616 réponses à ce sujet

[delphonic]

So I just finished watching and there are a number of things I had not noticed that are very strong supporting evidence, such as the piles of bodies near the harbinger beam - the background sounds while waking up near the beam vs. the sounds in the dream etc.

The most damning evidence might be the coding behind the foliage in the planet the Normandy landing. It is listed as "Dream" Foliage in the coding for the game!

[gendocrono]

I only have one correction, the underlined part, Bioware has NEITHER denied NOR confirmed this theory.

So everybody just quit that ok?

Well we're sadly in for a world of hurt, regardless what anyone speculates, because this mess isn't going to be fixed with some half-assed FREE DLC.

The Voice actors are going in to Bioware, to do future planned DLC's, which as far as I'm concerned, can DIAF!

I don't know when or where i read this, but it seems Bioware says that nothing (story dlc) was planned =/

After that, i don't know, ok if they didin't have say yet " we denie IT" but i don't know what is the difference.

(And it ****** me off, really, IT would have been an amazing twist..........so, wait and see).

[iHorizons]

I will make sure to watch the video

[Dezerte]

Just watched it, I actually found the link on another forum and the video was so interesting it made me come back here to BSN to give you my view.

There are things I had no idea about, like the one about the plant textures being named "dream".

On a whole I agree with most of his points.

[Hedini]

Great work on the video! :-)

At least it has recovered some of my faith into the series because for me(!) the ending began after Shepard's decision... and I was really confused about not having a real epilogue about at least one NPC... Suikoden had an epilogue for every of the 108 NPCs. <sigh>

Anyway, I have two small remarks about the video:

• Moving walls
  As far as I can remember from ME1, there were some diplomats on the Citadel talking about the keepers constantly rearranging the structure of the Citadel and that his office had been rebuilt several times during that month(?). Although the player never sees this during the game, it might be a reference to this dialogue.
  
• Anderson changing to "Admiral Anderson"
  I would not mind this at all... at least the German subtitles are out-of-sync with the spoken dialogues very often, so I think this just slipped through QA.

[TSA_383]

OP, just to let you know, you need to include this topic.
Like, NEED to:
http://social.biowar.../index/10973597

[OldPapaRich]

Dezman8 wrote...
There are things I had no idea about, like the one about the plant textures being named "dream".

Me too.  One thing I swear I have seen (but not been able to find again) was the file name of the star child being "Harbinger." If I'm not misremembering, then that really supports the assertion that the kid is a lying representation of the Reapers and not the Catalyst.

Modifié par OldPapaRich, 12 mai 2012 - 03:22 .

[Ownaholic]

Hey everybody!

Please check out this topic, to let the awesome radio host Andy Borkowski know what questions you want me to answer during my potential interview.

Thank you so much!

Modifié par Ownaholic, 12 mai 2012 - 09:32 .

[UltimateTobi]

Ownaholic wrote...

Hey everybody!

Please check out this topic, to let the awesome radio host Andy Borkowski know what questions you want me to answer during my potential interview.

Thank you so much!

I am not that good at asking questions, but I wish you luck with that interview, and will have a look at it, when it's "released".
 
Again: damn nice documentary. :happy:

[MuteSyndrome]

This is awesome.

[Ingu]

I think this has convinced me of the Indoctrination Theory again. xD I'll look forward to whatever the Extended Cut DLC entails.

[Ownaholic]

UltimateTobi wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...

Hey everybody!

Please check out this topic, to let the awesome radio host Andy Borkowski know what questions you want me to answer during my potential interview.

Thank you so much!

I am not that good at asking questions, but I wish you luck with that interview, and will have a look at it, when it's "released".
 
Again: damn nice documentary. :happy:

Haha thank you!
And hey, even if you're horrible with questions, you could always ballpark it!

[darkhorsedan72]

It will take too long for me to go through the past 20 pages of posts to find out, but has anyone mentioned talked about the gun with unlimited ammo yet? I've seen it cited as proof that Shephard is dreaming in two I.T videos yet I've not seen anyone point out that the gun Anderson gives you at the beginning of ME3 has unlimited ammunition and no ammo counter up until the point the game needs to teach beginners how to melee, then all of a sudden it needs a thermal clip. It's just game mechanics. The game requires that you have a fully loaded gun for the last sequence where you shoot the tubes (if you pick destroy) which is why you never needed ammo or thermal clips... Also the fact you can't shoot and kill the Keepers on the Citadel is a stupid point to make as well as there are plenty of examples in this game and in many other games where it won't allow you to harm friendly NPCs. These two arguments can not be put forward as valid evidence for I.T. theory.

Modifié par darkhorsedan72, 14 mai 2012 - 02:29 .

