55528 réponses à ce sujet

[RavenEyry]

ean0611 wrote...
1) For your literal interpretation, how does the Carnifex change into a Predator at the end of Destroy? Both sound and model change. This is deliberate, as this cannot be a code bug. The sound is not a sudden change, but a fade.

9) Reversal or Paragon and Renegade. Anderson is NOT a renegade, TIM Is not paragon. They are shown reverse of what they are in the end. You think someone isn't trying to play with your perceptions? Really?

Too add to those two:
1) It's not just them loading the wrong model for part of the cutscene, the carnifex reloads like a predator ever since it was picked up.

9) Shepard reacts almost as if they saw those images as well as the audience.

[Andromidius]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Well no offense but

That's all I needed to read.  Anyone who says 'no offense but' is actually about to insult someone, but feels the need to shield themselves from criticism.

You're a troll.  go away.

Its clear from previous posts that either you fail to understand even the basics of IT, or you haven't bothered reading what people have told you, or you don't care and take some kind of pleasure from twisting people's words and then attacking their strawmen.

[RavenEyry]

Lord Goose wrote...

Not sure what are you talking about. They're almost identical, just one with background.

It's the same asset being used, but there is no background to it when used as a dream transition.

[paxxton]

Mass Effect events at SDCC on Saturday:
10:30-11:30 Dark Horse: Bioware
5:00-6:00 Mass Effect: Past, Present, and Future

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:43 .

[zigamortis]

@ heritic hannar
You keep saying that they wont do anything more to the ending, but if they did that how much dlc would they really sell when most people will not buy unless it give more of an effect on the ending? You have to actually think about things, i understand that IT may not be true but they did not deny it and it may just be for speculation and hype and to keep some fans who believe in it hooked in for the dlc, but to put it simply i don't believe there would be enough people to purchase the content to make it profitable enough for EA to keep funding it. In other words if they don't at least address the endings with more dlc (Mind you i mean alter in minor OR major ways and not only for the endings.) than they wont make enough capitol for them to continue producing them. Ea might not be the most consumer-centric company but they do know how to listen for their best interests.

[smokingotter1]

The white halo is usually a transition between dream and reality, but it's also whenever Shepard is around reapers, when Shepard meets object Rho the reaper artifacts blasts him and you see the white halo, he does not go into dream world, that's not its only literary use... it's indicative of reaper influence on Shepard. It's funny that we see the white halo a couple of times in the beginning of ME3 at the same time we see the "tragic" scenes with Timmy the reap- the kid I mean. Poor poor Timmy.

Sometimes you see the white halo and you see stuff around it like when the Normandy explodes from the crucible blast. You can still see some of the blast even with the halo.

edited to be less snarky

Modifié par smokingotter1, 13 juillet 2012 - 01:51 .

[CoolioThane]

Heretic:

Surely by calling our theory retarded, those who believe in it would be considered retards, that's why I say that.

You say by them choosing canon, if IT isn't proven, we get upset...but surely as there are 4 choices...whoever picked the three choices that aren't 'canon' are going to be upset? That's a lot of upset people.

Whereas, if, which I personally think likely, the IT DLC is released, then there would be one canon, and a canon we could all enjoy.

Also, you say being a pessimist is awesome, but being an optimist I'm generally always happy, with a few short sad times when disappointment happens, but I prefer that to being negative all the time with a few happy surprises.

I see too many people with sad faces, which is why I like walking down the street with a smile, I hope it brightens other peoples' days. Thank you for apologising

[Andromidius]

Lord Goose wrote...
Not sure what are you talking about. They're almost identical, just one with background.

Exactly.  So they aren't identical.  All the other 'dream effects' are.

[The Heretic of Time]

ean0611 wrote...

CoolioThane, I laid out a few points. Hanar hasn't responded to them.

Clarification: Do not feed the troll.
/HK-47

Ohhh does someone feel neglected because I simply overlooked your post? You know, you can't expect me to reply to EVERYONE. I'm only one person, you guys are with many. I can't keep up with that.

Well, to please you, I'll respond to your post now:

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

Right, I think you need to check what you're comparing. This is data driven, as in what data is presented in game, as Bioware has intentionally not commented. 

Oh yeah, Bioware has specifically avoided talking about IT. As in they stutter in public about it. They're dying to talk about it, and can't yet.

BioWare simply avoids the topic because they can't afford to lose more fans or credibility. If BioWare would just flat out admit they never had the IT in mind, nor did they ever plan on using the IT, they would ****** off a lot of fans. They can't afford that right now. But I think the complete absence of anything IT related in the EC made it clear BioWare isn't gonna us the IT. I believe BioWare made it quite clear that they are happy with their current endings and that they do not feel the need to drastically change it. So honestly, you can hope for an IT DLC in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up, you're only going to get hurt if you do.

