867 réponses à ce sujet

[Rip504]

Heg28 wrote...

Where did this even come from that you need the books in order to understand IT? All IT evidence movies that I watched are incredibly long and are only using hints out of the games.

But it was my understanding that the purpose of this threat is not to prove IT, but to convince people that just the scene with the illusive man is an indoctrination attempt. I still don´t see what the problem with that is.

hchadw wrote...
Your just about Dead on OP.... Its going to be hard to explain it though... There ARE many people on this forum that Have not read the books....................and Seem to have issues Actually Reading in General so ignore the Nerdrage Idiotic Responses...............    people should really go read the novels.......................but they wont...............they prefer BLISS!

I got caught in more then one thread. I was responding to the IT theory and may have goofed up.

Modifié par Rip504, 10 mai 2012 - 11:14 .

[Heg28]

Rip504 wrote...

Heg28 wrote...

Where did this even come from that you need the books in order to understand IT? All IT evidence movies that I watched are incredibly long and are only using hints out of the games.

But it was my understanding that the purpose of this threat is not to prove IT, but to convince people that just the scene with the illusive man is an indoctrination attempt. I still don´t see what the problem with that is.

hchadw wrote...
Your just about Dead on OP.... Its going to be hard to explain it though... There ARE many people on this forum that Have not read the books....................and Seem to have issues Actually Reading in General so ignore the Nerdrage Idiotic Responses...............    people should really go read the novels.......................but they wont...............they prefer BLISS!

I got caught in more then one thread. I was responding to the IT theory and may have goofed up.

Okay, my bad. Had skipped that one due to the high amount of dots. In regards to that I just want to point out that indoctrination is a pretty big deal throughout the whole mass effect series, and especially in the third game, since most of the time you fight against indoctrinated humans and apart from the reapers the biggest villains are TIM and Kai Leng, both indoctrinated. In addition you have the Indoctrination codex entry. No need for books to understand that in my opinion.

[Mann42]

dreman9999 wrote...
It shown most of all when TIM tries to control Shepard....

But the most indication sign is at the end ofthe game.....When TIM tries to control Shepard....http://www.youtube.c...fuWNkIUf0#t=31s  

When TIM gets a hold of Sheps mind(If it is real), Shepard hears the same whispers in the dream and sees oily shadows agian.  He has head aches and here buzzing noises. He loses some motor function  .....These are all signs of indoctrination.  So even if you take the ending as it is, Shepard is still show he is the process of indoctrination. And as we all know, that type of indoctriantion is only something that happens over time. As for why TIM controls Anderson their is one way to explain it. Anderson has benn in constate range of reaper, constatly fighting hush, and face Paul Grayson in ME: ASCENSION....Anderson has ample chance for the process of indoctrinatio to happe to his....Note:this is just it you take that scean as real.

My point is...even if you take the ending as it is. Shepard still is under indoctrination.

I just want to say that this is probably one of the most insightful observations about indoctrination I've seen.

I truly believe that Bioware intended the ending to be real, as in not a dream. However, I also believe that the Catalyst is just another Reaper and isn't telling the whole truth (I don't think he's lying... I think he's being tremendously selective with the truth). Whether IT is true or not, I truly believe that Control and Synthesis lead to a Reaper victory. 

But among all the plot holes, TIM's control of Shepard and Anderson gave me the most trouble. It made no sense. All throughout Sanctuary and the Cerberus Headquarters, audio messages with TIM, Lawson, and scientists give details about their reaper control project and how it's designed to intercept the Reaper signal and control their minions (and eventually them). They develop a way to implant people and indoctrinate them, but in all the clips, they never talk about using the technology on anything except someone who has been indoctrinated or implanted. 

So when TIM controls both Anderson and Shepard, it seems like a massive plothole. The only real use of this new technology we see as players is on two people that clearly aren't indoctrinated (if it's all real and taken at face value). 

But this makes a lot of sense. Anderson's been on Earth since they first attacked, directly beneath an army of Reapers, so I'm sure he's got some Reaper juice on him. Shepard has Reaper technology inside of him (ME2), been inside of a dead Reaper (ME2), been directly knocked out by a Reaper artifact pulse (Awakening), and in comes in constant contact with both Reapers and their artifacts all throughout ME3. 