[Ownaholic]

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

It will take too long for me to go through the past 20 pages of posts to find out, but has anyone mentioned talked about the gun with unlimited ammo yet? I've seen it cited as proof that Shephard is dreaming in two I.T videos yet I've not seen anyone point out that the gun Anderson gives you at the beginning of ME3 has unlimited ammunition and no ammo counter up until the point the game needs to teach beginners how to melee, then all of a sudden it needs a thermal clip. It's just game mechanics. The game requires that you have a fully loaded gun for the last sequence where you shoot the tubes (if you pick destroy) which is why you never needed ammo or thermal clips... Also the fact you can't shoot and kill the Keepers on the Citadel is a stupid point to make as well as there are plenty of examples in this game and in many other games where it won't allow you to harm friendly NPCs. These two arguments can not be put forward as valid evidence for I.T. theory.

This one has been beaten to death a hundred times over already. xD
But basically, it's still a different situation. At the beginning of the game, you still have to reload, and you still have your HUD.
At the end of the game, there is no reloading whatsoever, and no HUD.

Bioware went out of their way to include the gun requirement for the Destroy option. They could have very easily come up with another way for him to do it.
Besides, I understand the unlimited ammo thing; that's fine. Game mechanic. BUT the fact that you never reload? That's an uneccesary aspect that was added in specifically. There's no reaso for it, and Bioware once again went out of their way to include it.

[Makrys]

BUMP!

[FreddyCast]

My youtube username is romybarboza:
Julian told me to put my comment in this forum, I think, so he could answer it.
"This is more of a criticism. You say that the rubble when Shepard survives is London rubble, yet I've seen the London rebars and they look nothing like those in the rubble scene. However, the wiring in the red hall with dead bodies and the wiring on top of the destroy and control option devices are exactly like those in the rubble scene. Even in the Chasm, there is material that looks like concrete. I could go on, but my point is that is Citadel/Crucible rubble. Please respond!"

[Wowky]

This video is so awesome

[Ownaholic]

I'll just leave these here.
When Anderson says "They're controlling you", he looks directly at the camera (which is currently Shepard's POV) upon saying the word "You".
You can see this in video form here.

Modifié par Ownaholic, 14 mai 2012 - 05:59 .

[Lisa_H]

Great video, it even made me believe in the indoctrination theory

[darkhorsedan72]

Ownaholic wrote...

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

It will take too long for me to go through the past 20 pages of posts to find out, but has anyone mentioned talked about the gun with unlimited ammo yet? I've seen it cited as proof that Shephard is dreaming in two I.T videos yet I've not seen anyone point out that the gun Anderson gives you at the beginning of ME3 has unlimited ammunition and no ammo counter up until the point the game needs to teach beginners how to melee, then all of a sudden it needs a thermal clip. It's just game mechanics. The game requires that you have a fully loaded gun for the last sequence where you shoot the tubes (if you pick destroy) which is why you never needed ammo or thermal clips... Also the fact you can't shoot and kill the Keepers on the Citadel is a stupid point to make as well as there are plenty of examples in this game and in many other games where it won't allow you to harm friendly NPCs. These two arguments can not be put forward as valid evidence for I.T. theory.

This one has been beaten to death a hundred times over already. xD
But basically, it's still a different situation. At the beginning of the game, you still have to reload, and you still have your HUD.
At the end of the game, there is no reloading whatsoever, and no HUD.

Bioware went out of their way to include the gun requirement for the Destroy option. They could have very easily come up with another way for him to do it.
Besides, I understand the unlimited ammo thing; that's fine. Game mechanic. BUT the fact that you never reload? That's an uneccesary aspect that was added in specifically. There's no reaso for it, and Bioware once again went out of their way to include it.

So it's okay for the unlimited ammo to be put in their as part of the game mechanic at the beginning, but just because you can't find a reason (outside of I.T of course) for Bioware to remove the reload feature it doesn't mean that it MUST be because Shephard is in a dream. None of us have been directly involved in the development process of this game so we are not privy to the creative decisions that meant we have a gun that does not reload, so nothing is 100% conclusive.

This is what rubs me up the wrong way about Indoctrination theory, because it basically says "anything which doesn't make sense, or anything we aren't able to explain at face value must mean this is all part of a dream... coz basically dreams don't have to make sense and anything can go in a dream". How can anyone put up any sort of argument against such logic? 

I can appreciate the effort you have gone into with the video and there are many things in there that does make me think, but you put each point across as if it is fact. Each explanation is done in such a way as if it is the only explanation and is 100% correct. I'm afraid that all of what you might call 'evidence' in that video is speculative, just some of it is stronger and more compelling than others, but it is still speculative at the end of the day. 