[RavenEyry]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
 What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

Umm, actually it started when Byne saw some things that made them think the ending was a hallucination then started looking for more things. They didn't just decide out of the blue and then start fabricating evidence for it.

[Lord Goose]

Exactly. So they aren't identical. All the other 'dream effects'
are.

Eh.
Fine. White oval thingy is just the same as other white oval thingies. They're clearly reusing the same asset over and over. Doesn't mean it has any significance.

There is similiar bug during the Citadel riot scene. Wrex gun changes from Claymore to Grail Spike Thrower.

[Salient Archer]

smokingotter1 wrote...

No ... did anyone here actually play Arrival DLC, and if so sober? The white halo is usually a transition between dream and reality, but it's also whenever Shepard is around reapers, when Shepard meets object Rho the reaper artifacts blasts him and you see the white halo, he does not go into dream world, that's not its only literary use... it's indicative of reaper influence on Shepard. It's funny that we see the white halo a couple of times in the beginning of ME3 at the same time we see the "tragic" scenes with Timmy the reap- the kid I mean. Poor poor Timmy.

Sometimes you see the white halo and you see stuff around it like when the Normandy explodes from the crucible blast. You can still see some of the blast even with the halo.

+1. And just to add, does everyone forget the infamous line from Arrival uttered by Harbinger through Object Rho? "Shepard, your mind will be MINE!" just before he's knocked out, opossed to being executed may I add.

[Andromidius]

You fail to see the difference between science and literature. This troubles me.

Also, you're being far too passive-aggressive for me to take you remotely seriously. You just smell of someone itching for a fight.

But the fact is, thematically Mass Effect 3 is very strong right up until the ending.

Indoctrination Theory takes what's already in the game and makes sense of what actually happened. And guess what? Thematically it works very well indeed, and is such a mind screw that it'll be remembered for decades to come.

Or we can just say 'Bioware is the stupid lolz', call them bad/lazy writers, and write off ME3 as a bad game. Which is fine, but the question remains - why hang around here if you think that?

[zigamortis]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

ean0611 wrote...

CoolioThane, I laid out a few points. Hanar hasn't responded to them.

Clarification: Do not feed the troll.
/HK-47

Ohhh does someone feel neglected because I simply overlooked your post? You know, you can't expect me to reply to EVERYONE. I'm only one person, you guys are with many. I can't keep up with that.

Well, to please you, I'll respond to your post now:

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

Right, I think you need to check what you're comparing. This is data driven, as in what data is presented in game, as Bioware has intentionally not commented. 

Oh yeah, Bioware has specifically avoided talking about IT. As in they stutter in public about it. They're dying to talk about it, and can't yet.

BioWare simply avoids the topic because they can't afford to lose more fans or credibility. If BioWare would just flat out admit they never had the IT in mind, nor did they ever plan on using the IT, they would ****** off a lot of fans. They can't afford that right now. But I think the complete absence of anything IT related in the EC made it clear BioWare isn't gonna us the IT. I believe BioWare made it quite clear that they are happy with their current endings and that they do not feel the need to drastically change it. So honestly, you can hope for an IT DLC in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up, you're only going to get hurt if you do.

You do realize that there is a SIGNIFICANT differance between literary and scientific theory right?

[CoolioThane]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

ean0611 wrote...

CoolioThane, I laid out a few points. Hanar hasn't responded to them.

Clarification: Do not feed the troll.
/HK-47

Ohhh does someone feel neglected because I simply overlooked your post? You know, you can't expect me to reply to EVERYONE. I'm only one person, you guys are with many. I can't keep up with that.

Well, to please you, I'll respond to your post now:

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

Right, I think you need to check what you're comparing. This is data driven, as in what data is presented in game, as Bioware has intentionally not commented. 

Oh yeah, Bioware has specifically avoided talking about IT. As in they stutter in public about it. They're dying to talk about it, and can't yet.

BioWare simply avoids the topic because they can't afford to lose more fans or credibility. If BioWare would just flat out admit they never had the IT in mind, nor did they ever plan on using the IT, they would ****** off a lot of fans. They can't afford that right now. But I think the complete absence of anything IT related in the EC made it clear BioWare isn't gonna us the IT. I believe BioWare made it quite clear that they are happy with their current endings and that they do not feel the need to drastically change it. So honestly, you can hope for an IT DLC in the future, but I wouldn't get my hopes up, you're only going to get hurt if you do.

