55528 réponses à ce sujet

[EpyonX3]

Ownaholic wrote...

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.

Interesting. I don't think it's that big though. Anderson can't control himself. He can barely turn his head the whole scene. He shakes his head every once and a while and he does it in this section. I don't think he could have looked directly at TIM even if he wanted to.

[estebanus]

I'm going to be gone for the rest of today, playing Guild Wars 2 Beta.

See you all tomorrow, I guess...

[dreamgazer]

ShepnTali wrote...

Perhaps changing the thread title to something like 'pro IT theory discussion only' would be a good idea. There's no reason for haters to even bother in here. Just like a pro ending thread shouldn't be harrased either.

I like the intentions behind your suggestion.  However, as has been said in ways here and there, sometimes clear and well-spoken anti-theory arguments help to offer a different perspective, and a way for pro-theory folks to reaffirm and solidify their interpretations. 

[ExtendedCut]

ShepnTali wrote...

If I may make a humble suggestion...


Perhaps changing the thread title to something like 'pro IT theory discussion only' would be a good idea. There's no reason for haters to even bother in here. Just like a pro ending thread shouldn't be harrased either.

I humbly disagree, because I actually enjoy and look forward to level-headed, referenced support from people who disagree with IT.

Byne and I once had a brief discussion on the original thread about why the word for the people of the German movement during WWII can't be posted on here - almost as if we are supposed to forget that they existed.

In this case, I think anti-IT'ers who are challenging our ideas are a good thing - better for us than to just blindly believe in IT and forget that it may not be true, right?

[Nauks]

Ownaholic wrote...
Haha this thread is ridiculous. Third time posting this: xD

In my documentary, I make a note about how there is an article in the Collector's Edition guidebook that talks about how the developers deliberately pay key attention to eye points in cinematics like this. In regular gameplay, it's easy to get glitched (like when Shepard is taling to Liara and they are both looking at Glyph).
But in cutscenes, they pay specific attention to the eyes.

You can see that snippet in the video here. 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 55 seconds in.

Did someone say something? all I heard was more questions about the eye positioning in cutscenes. >
/hug

Modifié par Nauks, 14 mai 2012 - 06:13 .

[EpyonX3]

DJBare wrote...

MaximizedAction wrote...

balance5050 wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...

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.

snip
snip
snip

Hey, you're right, he look right at the camera.

In the vid it could be just as well Shepard, he's looking at. But in either case, he isn't looking at TIM.

He is definitely looking at the camera(the player), I'm convinced Bioware was going after the player for full effect.

They didn't do it well enough since it happens for a second and didn't occur again.

A good example of this being done well is Assassin's Creed 2 where ***Spolier Alert*** Miverva was speaking to Desmond through Ezio. Shortly after Ezio spoke to Minerva, her focus changed to the camera as she continued speaking. Ezio was confused and looked behind his shoulder to see who she was talking to. Minerva focuses back on Ezio and tells him to be quiet. At the end of the scene it is revealed that she is indeed talking to Desmond.

This example is why I think IT isn't 100% true or that it was done very poorly.

[DJBare]

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Here is my short headcanon for Shepard waking up.

Shepard learn the crucible is yet another reaper trap like the relays and the citadel, the reaper heart that was added to the crucible is an indoctrination device and the crucible amplifies it's effects, Shepard will have to fight his way to the reaper heart and destroy it.

But what happens after the reaper heart/brain is destroyed? I mean, the fleets are still battling the reapers, aren't they?

You know one of the biggest failings by TIM?, his reliance on Reaper tech, the crucible is fitted with reaper tech, a very important piece in fact, the heart from a human reaper, this makes it an incredibly dangerous device, because as usual we are using reaper tech in ignorance, just like the relays and the citadel.

Me, I'd opt for a conventional battle, with Harbinger being the lynch pin of the reapers, take him out and the reapers stop, I bought up this crazy idea before, reapers are constructs of organic races, it stands to reason if the essence of those races are contained within the reapers then they would need to be kept indoctrinated otherwise they would rebel against their new form.

[DirtyPhoenix]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Wait so to get the real ending I need to fire the Crucible so it can Destroy the Reapers the same way it did in the 'dream world'. Is that not just getting the same ending twice? Seriously.

Leave it up to Bioware to make a real ending? Why make a fake in the first place? If you believe in IT then you tell me what the real ending is or it all falls apart.

there is no "real" ending. the real ending is what you choose. All through the games. For me, i destroyed the council, spared the collector base. So that is the real ending for me. For you it might be something else. thats the whole point of importing saves. If there was no import feature and the game forced you into a particular scenario each game then yeah, there would have been a "real" ending.

Also, since this is the end of Shepard's story, there is no need of a "real" ending anyway. They don't have to continue his story like they had to in ME1 and 2.

