55528 réponses à ce sujet

[senshi420]

is it not reasonable to consider that in the EC interview, the line that all the anti IT people keep pointing at (8:59 in the video i believe) that states people were assuming things that were not intended, that they are talking about things such as the mass relays blowing up and killing everyone? I seem to recall allot of people making a big deal out of that.

[Peytl]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Peytl wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

TiminatorT2000 wrote...

I reconize there not technically debunking IT, but anything other then comfirming it is pretty much a tacid admission that it's not true.You may feel differently but that's just my personal opinion.

No. "They're clearly doing the opposite" is not something that can be taken differing personal opinion. "They're clearly doing the opposite" means it's an obvious fact not a personal opinion. Remind me again about our confirmation bias. I could use a laugh.

Just listen to what he says at 8:58, or rather what he doesn't want to say loud. I think it's pretty obvious.

? He said he doesnt want people who want the endings changed and altered to fit unrealistic scenarios... same thing they've said since march.


IT doesn't change the endings. It takes whats already there and makes it shine.

They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

[Dendio1]

Honestly people nothing in the interview is new. They have been saying they are only doing clarification since April. IT Theorists have endured people bringing up final hours, the statements released in april and various twitter posts all saying its just clarification. Why doubt yourselves in the final days before EC is released? Why give more credence to the recent interview when you have barely acknowledged everything they've been saying leading up to this?

If you've stuck to your guns this long about indoctrination despite everything the devs have said over the recent months pointing to the contrary, then you might as well take your convictions to the finish line.

Modifié par Dendio1, 24 juin 2012 - 04:59 .

[Dwailing]

Peytl wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Peytl wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

TiminatorT2000 wrote...

I reconize there not technically debunking IT, but anything other then comfirming it is pretty much a tacid admission that it's not true.You may feel differently but that's just my personal opinion.

No. "They're clearly doing the opposite" is not something that can be taken differing personal opinion. "They're clearly doing the opposite" means it's an obvious fact not a personal opinion. Remind me again about our confirmation bias. I could use a laugh.

Just listen to what he says at 8:58, or rather what he doesn't want to say loud. I think it's pretty obvious.

? He said he doesnt want people who want the endings changed and altered to fit unrealistic scenarios... same thing they've said since march.


IT doesn't change the endings. It takes whats already there and makes it shine.

They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

But IT WAS their original intent.  The evidence is on our side.

[byne]

Peytl wrote...


They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I wish we could just go around finding random interviews and claiming they left stuff unsaid that disproves literalism. It must be nice to be able to just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

Peytl wrote...


They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I wish we could just go around finding random interviews and claiming they left stuff unsaid that disproves literalism. It must be nice to be able to just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

I know, right?

[senshi420]

byne wrote...

Peytl wrote...


They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I wish we could just go around finding random interviews and claiming they left stuff unsaid that disproves literalism. It must be nice to be able to just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

ikr... 
its mind boggling sometimes.

[Rifneno]

Peytl wrote...

They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I want to hear the sound of footsteps as you literalists leave.  As for Bioware's many, many statements that they're not changing the ending, did you ever stop to consider maybe they're talking about all the people that lobbied for them to simply retcon the ending and write a completely new one?  That's rhetorical BTW.

BW obviously doesn't think "we're not changing the endings" debunks IT.  If they did, then they wouldn't have a problem saying "Shepard isn't being indoctrinated" after their multitude of "we're not changing the ending" statements.  It makes no sense for them to say one and refuse to say the other if they think both statements mean the same thing.  Instead they've said several times that they are neither confirming nor denying IT.  So again, why would they say that if "we're not changing the endings" debunks IT?

[dreman9999]

Peytl wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

Peytl wrote...

Rifneno wrote...

TiminatorT2000 wrote...

I reconize there not technically debunking IT, but anything other then comfirming it is pretty much a tacid admission that it's not true.You may feel differently but that's just my personal opinion.

No. "They're clearly doing the opposite" is not something that can be taken differing personal opinion. "They're clearly doing the opposite" means it's an obvious fact not a personal opinion. Remind me again about our confirmation bias. I could use a laugh.

.


Just listen to what he says at 8:58, or rather what he doesn't want to say loud. I think it's pretty obvious.