With this theory, it implies that they were influenced by the Reapers enough to be restrained by TIM's technology, and Shepard was far enough gone than TIM could force Shepard to shoot Anderson.  

If Anderson was under that much Reaper influence, it makes me wonder just how many of the soldiers in Hammer squad were indoctrinated double agents; how many humans were influenced and silently indoctrinated so they could be 'activated' at the perfect moment. 

If Anderson and Shepard really were indoctrinated enough to be influenced by TIM's technology, then it kind of implies that the Reapers may have expected, or even wanted Shepard to get this far. 

<crazy speculation>I know that Bioware is hiding a lot of the Reaper's motivations, but I'm more convinced now than ever than the Crucible is actually Reaper technology left behind for organics to find as a test. The once chance to break the cycle. When Shepard managed to stop them twice, the Reapers gave Shepard the chance to build the Crucible. This could explain why the Reaper's didn't go straight for the citadel and shut off the relay network: they wanted Shepard to make his choice. However, they also wanted it to be on their terms, over Earth (the homeworld of Shepard, the one who stopped them), and they clearly wanted to influence his decision.</crazy speculation>

So the ending is still badly executed, but this would be a pretty cool detail if intentional.

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Tom Lehrer wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

" we want people to feel what Shepard feels, not just react to what's on the screen" - Casey Hudson


Straight from the horses mouth.

There is also one about the ending not be A B or C but we all saw how that worked out. I would not call him a liar but he is not honest.

Cant trust PR hype.

You must understand, it fits. The reapers lie, they lied, they DO NOT disclose any more information than they have to. It's a meta game that we are playing here. Synthesis is the best ending Mr. Gamble? C'MON!

So according to IT we were sold not only an game without an ending but BioWare has been activly screwing with the heads of their whole fan base? Whats the pay off for them? 

Make great game
Alienate Fanbase
???
Profit

Yes, this is the most controversial ending in gaming history. The news that the "clarification" and the "extended scenes" (Shepard_Alive scene) have actually fixed the ending will spread far and wide and may be the most successful DLC of all time.

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

Modifié par balance5050, 11 mai 2012 - 12:41 .

[Krunjar]

Last I heard selling more copies wasn't actually a sin. As far as the dlc itself it will have to do pretty damn good to counter balance the hundreds + of entitled nerdraging fans. If this was all intentional it's got to be the stupidest marketing ploy in history.

[balance5050]

Krunjar wrote...

Last I heard selling more copies wasn't actually a sin. As far as the dlc itself it will have to do pretty damn good to counter balance the hundreds + of entitled nerdraging fans. If this was all intentional it's got to be the stupidest marketing ploy in history.

Yeah, I get what they were trying to do, but it was horribly mishandled.

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

You seem to have forgotten the context that Tom Lehrer was positing.

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

You seem to have forgotten the context that Tom Lehrer was positing.

EC = good PR = more copies and subsequent DLC sold = $

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

You seem to have forgotten the context that Tom Lehrer was positing.

EC = good PR = more copies and subsequent DLC sold = $

So you're saying they purposefully released a game with no ending?  Because that's what Tom Lehrer was positing.

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

You seem to have forgotten the context that Tom Lehrer was positing.

EC = good PR = more copies and subsequent DLC sold = $

So you're saying they purposefully released a game with no ending?  Because that's what Tom Lehrer was positing.

I won't say they did, but you should know that there's audio of joker coming in to save the day that's on the disc, but not on the game.

Bioware asked EA for 6 more months, and they got 3.

Final hours app talks of Indoctrination gameplay sequence, that was mysteriously dropped.

Bioware LOVES doing DLC.

Kid: tell me another story about the Shepard.

Stargazer: Ok... ONE MORE STORY.

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Successful in earning BioWare and EA $0?

Selling more copies of the game, and subsequent DLC.

You seem to have forgotten the context that Tom Lehrer was positing.

EC = good PR = more copies and subsequent DLC sold = $

So you're saying they purposefully released a game with no ending?  Because that's what Tom Lehrer was positing.