[Ownaholic]

Nauks wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...
Haha this thread is ridiculous. Third time posting this: xD

In my documentary, I make a note about how there is an article in the Collector's Edition guidebook that talks about how the developers deliberately pay key attention to eye points in cinematics like this. In regular gameplay, it's easy to get glitched (like when Shepard is taling to Liara and they are both looking at Glyph).
But in cutscenes, they pay specific attention to the eyes.

You can see that snippet in the video here. 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 55 seconds in.

Did someone say something? all I heard was more questions about the eye positioning in cutscenes. >
/hug

Haha. xD.

Modifié par Ownaholic, 14 mai 2012 - 06:15 .

[EpyonX3]

ExtendedCut wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

If I may make a humble suggestion...


Perhaps changing the thread title to something like 'pro IT theory discussion only' would be a good idea. There's no reason for haters to even bother in here. Just like a pro ending thread shouldn't be harrased either.

I humbly disagree, because I actually enjoy and look forward to level-headed, referenced support from people who disagree with IT.

Byne and I once had a brief discussion on the original thread about why the word for the people of the German movement during WWII can't be posted on here - almost as if we are supposed to forget that they existed.

In this case, I think anti-IT'ers who are challenging our ideas are a good thing - better for us than to just blindly believe in IT and forget that it may not be true, right?

Bingo. What's the point in having a thread were everyone agrees with each other?

[MaximizedAction]

ExtendedCut wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

If I may make a humble suggestion...


Perhaps changing the thread title to something like 'pro IT theory discussion only' would be a good idea. There's no reason for haters to even bother in here. Just like a pro ending thread shouldn't be harrased either.

I humbly disagree, because I actually enjoy and look forward to level-headed, referenced support from people who disagree with IT.

Byne and I once had a brief discussion on the original thread about why the word for the people of the German movement during WWII can't be posted on here - almost as if we are supposed to forget that they existed.

In this case, I think anti-IT'ers who are challenging our ideas are a good thing - better for us than to just blindly believe in IT and forget that it may not be true, right?

Indeed! But for the sake of a shorter argument, it's not always a good idea to include everywhere the subjunctive, even though it would be logically or scientifically correct. The IT thread regulars know what they are talking about it mere speculation.
It's only to non-IT-experts, that we have to emphasize the speculative nature of all arguments.

[byne]

EpyonX3 wrote...


They didn't do it well enough since it happens for a second and didn't occur again.

A good example of this being done well is Assassin's Creed 2 where ***Spolier Alert*** Miverva was speaking to Desmond through Ezio. Shortly after Ezio spoke to Minerva, her focus changed to the camera as she continued speaking. Ezio was confused and looked behind his shoulder to see who she was talking to. Minerva focuses back on Ezio and tells him to be quiet. At the end of the scene it is revealed that she is indeed talking to Desmond.

This example is why I think IT isn't 100% true or that it was done very poorly.

Except there it was very obvious she wasnt talking to Ezio. It was the entire point of that scene.

IT is saying it's supposed to be subtle.

If Anderson had randomly said "Clint! You must resist!" I'd have totally realized it was an illusion.

Though it'd have been impressive that he knew my name.

Modifié par byne, 14 mai 2012 - 06:16 .

[The Invisible Commando]

dreamgazer wrote...

ShepnTali wrote...

Perhaps changing the thread title to something like 'pro IT theory discussion only' would be a good idea. There's no reason for haters to even bother in here. Just like a pro ending thread shouldn't be harrased either.

I like the intentions behind your suggestion.  However, as has been said in ways here and there, sometimes clear and well-spoken anti-theory arguments help to offer a different perspective, and a way for pro-theory folks to reaffirm and solidify their interpretations. 

I am trying to provide some clear and reasonable opposition. No troll like: LOL your all crazy

I beleive IT is a way to try to explain the endings thats all smoke and mirrors with no hard proof. "I see this and I see that" See what you want, but don't call every little bit final proof.

I beleive Bioware defends their ending and hates IT for calling it fake. To go with IT for them would be an insult to atristic everything.

If you beleive IT, then you must defend it. Thats science. If you can't, saying 'you don't know what your talking about' is not a defense.

Modifié par The Invisible Commando, 14 mai 2012 - 06:17 .

[ExtendedCut]

Ownaholic wrote...
Haha this thread is ridiculous. Third time posting this: xD

In my documentary, I make a note about how there is an article in the Collector's Edition guidebook that talks about how the developers deliberately pay key attention to eye points in cinematics like this. In regular gameplay, it's easy to get glitched (like when Shepard is taling to Liara and they are both looking at Glyph).
But in cutscenes, they pay specific attention to the eyes.

You can see that snippet in the video here. 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 55 seconds in.