Ahh, I think you're wrong there. I believe the theory came across after people noticed potential evidence, not the other way around. After the original posts people started looking into the game and provided more potential evidence. This evidence is discussed and either disproven or added to the potential evidence, normally in these threads  I believe stating we're "grasping at straws" is a risky claim to make, considering the IT is neither proven nor disproven.

I also disagree, I believe a lot of IT fans would rather they come out and disprove IT now than in months time, though business-wise, at present, it makes more sense. ThoughI believe they are excited about IT.

I believe that you have looked at the wrong post from ean, I think it was him who provided a list of questions the EC added that are in favour of IT for you to look at 

[The Heretic of Time]

CoolioThane wrote...

Surely by calling our theory retarded, those who believe in it would be considered retards, that's why I say that.

Well then my excuses, because I in no means wanted to imply that I think you are retarded.

I think Christianity is retarded, yet I have plenty of Christian friends. I don't think my friends are retarded. They are smart people. It's just the religion they chose to follow that I think is retarded.

Same with IT. I assume most of you are intelligent and healthy people, some of you probably smarter than I am. I still think the theory you choose to support is retarded though.

You say by them choosing canon, if IT isn't proven, we get upset...but surely as there are 4 choices...whoever picked the three choices that aren't 'canon' are going to be upset? That's a lot of upset people.

True. They could also try and do what Deus Ex did. Deus Ex 1 had 3 different endings. Deus Ex 2 mixed the consequences of all 3 endings and created one new mixed ending, which became the canon for the rest of the series.

Whereas, if, which I personally think likely, the IT DLC is released, then there would be one canon, and a canon we could all enjoy.

I do not agree. Many of us will be extremely pissed if IT turns out to be true. It basically renders ALL our endings invalid, except for those of you who believe in IT and chose Destroy. I and many others would NOT be happy with that.

Also, you say being a pessimist is awesome, but being an optimist I'm generally always happy, with a few short sad times when disappointment happens, but I prefer that to being negative all the time with a few happy surprises.

You assume being pessimistic = being sad. That's not true. I'm a happy person.

I see too many people with sad faces, which is why I like walking down the street with a smile, I hope it brightens other peoples' days. Thank you for apologising

I also smile and enjoy the little things. Being a happy person with a smile is not exclusive to optimists you know.  But this is completely off-topic. And you're welcome.

[paxxton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

That's not the case. In the past (when science was in the early stage of development) the only way to discover anything was by showing its existence in the real world first and only after that forming the necessary theories to explain its workings. Today, with all the advances in different sciences, scientists first theorize about things that might exist (based on current theories and deduction) and then embark on a search for proof of those theories. If they find evidence for the theory it withstands reviews, if they find evidence to the contrary the theory is abandoned. If they don't find evidence where it was anticipated to be, the theory is modified.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:01 .

[The Heretic of Time]

RavenEyry wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...
 What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

Umm, actually it started when Byne saw some things that made them think the ending was a hallucination then started looking for more things. They didn't just decide out of the blue and then start fabricating evidence for it.

So it started with Byne making the assumption that the ending of ME3 is a hallicunation, based on his interpretation of the (at that point very unclear) silly endings. Fair enough, doesn't make much difference. It's all the same. You started with an assumption and now you desperately try to find clues to back it up.

If something does not fit the IT, you desperately try to make it fit anyway with some headcanons and even more straw grasping. Yeah, duh, when you do it like that, even I could find plenty of "evidence" to support the most wild assumptions.

[The Heretic of Time]

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

That's not the case. In the past (when science was in the early stage of development) the only way to discover anything was by showing its existence in the real world first and only after that forming the necessary theories to explain its workings. Today, with all the advances in different sciences, scientists first theorize about things that might exist (based on current theories and deduction) and then embark on a search for proof of those theories. If they find evidence for the theory it withstands reviews, if they find evidence to the contrary the theory is abandoned. If they don't find evidence where it was anticipated to be, the theory is modified.

Sorry, but that's just not how the scientific method works. Not at all.

Read this to see how it does work.


Not that it matters, because we're talking about fiction here, not science.

Modifié par Heretic_Hanar, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:05 .

[CoolioThane]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

CoolioThane wrote...

Surely by calling our theory retarded, those who believe in it would be considered retards, that's why I say that.

Well then my excuses, because I in no means wanted to imply that I think you are retarded.

I think Christianity is retarded, yet I have plenty of Christian friends. I don't think my friends are retarded. They are smart people. It's just the religion they chose to follow that I think is retarded.