I won't say they did, but you should know that there's audio of joker coming in to save the day that's on the disc, but not on the game.

Bioware asked EA for 6 more months, and they got 3.

Final hours app talks of Indoctrination gameplay sequence, that was mysteriously dropped.

Bioware LOVES doing DLC.

Kid: tell me another story about the Shepard.

Stargazer: Ok... ONE MORE STORY.

So then what leg does IT have to stand on? Again going back to what Tom Lehrer was positing.

[H2Ape]

Vendetta never calls Shepard indoctrinated, so Shepard isn't indoctrinated.

[balance5050]

H2Ape wrote...

Vendetta never calls Shepard indoctrinated, so Shepard isn't indoctrinated.

He isn't indoctrinated, at least not at any point when you talk to vendetta, Shepard isn't indoctrinated until they (the reapers) convince you to not destroy them.

Modifié par balance5050, 11 mai 2012 - 02:34 .

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


I won't say they did, but you should know that there's audio of joker coming in to save the day that's on the disc, but not on the game.

Bioware asked EA for 6 more months, and they got 3.

Final hours app talks of Indoctrination gameplay sequence, that was mysteriously dropped.

Bioware LOVES doing DLC.

Kid: tell me another story about the Shepard.

Stargazer: Ok... ONE MORE STORY.

So then what leg does IT have to stand on? Again going back to what Tom Lehrer was positing.

It's the only unified theory on why the endings are the way they are, it's the most popular theory on why the endings are the way they are. and without IT, the ending doesn't make sense.

Basically, if you aren't SPECULATING then you are doing it wrong.

 

Modifié par balance5050, 11 mai 2012 - 02:21 .

[ThinkIntegral]

balance5050 wrote...

ThinkIntegral wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


I won't say they did, but you should know that there's audio of joker coming in to save the day that's on the disc, but not on the game.

Bioware asked EA for 6 more months, and they got 3.

Final hours app talks of Indoctrination gameplay sequence, that was mysteriously dropped.

Bioware LOVES doing DLC.

Kid: tell me another story about the Shepard.

Stargazer: Ok... ONE MORE STORY.

So then what leg does IT have to stand on? Again going back to what Tom Lehrer was positing.

It's the only unified theory on why the endings are the way they are, it's the most popular theory on why the endings are the way they are. and without IT, the ending doesn't make sense.

Basically, if you aren't SPECULATING then you are doing it wrong.

So what are you saying? That EA with the tightening of its budget, evidenced by the staff layoffs, trusted in BioWare to more or less bet the farm on delivering a game with no ending because they knew, somehow with good reason, that the fans woud love it?  Then, somehow, because the fans weren't smart enough to pick up on what they were trying to do, except a few, they decide to create and release a DLC at additional cost to them? 

Those notes are kind of meaningless without an explanation of the thought process of the person who wrote it. Not to mention they are "rough" notes, which means they were subject to change.

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...


So what are you saying? That EA with the tightening of its budget, evidenced by the staff layoffs, trusted in BioWare to more or less bet the farm on delivering a game with no ending because they knew, somehow with good reason, that the fans woud love it?  Then, somehow, because the fans weren't smart enough to pick up on what they were trying to do, except a few, they decide to create and release a DLC at additional cost to them? 

Those notes are kind of meaningless without an explanation of the thought process of the person who wrote it. Not to mention they are "rough" notes, which means they were subject to change.

Please stop putting words in my mouth.

I'm not saying any of this as fact and it's just speculation so don't hang off every word I say.

One could presume that the ending could have been rushed, however, and this COULD have been there attempt at winning themselves more time, exposing the evils of their bosse's, money grubbing, fiscal quarter meeting ways.

I'm not telling you what to believe, but you should know what some believe just by the title of the thread. Also, even though a LOT of people call the ending garbage, it has a way of letting you see what you want. And that's what we're fighting for, what we WANT.

Plus post ending DLC causes statements like this make alot more sense. 

Modifié par balance5050, 11 mai 2012 - 04:05 .