I think this is one of those clues that could be one of three things

a) A huge indicator of IT that will seem obvious to us all after it has been confirmed

Nothing important, because the programmers will say that there is a literal explaination for it - such as Anderson is being controlled by TIM, and therefore can't control his physical body

c) Nothing important and just a minor programming glitch or oversight.

Of course, when I think about, almost all of the IT clues can be explained in one of those three ways...

[M Hedonist]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

HE/SHE IS  DEAD!

Yeah you really seem uninformed about this whole discussion.

Real the paper detailing the ending. The 'breathe' scene at the end that caused this whole IT mess is only in one ending and if your lucky to see it. I have seen simular scenes at the end of movies. Example: X-Men series.

So if i pick Control or Synthesis Shepard stays dead? Long way to go for killing Shepard when another Harby beam could do the trick.

No... Shepard is indoctrinated if he picks Control or Synthesis. You really should just watch Acavyos' video before you try to argue against it.

[balance5050]

Control-

The reapers LOVE to control, it's what they are all about. They have left technology scattered around the galaxy in order to control our evolutionary path, they control our future by forcing the most advanced civilizations to become them, there is practically NO aspect of life that they don't control in one way or another

Synthesis-

The reapers have always regarded themselves as the most advanced civilization, they ARE the prime example of synthesis, it's not pretty. They ARE the alpha predator and DON'T consider pure organics or pure synthetics to be anything more than fuel or nuisances. They believe that synthesis is the best evolutionary model to live by.

Destroy-

One thing the Catalyst says that rings true is they DO preserve life, they let organics live simply because they need us for survival, to destroy is to create chaos, but out of that chaos rises freedom, a new beginning, and infinite possibilities.

To believe that either control or synthesis is the answer is to agree with the reapers, which opens the door for them to exploit that side of your psyche, convincing you that siding with the reapers is a better solution than destroying them.

Modifié par balance5050, 14 mai 2012 - 06:21 .

[nightcobra]

DJBare wrote...

estebanus wrote...

DJBare wrote...

Here is my short headcanon for Shepard waking up.

Shepard learn the crucible is yet another reaper trap like the relays and the citadel, the reaper heart that was added to the crucible is an indoctrination device and the crucible amplifies it's effects, Shepard will have to fight his way to the reaper heart and destroy it.

But what happens after the reaper heart/brain is destroyed? I mean, the fleets are still battling the reapers, aren't they?

You know one of the biggest failings by TIM?, his reliance on Reaper tech, the crucible is fitted with reaper tech, a very important piece in fact, the heart from a human reaper, this makes it an incredibly dangerous device, because as usual we are using reaper tech in ignorance, just like the relays and the citadel.

Me, I'd opt for a conventional battle, with Harbinger being the lynch pin of the reapers, take him out and the reapers stop, I bought up this crazy idea before, reapers are constructs of organic races, it stands to reason if the essence of those races are contained within the reapers then they would need to be kept indoctrinated otherwise they would rebel against their new form.

well, we can cut off the reapers supply lines if we do one thing.
use TIM's research to control the husks and make them suicide.
reapers lose ground forces and their ability to gather resources and troops.

[Ravereth]

pirate1802 wrote...

Ravereth wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...

Right...Well. I'm going to go ahead and re-post what I just wrote five seconds ago. You guys are focusing on the last topic instead of evidence. xD

I just realized something very small, but interesting.
This one really does fit the bill of "grasping at straws", but it's interesting nonetheless.

When Anderson says "He's controlling you!", he actually looks at Shepard. Shepard is not shown on-screen, but he is standing behind TIM during this scene, at a closer-to-the-camera angle, which is where Anderson is looking.
37:10
Watch Anderson's eyes. He doesn't look at TIM. He looks at Shepard.If he was looking at TIM, his eyes would be slightly off to the right. But he's looking right over TIM's left shoulder.
His eyes connect DIRECTLY with where Shepard is standing.

First time I played the ending I didn't know what's going on and for me it was really hard to understand anything, and while Anderson said: "Listen to yourself you're indoctrinated!" I was like: Hey wait a second are you talking to me?!

And during  this whole conversation with TIM, I knew only one thing, that I HAVE to DESTROY the reapers, but few minutes later when my Shep was talking with this starchild  I forgot about this and my reaction to this conversation was: awwww this starchild is right I don't need to destroy the reapers we can be friends and live int he world full of love, peace, friendship and spacemagic <3... 

Seriously... it's just like this situation when someone tells you to:

S: Spell "hop."
You: H-O-P
S: Spell "cop."
You: C-O-P
S: Spell "top."
You: T-O-P
S: What do you do at a green light? 
You: Stop. 
You: wait a second! what did i just say?!


