55528 réponses à ce sujet

[Xiltas]

While I completely agree with the idea of the Indoctrination Theory (check out this documentation, It's really great: ), there was always something bothering me about "The Child".

Why do people assume that the kid itself is only a hallucination caused by the Reapers? Isn't it possible that they took the image out of Shep's mind and then used it in their Indoctrination attempt? Personally, I think that Shepard really saw the kid playing with his toy, and maybe, the boy even ran into the room attacked by Husks (as they are desperatly trying to enter). The question is when they first used his image to manipulate us? During our conversation? When the shuttle was shot down? Or during the first dream sequence?

I think that the boy was real, until we saw the shuttle destroyed, after this point, they used the child to weaken Shepard's will.

[paxxton]

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

What do you mean with not being able to shoot a Keeper?

[MaximizedAction]

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

An End Once and For All is debunked as a hint for a fake ending?

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 24 mai 2012 - 07:54 .

[llbountyhunter]

Xiltas wrote...

While I completely agree with the idea of the Indoctrination Theory (check out this documentation, It's really great: ), there was always something bothering me about "The Child".

Why do people assume that the kid itself is only a hallucination caused by the Reapers? Isn't it possible that they took the image out of Shep's mind and then used it in their Indoctrination attempt? Personally, I think that Shepard really saw the kid playing with his toy, and maybe, the boy even ran into the room attacked by Husks (as they are desperatly trying to enter). The question is when they first used his image to manipulate us? During our conversation? When the shuttle was shot down? Or during the first dream sequence?

I think that the boy was real, until we saw the shuttle destroyed, after this point, they used the child to weaken Shepard's will.

there are varying opinions on this. 

I think he was real up until we saw him run into the building that blew up only moments after. any time after that he was a hallucination.

Modifié par llbountyhunter, 24 mai 2012 - 07:56 .

[llbountyhunter]

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

[dreamgazer]

Xiltas wrote...

While I completely agree with the idea of the Indoctrination Theory (check out this documentation, It's really great: ), there was always something bothering me about "The Child".

Why do people assume that the kid itself is only a hallucination caused by the Reapers? Isn't it possible that they took the image out of Shep's mind and then used it in their Indoctrination attempt? Personally, I think that Shepard really saw the kid playing with his toy, and maybe, the boy even ran into the room attacked by Husks (as they are desperatly trying to enter). The question is when they first used his image to manipulate us? During our conversation? When the shuttle was shot down? Or during the first dream sequence?

I think that the boy was real, until we saw the shuttle destroyed, after this point, they used the child to weaken Shepard's will.

Entirely plausible, but debating whether or when the boy was real and not doesn't change the parameters of the interpretation itself as a whole, really---only personal interpretation.  The point is that the catalyst took that particular form for manipulative purposes. 

My big issue with the kid is the point-blank fact that nobody acknowledges his existence outside of Shepard, and when there's death and destruction everywhere, even the steeliest of hearts usually finds a way of pinpointing them in one way or another.  Somebody would have done something about the kid.

Modifié par dreamgazer, 24 mai 2012 - 08:01 .

[estebanus]

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

What do you mean with not being able to shoot a Keeper?

you know, the keepers in the hall before you see the shadow-broker ship capacitors? Someone claimed a long time ago that he couldn't kill the keepers in there, which, quite frankly, doesn't mean anything at all, because you also couldn't shoot anyone else except enemies in the game, so it was debunked.

Then along come a few anti-ITers, find this post, probably posted by a pro-IT zealot (Yes, those exist) some time ago, and claim that we're idiots because we use this as evidence for the IT, which we don't.

[paxxton]

MaximizedAction wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

An End Once and For All is debunked as a hint for a fake ending?

Makes sense. They plant a fake song in-game, round the story up and send people to BSN to discuss it.

Modifié par paxxton, 24 mai 2012 - 08:00 .

[balance5050]

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

I might sound kinda like a fanboy, but is any Mass Effect game "complete" without it's DLC?

[MaximizedAction]

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

This reminds me, some of us considered a short IT FAQ as a good idea to clear up such questions.

[MegumiAzusa]

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

Eric is a Gameplay Designer and Corey is a Lead Combat Designer.

I have a feeling this tweet from Mike is related to Multiplayer, as that is what Eric works on from what I can tell.