Another issue I have is with the implications of I.T. if it turns out to be true. Because it would basically mean that Bioware has shipped out a game that is incomplete, or requires further DLC to finish. Part of my work involves retail and I can tell you that consumers would have grounds for getting some kind of a refund or a reimbursement if that was the case. It would be unfair of Bioware to just assume that everyone who owns this game can connect it to the internet to download the DLC, and what if they had decided to charge for the DLC to complete the game? I doubt a big company would deliberatly ship out a product that was incomplete because it would cause these kind of issues.

[walker20]

Because I was also utterly disappointed by a "non-ending" without any closures, I really enjoyed watching the video and appreciate the effort the author put into it.

But I simply can't convince myself to agree with the IT.

Mainly because it's too complex. It admittedly has some explanatory power, but while it closes some plot holes it simply ignores others as well as important contradicting evidence.

I don't want to elaborate on everything that comes to my mind when thinking this through. For me, it's a question of plausibility.

So, what the ME3 ending actually all comes down to is to weigh two hypothesis for plausibility:

1. The ME3 story and its ending are so sophisticated and complex that thousands and thousands of players are not able to comprehend it in its entirety without a whole lot of other players providing them with a theory offering incomplete explanatory power to help them understand the story and its ending.

2. Bioware ****ed up the ME3 ending.

It's your choice. It's an ugly one. I have made mine.

Modifié par walker20, 14 mai 2012 - 07:31 .

[Ownaholic]

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

It will take too long for me to go through the past 20 pages of posts to find out, but has anyone mentioned talked about the gun with unlimited ammo yet? I've seen it cited as proof that Shephard is dreaming in two I.T videos yet I've not seen anyone point out that the gun Anderson gives you at the beginning of ME3 has unlimited ammunition and no ammo counter up until the point the game needs to teach beginners how to melee, then all of a sudden it needs a thermal clip. It's just game mechanics. The game requires that you have a fully loaded gun for the last sequence where you shoot the tubes (if you pick destroy) which is why you never needed ammo or thermal clips... Also the fact you can't shoot and kill the Keepers on the Citadel is a stupid point to make as well as there are plenty of examples in this game and in many other games where it won't allow you to harm friendly NPCs. These two arguments can not be put forward as valid evidence for I.T. theory.

This one has been beaten to death a hundred times over already. xD
But basically, it's still a different situation. At the beginning of the game, you still have to reload, and you still have your HUD.
At the end of the game, there is no reloading whatsoever, and no HUD.

Bioware went out of their way to include the gun requirement for the Destroy option. They could have very easily come up with another way for him to do it.
Besides, I understand the unlimited ammo thing; that's fine. Game mechanic. BUT the fact that you never reload? That's an uneccesary aspect that was added in specifically. There's no reaso for it, and Bioware once again went out of their way to include it.

So it's okay for the unlimited ammo to be put in their as part of the game mechanic at the beginning, but just because you can't find a reason (outside of I.T of course) for Bioware to remove the reload feature it doesn't mean that it MUST be because Shephard is in a dream. None of us have been directly involved in the development process of this game so we are not privy to the creative decisions that meant we have a gun that does not reload, so nothing is 100% conclusive.

This is what rubs me up the wrong way about Indoctrination theory, because it basically says "anything which doesn't make sense, or anything we aren't able to explain at face value must mean this is all part of a dream... coz basically dreams don't have to make sense and anything can go in a dream". How can anyone put up any sort of argument against such logic? 

I can appreciate the effort you have gone into with the video and there are many things in there that does make me think, but you put each point across as if it is fact. Each explanation is done in such a way as if it is the only explanation and is 100% correct. I'm afraid that all of what you might call 'evidence' in that video is speculative, just some of it is stronger and more compelling than others, but it is still speculative at the end of the day. 

Another issue I have is with the implications of I.T. if it turns out to be true. Because it would basically mean that Bioware has shipped out a game that is incomplete, or requires further DLC to finish. Part of my work involves retail and I can tell you that consumers would have grounds for getting some kind of a refund or a reimbursement if that was the case. It would be unfair of Bioware to just assume that everyone who owns this game can connect it to the internet to download the DLC, and what if they had decided to charge for the DLC to complete the game? I doubt a big company would deliberatly ship out a product that was incomplete because it would cause these kind of issues.

If you recall in the video, I never once said it was 100% true. I said it was a plausible aspect of the theory. Might be true, might not be.
Nobody is taking the gun thing as fact. It is one of the weakest aspects of the theory, which is amusing because that along with the armor aspect are the only things critics have been able to combat. (And both of those are plausible theories).

[darkhorsedan72]

Ownaholic wrote...

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...

darkhorsedan72 wrote...