[TSA_383]

By the by, quick protip for everyone.
In the leaked game code from the beta, it has all the current ending options, and then the "good" destroy option being listed in the code as the only one in which Shepard lives.
And THEN, but only after the "Shepard lives" ending, the game does a check for DLC.
Right there in the code. But only on that ending.
Curious, no?

[dreman9999]

Tom Lehrer wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DnVill wrote...

yet another thread about "its indoctrination or your stupid".

Given how that endings are and what it means if it's true....Yes.
What makes more sense...Indoctrination or the endings as they are.

The endings as they are makes much more sense. 

Would you like me to copy and paste my long post from before to explain?

You really said that with a straight face? Ok...explain how synthises happened? How do you combine organics with synthetics to the very dna?

[balance5050]

ThinkIntegral wrote...

Those notes are kind of meaningless without an explanation of the thought process of the person who wrote it. Not to mention they are "rough" notes, which means they were subject to change.

Whether you think the notes have meaning or not, you should now that Mac Walters specifically took this off his desk and gave it to Geoff Keighly. Which means he handed this peice of paper to a gaming journalist knowing that the fans were going to see it sooner or later.

Modifié par balance5050, 11 mai 2012 - 04:04 .

[dreman9999]

Ariella wrote...

Dendio1 wrote...

Space kid in the beginning seals the deal.

Nobody notices him but shepard. He vanishes in a deliberate scene where even shepard emotes the wtf face. We hear deliberate reaper growls and dream of the same kid through out the game. In the end the kid gets in your head showing you hallucinations that explain how to use the crucible. Also the kid is ghostly now.....and part of the citadel

Obviously shepard is living in mind screw throughout ME3. Call it whatever you want.

I don't see how the kid seals the deal at all. From the very beginning, the look on Shepard's face as she's watching the kid playing in the park below her room. There's a familiarity in that smile. She's probably watched the same kid playing there on and off for a while, and Bioware has gone on record (check the art book) as the kid being represenative of everyone Shepard couldn't save.

Let's see, Shepard has just had the responsibility for the whole war dropped on her shoulders, has been trying to find a solution to deal with the Reapers for a dog's age, and is feeling the weight of all that responsibility, The dreams aren't indoctrination but stress, and we don't know if the Cat is showing Shepard those, or if it's just artistic interperitation as to what Shep's thinking. These are all story telling devices, not the story itself.

Think about it this way...If you wanted to subtlely indoctrinate someone who knows all the symtoms of indoctriantion, wouldn't using pts dream be a good cover to do so, subtlely, with?

[dreman9999]

DnVill wrote...

dreman9999 wrote...

DnVill wrote...

yet another thread about "its indoctrination or your stupid".

Given how that endings are and what it means if it's true....Yes.
What makes more sense...Indoctrination or the endings as they are.

nice calling anyone who does not agree with you stupid. You're only adding a bad rep to IT believers, how mature.

The Reapers are in the verge of winning, they could wipe out the fleet on Sol. Yet they took the risk of trying to kill or keep Shepard alive for indoctrination even though he's gonna die there with blood loss.

I didn't call anyone stupid...You did.

[Bill Casey]

nexworks wrote...

With this theory, it implies that they were influenced by the Reapers enough to be restrained by TIM's technology, and Shepard was far enough gone than TIM could force Shepard to shoot Anderson.

Which would have unfortunate implications for two of the options...


"The Illusive Man could never control us because we already controlled him"

"Everything you are will be sent out"

Modifié par Bill Casey, 11 mai 2012 - 04:25 .

[BigGuy28]

Since it seems to work so well in the minds of the IT people I think from now on, no matter the situation, when someone says something doesn't make sense I'm going to shout "It doesn't have to! It's indoctrination!".

And when they try to argue with me about it, I'll just repeat "Doesn't matter, indoctrination!" over and over.

[balance5050]

BigGuy28 wrote...

Since it seems to work so well in the minds of the IT people I think from now on, no matter the situation, when someone says something doesn't make sense I'm going to shout "It doesn't have to! It's indoctrination!".

And when they try to argue with me about it, I'll just repeat "Doesn't matter, indoctrination!" over and over.

So what you're saying is TIM WASN'T using indoctrination on Shepard? Because that's what the OP is about.