? He said he doesnt want people who want the endings changed and altered to fit unrealistic scenarios... same thing they've said since march.


IT doesn't change the endings. It takes whats already there and makes it shine.

They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

They also obviously didn't say IT was not true or anything like what your saying. All they said is they are still leaving the ending open and not giving an awnser

Modifié par dreman9999, 24 juin 2012 - 05:05 .

[L0NEWOLF25]

http://www.youtube.c...xk1_x8ko#t=195s

this could be nothing but it's something I noticed in the Interview. Stop at around 3:21

Modifié par L0NEWOLF25, 24 juin 2012 - 05:08 .

[Turbo_J]

Andromidius wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

I can't find my OP but I was wondering if any of you guys noticed that Major Coats was with you in the Mako and in the scene that Harby lands, and yet he is the one calling for the retreat after you wake up even tho he should have made the run to the beam with you

Maybe he's got a dicky leg *whistles innocently*

Yeah, it is very fishy.  Adds to the evidence against him.

Not to mention the fact that he's oddly present during the speech to the squad just prior to the selection, and when the camera focuses on him during that time he seems more creepy. If he's there, why can't I pick him as a squad mate? I kind of wanted to on my first playthrough.

I need to go back and look at that closer and see if his presence expounds on Anderson's 'pick your team carefully wisely' comment.

Seems to be a construtive way to spend my time... like rushing Sheploo through 3 games in 3 days for a video. lol

Modifié par Turbo_J, 24 juin 2012 - 05:11 .

[MaximizedAction]

L0NEWOLF25 wrote...

http://www.youtube.c...xk1_x8ko#t=195s

this could be nothing but it's something I noticed in the Interview. Stop at around 3:21

Yeah, I noticed the phrasing, too "we're trying to put on the screen what we imagined was implied by the original endings"

Also, this: www.youtube.com/watch. I wonder what controversy he's referring to (if that's not just salesmen blahblah).

[Dwailing]

Well, I'm going to be off for a bit. See you all later.

[byne]

Turbo_J wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

I can't find my OP but I was wondering if any of you guys noticed that Major Coats was with you in the Mako and in the scene that Harby lands, and yet he is the one calling for the retreat after you wake up even tho he should have made the run to the beam with you

Maybe he's got a dicky leg *whistles innocently*

Yeah, it is very fishy.  Adds to the evidence against him.

Not to mention the fact that he's oddly present during the speech to the squad just prior to the selection, and when the camera focuses on him during that time he seems more creepy. If he's there, why can't I pick him as a squad mate? I kind of wanted to on my first playthrough.

I need to go back and look at that closer and see if his presence expounds on Anderson's 'pick your team carefully wisely' comment.

Seems to be a construtive way to spend my time... like rushing Sheploo through 3 games in 3 days for a video. lol

BioWare HAD to have had a reason for turning heroic-looking trailer Coats:



Into weaselly-looking in-game Coats:

[Meatus]

byne wrote...

Peytl wrote...


They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I wish we could just go around finding random interviews and claiming they left stuff unsaid that disproves literalism. It must be nice to be able to just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

And they act like we grasp at straws as we reference actual, tangible data. This has been too funny to watch.

Modifié par Meatus, 24 juin 2012 - 05:26 .

[Eryri]

 Hi everyone,

I've been lurking on and off in this thread, and making occasional posts for some time now. I just want to congratulate you all on the work you've done piecing together the IT. I think it's a brilliantly clever piece of work.

Personally I'm more of an IT pragmatist. I don't know for sure if Bioware intended the final scenes to be indicative of IT, or whether all the weird stuff with that peculiarly morose kid teleporting about the alliance HQ on Earth and then haunting Shepard's dreams was just foreshadowing for the excised portion where we were intended to lose control of Shepard's movements. I haven't done the research that you've all done, and I know absolutely nothing about game development. 

But what I do know, is that regardless of whether they intended it or not, if they fail to use it in the EC they will have missed a golden opportunity.

At a stroke IT would explain away all the nonsense with Harbinger toddling off and leaving the back door to the citadel wide open, the 3 heavy handedly symbolic ways to activate the crucible, Joker's sudden transformation from loyal friend to despicable coward, and the sheer, unadulterated codswallop of cyborg trees - Everything!