It will take too long for me to go through the past 20 pages of posts to find out, but has anyone mentioned talked about the gun with unlimited ammo yet? I've seen it cited as proof that Shephard is dreaming in two I.T videos yet I've not seen anyone point out that the gun Anderson gives you at the beginning of ME3 has unlimited ammunition and no ammo counter up until the point the game needs to teach beginners how to melee, then all of a sudden it needs a thermal clip. It's just game mechanics. The game requires that you have a fully loaded gun for the last sequence where you shoot the tubes (if you pick destroy) which is why you never needed ammo or thermal clips... Also the fact you can't shoot and kill the Keepers on the Citadel is a stupid point to make as well as there are plenty of examples in this game and in many other games where it won't allow you to harm friendly NPCs. These two arguments can not be put forward as valid evidence for I.T. theory.

This one has been beaten to death a hundred times over already. xD
But basically, it's still a different situation. At the beginning of the game, you still have to reload, and you still have your HUD.
At the end of the game, there is no reloading whatsoever, and no HUD.

Bioware went out of their way to include the gun requirement for the Destroy option. They could have very easily come up with another way for him to do it.
Besides, I understand the unlimited ammo thing; that's fine. Game mechanic. BUT the fact that you never reload? That's an uneccesary aspect that was added in specifically. There's no reaso for it, and Bioware once again went out of their way to include it.

So it's okay for the unlimited ammo to be put in their as part of the game mechanic at the beginning, but just because you can't find a reason (outside of I.T of course) for Bioware to remove the reload feature it doesn't mean that it MUST be because Shephard is in a dream. None of us have been directly involved in the development process of this game so we are not privy to the creative decisions that meant we have a gun that does not reload, so nothing is 100% conclusive.

This is what rubs me up the wrong way about Indoctrination theory, because it basically says "anything which doesn't make sense, or anything we aren't able to explain at face value must mean this is all part of a dream... coz basically dreams don't have to make sense and anything can go in a dream". How can anyone put up any sort of argument against such logic? 

I can appreciate the effort you have gone into with the video and there are many things in there that does make me think, but you put each point across as if it is fact. Each explanation is done in such a way as if it is the only explanation and is 100% correct. I'm afraid that all of what you might call 'evidence' in that video is speculative, just some of it is stronger and more compelling than others, but it is still speculative at the end of the day. 

Another issue I have is with the implications of I.T. if it turns out to be true. Because it would basically mean that Bioware has shipped out a game that is incomplete, or requires further DLC to finish. Part of my work involves retail and I can tell you that consumers would have grounds for getting some kind of a refund or a reimbursement if that was the case. It would be unfair of Bioware to just assume that everyone who owns this game can connect it to the internet to download the DLC, and what if they had decided to charge for the DLC to complete the game? I doubt a big company would deliberatly ship out a product that was incomplete because it would cause these kind of issues.

If you recall in the video, I never once said it was 100% true. I said it was a plausible aspect of the theory. Might be true, might not be.
Nobody is taking the gun thing as fact. It is one of the weakest aspects of the theory, which is amusing because that along with the armor aspect are the only things critics have been able to combat. (And both of those are plausible theories).

I pointed out the gun first. But if you read the rest my previous post I was referring to the problems of the theory in general in that because everything that takes place in I.T. is basically a dream and not real then basically anything we can't provide an explanation for ends up strengthening the theory in yours eyes. All I'm saying is that there are always other possible explanations for all of the points put forward in your video yet you talk like there aren't.

The thing is, the critics aren't going to be able to combat every questionable aspect of the ending without being privy to the full development process of the game. Like I said, everything is just speculation and the whole strength of your argument is based around the premise that nothing in the ending is real, which basically means you can tailor the explanations of the events of the ending to suit your argument.

My own personal theory on the end is that Bioware did make some deliberate creative choices that could suggest indoctrination was taking place but it was never their intention for that to be THE answer for what happened at the end. They wanted the ending to be ambiguous and thought provoking, they wanted the fans to talk and speculate on what happened, but this would also mean nothing is set in stone. It's like the ending to a film like American Psycho. Did Patrick Bateman really murder those people or was it all in his imagination? There is evidence on both sides to support and contradict one another. And my personal believe is that is what they've done here is to create an ending with a myriad of possible explanations of what went on.

On a slight side note... how come your video never discussed the Prothean VI and it's ability to detect indoctrinated presences? 

[Frozen83]

I've just watched it. Very good argumentation. I just wanted to ask something - regarding Hackett knowing that Shepard is on the station. Well, the station is closed before the push. But at some point afterwards, it opens, so I guess Hackett assumed that Shepard is on it, and was the one on the controls which opened it. For me, that piece of evidence is a bit weak, plausible at best. The rest, really interesting stuff. Unfortunatelly, I'm not convinced that BW/EA will go with IT in their EC. They just seem to arrogant about it at ths point. Too bad, it would really make them "the company that listens to their players". M.

[CrimsonQueen]

I hope from all the work you put into the vid that it turns out to be true, i hope its true as well because i just felt so deflated at the end after all's said and done it was a let down. Good Vid, Nicely put together, thank you for sharing it with us.