EDIT: those links don't work because Twitter.com is acting up right now

I know a lot of people are at BioWare's throats right now, but explain to me this: Why would any form of multi-player gameplay be something Gamble considers "the best we've ever put out"?

Maybe it's the best MP content they've made?

IDK, the new Ex-Cerberus Vanguard with BIOTIC WHIPS looks like it could be a lot of fun personally.

I'm just saying, there isn't enough detail in his tweet to say for certain what he is talking about. I'm excited to hear it, regardless of whether it is EC or MP related.

Hope there is a female version, sounds fun xD

[estebanus]

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

Yup.

And FYI, Bioware wouldn't be the first company to have done that.

[MaximizedAction]

balance5050 wrote...

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

I might sound kinda like a fanboy, but is any Mass Effect game "complete" without it's DLC?

Exactly. [/Anderson]

[BatmanTurian]

D.Sharrah wrote...

Assuming IT is true (I and many here obviously do believe so)...what do you want to "see" in the EC?

For me...

1. I don't want them to come right out and say, "Hey, you are indoctrinated" - I still want them to let the player figure it out.

2. War Assets in Action
a. United allies actually having an impact on the battle cutscenes instead of just seeing Alliance soldiers
b. Impact of "upgrading" specific Assets - like the Citadel Defense (aid in taking the Citadel/real Crucible once indoctraintion is broken)

3. Confrontation w/Harbinger - even if it is just verbal

There's more but at least that's what at the top of my head and should help to get the ball rolling...

1. one of the indoctrination choices, control or synthesis, should have a Reapers Win dire consequences.

2. the other choice should have a possible temporary break caused by an LI, Anderson, Hackitt, Javik, or best friend where you can fight the Reapers until you succumb again and then they might have to kill you or incarcerate you.

3. war assets will most likely be seen in use.

4. Joker and Edi giving Harbinger a run for his money.

5. the player, whether playing a squad member because Shepard is dead or finally succumbed to Reaper indoctrination, or Shepard himself if destroy was chosen, has Joker take him and his squad to go inside Harbinger and fight Harbinger on the inside ( by pretending to surrender and using a shuttle), taking him apart from the inside out, destroying key parts that Harbinger needs to efficiently operate, and destroying his indoctrination tech so he can't mess with your heads while inside, all the while being constantly attacked by waves of Reaper forces inside him and being subject to difficulties due to the Sword Fleet and the Normandy firing on Harbinger. The reason for Fighting Harbinger is he was the one who protected the Conduit and took out Hammer so vengeance and tactical reasons are viable. Taking him out would make going to the Conduit easier this time.


6. Last scene is Shepard or stand-in for shepard ( Javik or LI ) having a final conversation with Harbinger, who is angry and vengeful but also pleading for his life. We finally see what his Reaper Larva looks like (aka what his race was). Set a bomb with turrets to keep the husks from disabling, destroying it and EDI protecting it from Harbinger hacking it.  Get the hell out of dodge, ala Halo, fighting your way out. Jump out a hole in Harbinger's carapace, drift through vaccum, and into the Normandy Airlock. Normandy zips away right before Harbinger explodes. This confuses and frightens the Reapers, who become easier to battle because Harbinger was their leader and their morale is destroyed ( Harbinger is the anti-Shepard)

7. I honestly don't know what to do with the conduit, catalyst, or the crucible so those things would go here after Shepard and squadmates take out Harbinger. Shepard figures out or just decides the crucible is a trap, or Shepard goes up the Conduit for real this time, figures out what the Catalyst is, then shoots it off for real this time. Who knows what it does, but I like the idea of a Mass Relay Dark Energy Cannon myself to pinpoint all of the Reapers in the other systems in the Galaxy and take them all out.

This is just how I envision it anyway.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 mai 2012 - 08:05 .

[balance5050]

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

What do you mean with not being able to shoot a Keeper?

you know, the keepers in the hall before you see the shadow-broker ship capacitors? Someone claimed a long time ago that he couldn't kill the keepers in there, which, quite frankly, doesn't mean anything at all, because you also couldn't shoot anyone else except enemies in the game, so it was debunked.

Then along come a few anti-ITers, find this post, probably posted by a pro-IT zealot (Yes, those exist) some time ago, and claim that we're idiots because we use this as evidence for the IT, which we don't.

It's not the shooting of the keepers that is significant, it's being able to walk straight through them. It's not good evidence because collision detection glitches are prevalent in games these days. But when compared to every other "keeper" from the rest of the series, it is a little odd.