Same with IT. I assume most of you are intelligent and healthy people, some of you probably smarter than I am. I still think the theory you choose to support is retarded though.

You say by them choosing canon, if IT isn't proven, we get upset...but surely as there are 4 choices...whoever picked the three choices that aren't 'canon' are going to be upset? That's a lot of upset people.

True. They could also try and do what Deus Ex did. Deus Ex 1 had 3 different endings. Deus Ex 2 mixed the consequences of all 3 endings and created one new mixed ending, which became the canon for the rest of the series.

Whereas, if, which I personally think likely, the IT DLC is released, then there would be one canon, and a canon we could all enjoy.

I do not agree. Many of us will be extremely pissed if IT turns out to be true. It basically renders ALL our endings invalid, except for those of you who believe in IT and chose Destroy. I and many others would NOT be happy with that.

Also, you say being a pessimist is awesome, but being an optimist I'm generally always happy, with a few short sad times when disappointment happens, but I prefer that to being negative all the time with a few happy surprises.

You assume being pessimistic = being sad. That's not true. I'm a happy person.

I see too many people with sad faces, which is why I like walking down the street with a smile, I hope it brightens other peoples' days. Thank you for apologising

I also smile and enjoy the little things. Being a happy person with a smile is not exclusive to optimists you know.  But this is completely off-topic. And you're welcome.

You do understand though, labelling someone's beliefs as retarded is one of the mot offensive things you can do. With regards to religion it's an incredibly dangerous point of view to hold. I for one think no beliefs are retarded, even if I disagree with them. It's their life. Could you explain why IT is retarded though?

Hmm, I don't think they could. Firstly it would be stupid, as then all of our choices meant nothing in the end...Secondly it would not be Mass Effect, it would be Deus Ex.

I believe you to be wrong there. IT wouldn't render your ending invalid, as each choice, according to the IT, does something to Shepard. Whether indoctrinated or not, your choice still matters. I still don't see how anyone could be angry at that. (Apart from the whole "herp they didn't sell us a complete game" argument, which is invalid as every game does this now, it's sadly the modern industry)

No, I know pessimists can be happy, it's just the negativity spreads as much as positivity, and negative people can really bring people down, even if they themselves are happy. Not calling you selfish or anything, just saying it can affect people in a negative way (ignore the pun).

[smokingotter1]

First time we see the white halo.

Shepard: "You have a reaper artifact sitting right here....out in the open?!"
Dr. Kenson: When we found it it showed me a vision of the reapers arrival.<3
Shepard: "Kenson...this is not good."
Dr. Kenson: "Give it a moment Shepard. It will give you the proof you need.

(Shepard gets "hit" by Object Rho, is shown visions of Reapers Arrival)



a couple of seconds later-



which reminds me of.......hmm oh yeah, this!




Kneeling to the reapers already Shepard? You didn't even make your "choice" yet....

Modifié par smokingotter1, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:22 .

[paxxton]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

paxxton wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

So you're comparing IT theorists, who take the data shown, and extrapolate and create a theory and test it against what we find, against those who do the opposite.

Hahahahahahaha are you serious? Really? Okay, well, let me tell you that what you guys do is not even remotely similar to what scientists do when they try to validate their theories. What you guys do it make up an assumption, in this case: the ending is a hallicunation. After that, you go desperately digging through all the data ME3 provides searching for answers and clues that might support yout assumption, that the ending is a hallicunation. In other words, you're grasping at straws.

That's not the case. In the past (when science was in the early stage of development) the only way to discover anything was by showing its existence in the real world first and only after that forming the necessary theories to explain its workings. Today, with all the advances in different sciences, scientists first theorize about things that might exist (based on current theories and deduction) and then embark on a search for proof of those theories. If they find evidence for the theory it withstands reviews, if they find evidence to the contrary the theory is abandoned. If they don't find evidence where it was anticipated to be, the theory is modified.

Sorry, but that's just not how the scientific method works. Not at all.

Read this to see how it does work.


Not that it matters, because we're talking about fiction here, not science.

Just read the first complex sentence of the second paragraph.

Scientific method can be applied to any endeavor. Even to research done on a work of fiction.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:19 .

[paxxton]

Moved to the above post.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:17 .

[Humakt83]

You remember what Shepard said to indoctrinated Hanar?

Leave it at that.

@smokingotter: "I enjoy the sight of humans on their knees."

[paxxton]

Btw, Humakt83, you should bring that video with whispers from ME1 up again. Seems people didn't notice it.

Modifié par paxxton, 13 juillet 2012 - 02:25 .