PS. I just realized that if you choose destroy or control ending you can change your decision in any moment because the game needs you to "do" something (shoot the tube(destroy) or press spacebar(control)) before the cutscene starts, but if you are to far on this path to synthesis you just can't go back and change your decision... Is it just me or this is weird?... 
BTW I want our thread back 

In the destroy ending when you get close enough to the tube you are glued to the floor and can't move

Hahaha, ok that's actually funny 

[MaximizedAction]

ExtendedCut wrote...

Ownaholic wrote...
Haha this thread is ridiculous. Third time posting this: xD

In my documentary, I make a note about how there is an article in the Collector's Edition guidebook that talks about how the developers deliberately pay key attention to eye points in cinematics like this. In regular gameplay, it's easy to get glitched (like when Shepard is taling to Liara and they are both looking at Glyph).
But in cutscenes, they pay specific attention to the eyes.

You can see that snippet in the video here. 1 hour, 6 minutes, and 55 seconds in.

I think this is one of those clues that could be one of three things

a) A huge indicator of IT that will seem obvious to us all after it has been confirmed

Nothing important, because the programmers will say that there is a literal explaination for it - such as Anderson is being controlled by TIM, and therefore can't control his physical body

c) Nothing important and just a minor programming glitch or oversight.

Of course, when I think about, almost all of the IT clues can be explained in one of those three ways...

Just like in literature  discussions. Only, if you walk into a literature club and claim an argument like c), you'll probably be ignored for the rest of the session.

Same goes for art-house movie discussions.
For a serious discussion one just has to trust the 'author'.

Modifié par MaximizedAction, 14 mai 2012 - 06:22 .

[The Invisible Commando]

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

HE/SHE IS  DEAD!

Yeah you really seem uninformed about this whole discussion.

Real the paper detailing the ending. The 'breathe' scene at the end that caused this whole IT mess is only in one ending and if your lucky to see it. I have seen simular scenes at the end of movies. Example: X-Men series.

So if i pick Control or Synthesis Shepard stays dead? Long way to go for killing Shepard when another Harby beam could do the trick.

No... Shepard is indoctrinated if he picks Control or Synthesis. You really should just watch Acavyos' video before you try to argue against it.

Okay then what? I get up and fight for the Reapers? Should kill those squadmates first? What an awesome ending to betray everything I fought for in three games.

[byne]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

I beleive Bioware defends their ending and hates IT for calling it fake. To go with IT for them would be an insult to artistic everything.

Assuming IT isnt true, why is it always argued that changing the ending to incorporate IT would go against Artistic Integrity?

No one ever talks about how throwing out Karpyshyn's original idea for the ending was a violation of artistic integrity, even though it pretty clearly is.

Also, if Bioware defends the ending at face value, I wonder how they feel about being quoted at the top of the TV Tropes Gainax Ending page?

[mass perfection]

Seems legit.

Modifié par mass perfection, 14 mai 2012 - 08:18 .

[M Hedonist]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

HE/SHE IS  DEAD!

Yeah you really seem uninformed about this whole discussion.

Real the paper detailing the ending. The 'breathe' scene at the end that caused this whole IT mess is only in one ending and if your lucky to see it. I have seen simular scenes at the end of movies. Example: X-Men series.

So if i pick Control or Synthesis Shepard stays dead? Long way to go for killing Shepard when another Harby beam could do the trick.

No... Shepard is indoctrinated if he picks Control or Synthesis. You really should just watch Acavyos' video before you try to argue against it.

Okay then what? I get up and fight for the Reapers? Should kill those squadmates first? What an awesome ending to betray everything I fought for in three games.

Well... yeah. That's what Control and Synthesis are. You betray everything you fought for in three games.
Anyone picking any of those two deserves nothing but an extended 'game over' cutscene.

[nightcobra]

The Invisible Commando wrote...


Okay then what? I get up and fight for the Reapers? Should kill those squadmates first? What an awesome ending to betray everything I fought for in three games.

do like matriarch benezia, regain your sanity for enough time to deal with the reapers and then go down with them.

[Ravereth]

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

Sauruz wrote...

The Invisible Commando wrote...

HE/SHE IS  DEAD!

Yeah you really seem uninformed about this whole discussion.

Real the paper detailing the ending. The 'breathe' scene at the end that caused this whole IT mess is only in one ending and if your lucky to see it. I have seen simular scenes at the end of movies. Example: X-Men series.

So if i pick Control or Synthesis Shepard stays dead? Long way to go for killing Shepard when another Harby beam could do the trick.

No... Shepard is indoctrinated if he picks Control or Synthesis. You really should just watch Acavyos' video before you try to argue against it.

Okay then what? I get up and fight for the Reapers? Should kill those squadmates first? What an awesome ending to betray everything I fought for in three games.

For me it would be more like the ending of ME 2 where Shepard dies... 

Edit: Oh my God "shepard"? How could I do that... 

Modifié par Ravereth, 14 mai 2012 - 06:29 .