[MegumiAzusa]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Xiltas wrote...

While I completely agree with the idea of the Indoctrination Theory (check out this documentation, It's really great: ), there was always something bothering me about "The Child".

Why do people assume that the kid itself is only a hallucination caused by the Reapers? Isn't it possible that they took the image out of Shep's mind and then used it in their Indoctrination attempt? Personally, I think that Shepard really saw the kid playing with his toy, and maybe, the boy even ran into the room attacked by Husks (as they are desperatly trying to enter). The question is when they first used his image to manipulate us? During our conversation? When the shuttle was shot down? Or during the first dream sequence?

I think that the boy was real, until we saw the shuttle destroyed, after this point, they used the child to weaken Shepard's will.

there are varying opinions on this. 

I think he was real up until we saw him run into the building that blew up only moments after. any time after that he was a hallucination.

Urgs that video again... at some point we need to do one with evidence that can't be disproven right from the material he is just showing.

[D.Sharrah]

llbountyhunter wrote...

Xiltas wrote...

While I completely agree with the idea of the Indoctrination Theory (check out this documentation, It's really great: ), there was always something bothering me about "The Child".

Why do people assume that the kid itself is only a hallucination caused by the Reapers? Isn't it possible that they took the image out of Shep's mind and then used it in their Indoctrination attempt? Personally, I think that Shepard really saw the kid playing with his toy, and maybe, the boy even ran into the room attacked by Husks (as they are desperatly trying to enter). The question is when they first used his image to manipulate us? During our conversation? When the shuttle was shot down? Or during the first dream sequence?

I think that the boy was real, until we saw the shuttle destroyed, after this point, they used the child to weaken Shepard's will.

there are varying opinions on this. 

I think he was real up until we saw him run into the building that blew up only moments after. any time after that he was a hallucination.

Unless Bioware specifically comes out ans says one way or another when/if the child is real or hallucination, I don't think that we can be positive when/if the child is real or hallucination...and in one way I think that is the way it should be.  Enough people have pointed out very good reasons why you should believe that the child was never real - and not sure if this has been mentioned or not, but here is something else...it is very clear that the "base" Shepard is in a heightened state of alertness during the prologue...even if the child is an orphan you would have to assume that he has guardians of some kind.  And with the location where the boy is playing being that close to Shepard - I don't see how any responsible adult would let the kid play out there all by himself.  Again, there is never any indication that anyone other than Shepard ever see the kid.  And speaking as a parent, if I was an adult that was aware of both the boy and the situation, there is no way that he is out on that roof top alone. 

[MaximizedAction]

balance5050 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

What do you mean with not being able to shoot a Keeper?

you know, the keepers in the hall before you see the shadow-broker ship capacitors? Someone claimed a long time ago that he couldn't kill the keepers in there, which, quite frankly, doesn't mean anything at all, because you also couldn't shoot anyone else except enemies in the game, so it was debunked.

Then along come a few anti-ITers, find this post, probably posted by a pro-IT zealot (Yes, those exist) some time ago, and claim that we're idiots because we use this as evidence for the IT, which we don't.

It's not the shooting of the keepers that is significant, it's being able to walk straight through them. It's not good evidence because collision detection glitches are prevalent in games these days. But when compared to every other "keeper" from the rest of the series, it is a little odd.

Well it was certainly annoying how that keeper from docking bay d24 started shoving me back and forth. <_<

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 24 mai 2012 - 08:03 .

[BatmanTurian]

dreamgazer wrote...

BatmanTurian wrote...

byne wrote...

balance5050 wrote...


What? what document?

This one.

'Tis linked in the OP of this thread

letjemari@gmail.com is the author. I wonder if we should find out who this person is.

Okay, seriously, you need to get out of my head or I'm going to have to file a mental restraining order.  

I had just finished Googling that email address when I read your post.  

lol omg freaky

[D.Sharrah]

BatmanTurian wrote...

snip...

Very nice list!

[byne]

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

Eric is a Gameplay Designer and Corey is a Lead Combat Designer.

I have a feeling this tweet from Mike is related to Multiplayer, as that is what Eric works on from what I can tell.

EDIT: those links don't work because Twitter.com is acting up right now

I know a lot of people are at BioWare's throats right now, but explain to me this: Why would any form of multi-player gameplay be something Gamble considers "the best we've ever put out"?