Seriously, reading this thread has given me some incredible food for thought - learning about infrasound and sample rates in digital files for one! I really hope Bioware have done themselves and us proud with the EC. And if not, well it was great fun while it lasted.

[Turbo_J]

Why does every tree in this game rain leaves. They are finite... the trees on the Citadel should be bare. It may just be a 'live environment visual', but it's somewhat of a fail given it constant and out of place. One leaf every 5 minutes, sure. But 5 per second? There's also no wind on the Citadel, but the trees bustle?

I don't know...

[lex0r11]

Dwailing wrote...

byne wrote...

Peytl wrote...


They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

I wish we could just go around finding random interviews and claiming they left stuff unsaid that disproves literalism. It must be nice to be able to just make stuff up and expect to be taken seriously.

I know, right?

[Andromidius]

Peytl wrote...
They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

The point is still going over your head I see.  Well, then nothing more can be said.  You just refuse to understand it.

[byne]

lex0r11 wrote...

*snip*

By the way, lex0r, where were you yesterday? You missed page 1000 and there was much sadness.

[jla0644]

dreman9999 wrote...

They also obviously didn't say IT was not true or anything like what your saying. All they said is they are still leaving the ending open and not giving an awnser

Yes, the EC won't confirm or deny. But how open will it really be?

Consider: IT posits that we don't have an ending yet, that Shepard is going to wake indoctrinated or not, and the story will continue from that point. Since the EC isn't going to confirm the IT, I think we can all agree that at the very least, this means we will not see Shepard wake up and continue the fight. That would confirm IT, yes? So we won't be seeing that.

To continue to believe in the IT, you will have to believe that even the new stuff we get in the EC is happening in Shepard's head. However, since they will not outright deny the IT, it's still possible to believe that none of it is really happening, just like you do now. But this means you have to believe there is more DLC coming which will provide you with your real ending, since the EC didn't give it to you. Or you think ME4 is coming. In short, you have to think Bioware is playing the long con.

[UrgedDuke]

byne wrote...

Turbo_J wrote...

Andromidius wrote...

UrgedDuke wrote...

I can't find my OP but I was wondering if any of you guys noticed that Major Coats was with you in the Mako and in the scene that Harby lands, and yet he is the one calling for the retreat after you wake up even tho he should have made the run to the beam with you

Maybe he's got a dicky leg *whistles innocently*

Yeah, it is very fishy.  Adds to the evidence against him.

Not to mention the fact that he's oddly present during the speech to the squad just prior to the selection, and when the camera focuses on him during that time he seems more creepy. If he's there, why can't I pick him as a squad mate? I kind of wanted to on my first playthrough.

I need to go back and look at that closer and see if his presence expounds on Anderson's 'pick your team carefully wisely' comment.

Seems to be a construtive way to spend my time... like rushing Sheploo through 3 games in 3 days for a video. lol

BioWare HAD to have had a reason for turning heroic-looking trailer Coats:



Into weaselly-looking in-game Coats:

I don't know why they hyped his character in the prerelease so much if he plays such a small part in the game

[Sero303]

(Old School "CLUE" ending)

You spend all day downloading the new Extended cut DLC, and you get ready for it, with a gun in your hand "just in case" and suddenly the xbox goes blank... all the software has been deleted.

OR

The new ending pops up as a red screen with "APRILS FOOLS" on the screen, and an episode of "Terrance & Phillip" from South Park plays...

...But this is how it will really end....

Shepard wakes up to hear 'Wadworth' say "And then there were three more murders, and I know who the killer is, Col. Mustard knew the driver, and you Mrs. peacock used to employ the cook, and lets not forget Cmdr. Shepard hated the Citadel Council for dismissing his claims about "Reapers" ...

[TJBartlemus]

Peytl wrote...

They obviously don't think so. They don't want to change the game into something that was never intended, which is — unsaid — IT. If this isn't debunking, then what would you, i mean IT guys, want to hear?

That entire statement is false. The whole point of IT is that it doesn't need to change anything. It has always been there and if you are too thick skulled to see it then I'm sorry. BioWare has left hints throughout the game that point to indoctrination of Shepard. This means they don't need to change anything, just expand on it and "provide better understanding". Sound familiar?