene with TIM are there 'oily lines' stretching in across the screen when the Reapers are being talked about? Especially when TIM says 'look at the power they have!' right before Shepard shoots Anderson.

To drive the point home that TIM has been "enhanced" and is now "special.";)

Makrys wrote... 

Somebody answer these questions logically without using the IT. Otherwise, everyone who is against the IT needs to realize it is A LOT more credible than you give it credit for. Whether Bioware uses it or not remains to be seen. I think they would be idiots not to, but we'll see.

There are many cases throughout the Mass Effect series that logic goes out the window. The endings are such a case but not the only case (oh, if only!). Can these and other questions be answered without IT? I believe most of them can be. Whether you like the answers or not, that's another matter entirely.

Makrys wrote... 

I do not mean to offend anyone by this post, but it just seems almost obvious that the IT is true. Also, didn't mean to sound arrogant. I'm just frustrated with the whole issue. I'm also frustrated with people who completely discount the IT and its fairly obvious they know little about it. Be well informed before you make up your mind. Now, Bioware could pull something out of their ass and make things even worse. But I hope not... I so hope not.

Well, I don't think it's obvious or true, but as long as the endings remain open-ended enough, I'm not going to tell you what to believe. On the other hand, by asking that the EC be IT, you're telling me what I should believe. There are other problems with IT, such as taking away choice from the player and what not, but we'll leave that for another day (or PM me if you like).

Cheers.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 26 avril 2012 - 04:53 .

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

So what then?  Shepard resists the indoctrination, wakes up on Earth, and the reapers all...go home?  "Oh crap guys, we failed to get that Shepard guy, guess the gig is up.  Time to get the heck out of here!"

In order for IT to be an ending it has to conclude something.  The only thing IT concludes is whether or not Shepard gets indoctrinated.  I guess if the entire ME series were all a hallucination and it was entirely about trying to indoctrinate Shepard, then yes, IT would wrap all that up nicely.  But I can't buy that.

Watch Acayvos' youtube video. Search it up. If that doesn't help you understand it at all, I never will. The theory applies that when Shepard wakes up, he still has to defeat the Reapers. The Reapers are not destroyed yet. Of course, this implies that Bioware sold us an imcomplete game, but frankly I wouldn't be surprised. I think the DLC was planned from the get go, there is evidence of that. And also the amount of speculation about the ending was intended. I believe they wanted this to happen, and then when the DLC comes out, boom, IT is true and the shock factor is higher for everyone because by that time  most people will have given up on the IT. None of us know. I just think the IT is the most reasonable explanation. We may have to agree to disagree. I do not intend to argue if it goes down that path. 

There...read what you just said.  I am not arguing whether IT is real or has merit.  I am saying that it is not an ENDING.  You just said that if IT is true, then Bioware sold us an incomplete game (ie a game without an ENDING).  I agree with that.  That's my entire point.  IT, regardless of whether it is "true" or was Bioware's intentio all along is not an ending.  It doesn't end anything.  To accept IT is to accept ME3 has no ending.  Which is fine.  I have no problems with people who do.

The DLC will be the ending. I already explained this.

[Nathan Redgrave]

Because Indoctrination Theory essentially amounts to a classic "IT WAS ALL A DREAM" ending. Which would be infinitely worse than what we have now... not to mention out-of-effing-left-field, since massive and prolonged hallucinations of entire chains of events aren't exactly in the cards when it comes to Indoctrination, and never were until people started talking Indoctrination Theory in the first place.

Modifié par Nathan Redgrave, 26 avril 2012 - 04:49 .

[zambot]

Makrys wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

The DLC will be the ending. I already explained this.

So IT is not an ending.  The DLC will someday be the ending. 

[Makrys]

Ok, I'm done here. This thread is full of anti-IT theorists, so there's no point in me trying to make a case for it. Still, good discussion to have. 

Modifié par Makrys, 26 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[Nauks]

IamBlue wrote...

Because then they would have sold us a game without an end, instead of one with a bad ending...

What's worse though?

If I.T. is true, it opens up a perfect opportunity for post-game DLC, and granted that DLC looks halfway decent, enough people will buy it, more than would buy a mid-game "take back Omega" DLC or whatever (if the current terribad ending is merely expanded on in the EC), I would say is a safe guess.

Modifié par Nauks, 26 avril 2012 - 04:55 .

[Makrys]

zambot wrote...

Makrys wrote...

Makrys wrote...


You need to do a little more research about IT. It would provide an ending. I'm not sure why you keep rejecting that. "It is merely a way to make sure ME3 did not actually end so that a proper ending can be created", uh, exactly. The proper ending being the IT. 

IT is an ending. We can do this all day. 

The DLC will be the ending. I already explained this.

So IT is not an ending.  The DLC will someday be the ending. 

The DLC is IT. Its revealing IT. But whatever, I'm done trying to explain it to you, honestly. We disagree.