Maybe it's the best MP content they've made?

IDK, the new Ex-Cerberus Vanguard with BIOTIC WHIPS looks like it could be a lot of fun personally.

I'm just saying, there isn't enough detail in his tweet to say for certain what he is talking about. I'm excited to hear it, regardless of whether it is EC or MP related.

Hope there is a female version, sounds fun xD

I'm still disappointed it is Ex-Cerberus and not Protheans, to be honest.

Also, an interesting part of the rebellion pack:

Randomly occurring during waves 3, 6 and 10, this new objective will demand that teams retrieve a high priority package and securely escort it to a designated extraction zone on each map.

Didnt someone predict that at some point in the future there'd be a multiplayer map on Earth and one of your objectives will be extracting a critically injured Shepard from the rubble?

I know it was just speculation from someone, but with the addition of that kind of objective it sure seems possible we'd have that happen in the future.

Modifié par byne, 24 mai 2012 - 08:09 .

[balance5050]

MaximizedAction wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

estebanus wrote...

paxxton wrote...

estebanus wrote...

Also, I've been talking with a few other ITers who have used evidence we've debunked a long time ago (for example not being able to shoot the keeper or "an end once and for all" meaning anything, not to mention the pile of corpses not laying in front of the beam before harby lasers you) to make the theory sound silly and far-fetched.

I wonder who is the scared one now!

What do you mean with not being able to shoot a Keeper?

you know, the keepers in the hall before you see the shadow-broker ship capacitors? Someone claimed a long time ago that he couldn't kill the keepers in there, which, quite frankly, doesn't mean anything at all, because you also couldn't shoot anyone else except enemies in the game, so it was debunked.

Then along come a few anti-ITers, find this post, probably posted by a pro-IT zealot (Yes, those exist) some time ago, and claim that we're idiots because we use this as evidence for the IT, which we don't.

It's not the shooting of the keepers that is significant, it's being able to walk straight through them. It's not good evidence because collision detection glitches are prevalent in games these days. But when compared to every other "keeper" from the rest of the series, it is a little odd.

Well it was certainly annoying how that keeper from docking bay d24 started shoving me back and forth. <_<

Someone should attach a boombox to that one, it would be playing Ludacris - "Move B****, get out the way. get out the way b****, get out the way."

[blooregard]

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

This should only be a valid argument if they were charging for the EC...they're not. Yes they sold us an incomplete game but they aren't exactly capatalizing on it

[BatmanTurian]

llbountyhunter wrote...

the argument I get tired of hearing the most is...

"...but of IT is true then that means bioware sold us a incomplete game!!!!"

To which I reply, MMO's and any games that you have to buy DLC for are already incomplete games so we've been sold incomplete games for at least a decade or more now.

Modifié par BatmanTurian, 24 mai 2012 - 08:10 .

[Dwailing]

byne wrote...

MegumiAzusa wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

dreamgazer wrote...

Thorn Harvestar wrote...

Eric is a Gameplay Designer and Corey is a Lead Combat Designer.

I have a feeling this tweet from Mike is related to Multiplayer, as that is what Eric works on from what I can tell.

EDIT: those links don't work because Twitter.com is acting up right now

I know a lot of people are at BioWare's throats right now, but explain to me this: Why would any form of multi-player gameplay be something Gamble considers "the best we've ever put out"?

Maybe it's the best MP content they've made?

IDK, the new Ex-Cerberus Vanguard with BIOTIC WHIPS looks like it could be a lot of fun personally.

I'm just saying, there isn't enough detail in his tweet to say for certain what he is talking about. I'm excited to hear it, regardless of whether it is EC or MP related.

Hope there is a female version, sounds fun xD

I'm still disappointed it is Ex-Cerberus and not Protheans, to be honest.

Also, an interesting part of the rebellion pack:

Randomly occurring during waves 3, 6 and 10, this new objective will demand that teams retrieve a high priority package and securely escort it to a designated extraction zone on each map.

Didnt someone predict that at some point in the future there'd be a multiplayer map on Earth and one of your objectives will be extracting a critically injured Shepard from the rubble?

I know it was just speculation from someone, but with the addition of that kind of objective it sure seems possible we'd have that happen in the future.

Well, that would be awesome.  Or if not, then at least we get a new objective.  I've wanted something new to do in MP for a while.